Is there a middle to our Universe?

[machiaventa]

Dear Fellows;
I have often wonderd if there was a " Big Bang" as they say in the beginnng of our Universe. I surmised the explosion should have dispersed in all directions equally. So when we look from our perspective at space which side are we on ? Or are we in the center the side or the back end. When they say they can see 15 billion years back in time what is on the other side? I believe that we don't know for sure where the end is and where our planet is in relation to the center if there is one. I welcome your input and information anyone has to offer on this subject.

Sincerely, Machiaventa:shrug::shrug:

[James R]

Dear Fellows;
I have often wonderd if there was a " Big Bang" as they say in the beginnng of our Universe. I surmised the explosion should have dispersed in all directions equally. So when we look from our perspective at space which side are we on ?

The universe has no centre. The big bang happened everywhere at once. It was not an explosion in space, but an explosion of space. Originally, everything was in the same place, then space expanded after the bang.

When they say they can see 15 billion years back in time what is on the other side?

Since the big bang was 13.5 billion years ago, light has had at most 13.5 billion years to travel to us from distance parts of the universe. Beyond the distance that light can have travelled since the big bang, we have no way of knowing what is there. There's no reason to suppose that what is there is any different to the kinds of things we actually see, but it is possible.

[darksidZz]

I agree with James R, although my flights of fancy would have me believe there is a singular point where space has a center I know him to be correct :( Let's see, what he's talking about is dimension, originally they think upwards of 10 dimensions existed all accessable to eachother, but for some reason they cracked and the 3 dimensions were formed. Long story, look into hyperdimensional physics for more :\ Anyway I recall reading Scientific American and they had a new more interesting theory but I forgot what it was

[Cyperium]

Dear Fellows;
I have often wonderd if there was a " Big Bang" as they say in the beginnng of our Universe. I surmised the explosion should have dispersed in all directions equally. So when we look from our perspective at space which side are we on ? Or are we in the center the side or the back end. When they say they can see 15 billion years back in time what is on the other side? I believe that we don't know for sure where the end is and where our planet is in relation to the center if there is one. I welcome your input and information anyone has to offer on this subject.

Sincerely, Machiaventa:shrug::shrug:As James R was saying there is no single center, but it could be said that everything is the center of the universe.

We can look at any direction of the sky, and big bang would be there. How can that be if we look at opposite directions? We are the center, as is everything else. In our view the universe is a gigantic bubble, with the Big Bang all around the surface of that bubble (look up this (http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/img279.gif) which is the background radiation from the Big Bang taken from every direction of the sky) and we hanging in the exact middle of that bubble.

We don't know what the universe looks like at that distance, we can only see what it looked like eons ago! It's a difficult subject...because space has expanded (and we with it) the light that reaches us from very distant galaxies (in the order of billions of lightyears) could have travelled only a couple of hundred million lightyears, as the universe was smaller then, or so I read, but I only read from credible sources, I'll find it if you want.

Of course the Big Bang DOES have a center if you look at the scenario in a fourth dimension. If you apply 'time' as that dimension then of course the Big Bang happened at a singular time and thus could be seen as a center (like this (http://trickledown.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/bigbang2.jpg) or like this (http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/big-bang-8.jpg) or like this (http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/big_bang_wmap.jpg))

[weed_eater_guy]

Jezz... do I have to make it abundantly clear you imbeciles...

I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE! EVERYTHING REVOLVES AROUND ME AND MY EGO, err, I mean INTELLECT! FEAR ME!

Thou must obey the all-caps :D

[Carcano]

It was not an explosion in space, but an explosion of space.
Except 'explosion' is itself a word defined by space!!!

[Carcano]

Originally, everything was in the same place, then space expanded after the bang.
Except 'expanded' is itself a word defined by space!!!

[James R]

Except 'expanded' is itself a word defined by space!!!

And your point is...?

[kurros]

I used to find this extremely confusing, and the picture that helped me understand it the best was something like a a raisin cake being baked. Before it is baked, the dough is a small size with raisins evenly (approximately) distributed through it. As you cook it the dough expands and the raisins all move away from each other, so if you were embedded in the dough along with the raisins then everything looks like it is moving away from you. Extrapolating this process backwards until the dough shrinks to nothing gets you something vaguely analogous to the Big Bang picture :p.

Of course the dough does have a middle, even though you couldn't talk about it as having expanded from there. The analogy breaks down somewhat here. It is commonly hypothesised that the universe is infinite, in which case it has no middle. If it isn't infinite I guess it has to have a middle (unless it has some crazy closed geometry with no boundary, like a circle, in which case there wouldn't be a middle either), though we have pretty much no hope of determining it since we can't tell anything about this hypothetical 'middle' from the expansion of the universe.

[phlogistician]

Except 'expanded' is itself a word defined by space!!!

Ah, so we need to develop a language which is not defined by our everyday experience?

You start!

[USS Athens]

Dear Fellows;
I have often wonderd if there was a " Big Bang" as they say in the beginnng of our Universe. I surmised the explosion should have dispersed in all directions equally. So when we look from our perspective at space which side are we on ? Or are we in the center the side or the back end. When they say they can see 15 billion years back in time what is on the other side? I believe that we don't know for sure where the end is and where our planet is in relation to the center if there is one. I welcome your input and information anyone has to offer on this subject.

Sincerely, Machiaventa

I had never considered this topic before but now that I think about it, I do remember thinking that the universe has a central point of origin. I thought this mainly because I had read that the universe was expanding and galaxies were moving farther apart. An example of this would to put multiple dots on a baloon (representing galaxies of coarse) and inflating to represent the expansion of the universe. Somewhat simplistic and childish, nevertheless if galaxies were to expand away from each other in this manner, it would mean that this universe has a central point.

Now a real (problem?) with this idea is that, what happens when you reach the edge?

The universe has no centre. The big bang happened everywhere at once. It was not an explosion in space, but an explosion of space. Originally, everything was in the same place, then space expanded after the bang.

I have not considered this before. Interesting.

[kaneda]

machiaventa. The big bang fails for a number of reasons in it's first second. A singularity origin just does not work so better to have an origin over billions of cubic light years at least.

Expansion would have no original bias since it would presumably be a uniform start and it is expanding into literally nothing (so no need for inflation for homogeneity).

If space expanded in three dimensions, there is a centre which if we could work out all trajectories, we could eventually find it.

We see 15 billion years back in time, we see things as they were 15 billion years ago and of course, everything has changed hugely since that time, in an expanding universe, or even in a steady state universe (SS does not mean everything is immobile. Just that the boundaries of the universe are not expanding).

[kaneda]

The universe has no centre. The big bang happened everywhere at once. It was not an explosion in space, but an explosion of space. Originally, everything was in the same place, then space expanded after the bang.

What is space that it can expand from quantum size to it's present size without changing in any way? How can DE affect it in such a way as to cause it to expand even faster?

[kaneda]

I agree with James R, although my flights of fancy would have me believe there is a singular point where space has a center I know him to be correct :( Let's see, what he's talking about is dimension, originally they think upwards of 10 dimensions existed all accessable to eachother, but for some reason they cracked and the 3 dimensions were formed. Long story, look into hyperdimensional physics for more :\ Anyway I recall reading Scientific American and they had a new more interesting theory but I forgot what it was

A singular point would have near infinite density so be ultimately stable. It is not going to inflate or expand any more than a black hole is.

There was said to be 26 dimensions at one time but that was knocked down to 10 physical and one time. However no one has yet proved more than 3 physical and unless you take Dr Who as evidence, there is no time dimension.

There is a number theories since at best we have speculation based on evidence.

[kaneda]

Jezz... do I have to make it abundantly clear you imbeciles...

I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE! EVERYTHING REVOLVES AROUND ME AND MY EGO, err, I mean INTELLECT! FEAR ME!

Thou must obey the all-caps :D


You sound like a bog-standard politician.

[James R]

If space expanded in three dimensions, there is a centre which if we could work out all trajectories, we could eventually find it.

You're still stuck on the image of an explosion in space, rather than an explosion of space.

What is space that it can expand from quantum size to it's present size without changing in any way?

What makes you think it hasn't changed in any way?

A singular point would have near infinite density so be ultimately stable.

You misunderstand what a singularity is. Not all singularities are the same. You're assuming that the big bang singularity is just like a black hole singularity. In fact, they must be very different.

There was said to be 26 dimensions at one time but that was knocked down to 10 physical and one time.

Who said that?

However no one has yet proved more than 3 physical and unless you take Dr Who as evidence, there is no time dimension.

My watch seems to measure the passing of time. Funny about that.

[Carcano]

And your point is...?
That one cannot ascribe qualities to space which are themselves defined by space.

[James R]

Carcano:

That's fair enough. Which qualities are you talking about, specifically?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

-=-

Define space.



I thought this mainly because I had read that the universe was expanding and galaxies were moving farther apart. An example of this would to put multiple dots on a baloon (representing galaxies of coarse) and inflating to represent the expansion of the universe. Somewhat simplistic and childish, nevertheless if galaxies were to expand away from each other in this manner, it would mean that this universe has a central point.


Scientists do not think all galaxies are moving away from each other but that all galaxy groups are.

[Betrayer0fHope]

The universe has no centre. The big bang happened everywhere at once. It was not an explosion in space, but an explosion of space. Originally, everything was in the same place, then space expanded after the bang.



Since the big bang was 13.5 billion years ago, light has had at most 13.5 billion years to travel to us from distance parts of the universe. Beyond the distance that light can have travelled since the big bang, we have no way of knowing what is there. There's no reason to suppose that what is there is any different to the kinds of things we actually see, but it is possible.

Isn't James R quite wrong here? We can easily see over 13.5 billion years away. I thought this was due to the expansion of space?

[Carcano]

Carcano:

That's fair enough. Which qualities are you talking about, specifically?
The quality of expansion.

[James R]

Carcano:

Your sound bites are not really explaining anything.

Are you claiming that the universe is not expanding. Or what?

Try to explain your point in more than one sentence.

[Carcano]

Try to explain your point in more than one sentence.
Only one sentence is necessary...there is no complexity to elaborate on.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

The universe has no centre. The big bang happened everywhere at once. It was not an explosion in space, but an explosion of space. Originally, everything was in the same place, then space expanded after the bang.

Since the big bang was 13.5 billion years ago, light has had at most 13.5 billion years to travel to us from distance parts of the universe. Beyond the distance that light can have travelled since the big bang, we have no way of knowing what is there. There's no reason to suppose that what is there is any different to the kinds of things we actually see, but it is possible.


Define space.

[phlogistician]

Define space.

Space is where energy and matter can exist. Before space expanded, there was a void, where nothing could exist. Happy with that?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

-=-

Of course not.

[weed_eater_guy]

You sound like a bog-standard politician.

teehee :D

then again... maybe I am... spending your tax dollars... on my dog's pedicures... muhahahahaha.....

[Cyperium]

-=-

Of course not.lol, me neither :)

[kaneda]

You're still stuck on the image of an explosion in space, rather than an explosion of space.

Unless expansion is in four physical dimensions then it's origin can be calculated by taking all vectors into account.

How does space explode since it is literally nothing? Things in it can occupy a larger area so making it appear that space has "expanded" to the gullible.


What makes you think it hasn't changed in any way?


How has it changed? Anything we know of that expands a zillion times becomes ever less in density which would give original space to your way of thinking a density that makes neutronium look like a vacuum.


You misunderstand what a singularity is. Not all singularities are the same. You're assuming that the big bang singularity is just like a black hole singularity. In fact, they must be very different.

Yes, a singularity is a god particle because like god it can do whatever is required of it. Evidence that such a thing can exist is....the same for god existing.


Who said that?

Several years or so ago, superstrings were said to have 26 dimensions and anyone who said otherwise didn't know what they were talking about, as I was told on various science forums. Evidence of physical dimensions 4-10 is....missing.


My watch seems to measure the passing of time. Funny about that.


Your watch merely counts the vibrations of cesium atoms, assuming it is a normal digital watch.

[kaneda]

Betrayer0fHope. We see a snapshot of the universe which will only change over cosmic time so can never have ultimate proof of expansion (seeing it happen).

On a good day, I have a view to the horizon several miles away. Some misty mornings I can see maybe a mile away, or even just a white wall hundred foot away. If I never left my house, was 100% self-sufficient and knew nothing about the outside world, if all I had was a snapshot view of one misty morning I could think that the world ended a hundred feet away just beyond the edge of my house.

The CMB could just be a distance haze.

[kurros]

And almost certainly is; it would be more strange if the universe magically ended there than if there was much more beyond the horizon.

[prometheus]

Several years or so ago, superstrings were said to have 26 dimensions and anyone who said otherwise didn't know what they were talking about, as I was told on various science forums. Evidence of physical dimensions 4-10 is....missing.

Either you were misinformed or you've misunderstood. The critical dimension of any superstring theory that I know of (except M theory) is 10, and M theory has one more. You are talking about the bosonic string which has only bosonic degrees of freedom so certainly cannot be supersymmetric, and has critical dimension of 26.

Your watch merely counts the vibrations of cesium atoms, assuming it is a normal digital watch.

Thats very impressive indeed - you have an atomic wristwatch?! My watch measures vibrations of a quartz crystal and expensive watches are mechanical devices. Pray tell, how much did your atomic watch cost and where can I get one for myself?

[DRZion]

The point where the momentum of the universe cancels out.

[Doc Richard]

In the beginning of this thread, Machiaventa very reasonably posed the question of where we are in the universe. If there was a " Big Bang" as they say in the beginning of our Universe. I surmised the explosion should have dispersed in all directions equally. So when we look from our perspective at space which side are we on ? &c.

James R deflected the question with the "explosion (=expansion) OF space" thought, which is fair enough, but since space exists to contain galaxies &c, the problem remains: expansions should be substantially spherical, unless there are external constraints. And spheres have centres and boundaries.

The only way to escape the above conclusion is to posit an infinite universe, which would by definition have no shape and no centre. However, if accept the BB, and if we accept that material objects cannot exceed the speed of light, it follows that the universe is finite, with a maximum diameter of 27 billion light years.

27 billion because it that is 13.5 x 2, accounting for particles shooting off in exactly opposite directions. Which is itself interesting, because a being on a planet going in one direction would be moving at nearly twice the speed of light away from a being on a planet going in the opposite direction...

[D H]

Doc Richard: James R did not deflect the question. The question is erroneous in that it implicitly assumes that the big bang was an explosion in space. It wasn't. It was an explosion of space. You are making the same mistake by assuming that "expansions should be substantially spherical". You are assuming that the expansion was/is into an existing space and that space existed prior to the big bang. It is space itself that expanded.

You need to expand your knowledge of topology.

How big the universe is we do not know. We do know that it is much, much bigger than 27 billion light years across.

[Vega]

No one knows if the universe is infinitely large, or even if ours is the only universe that exists. And other parts of the universe, very far away, might be quite different from the universe closer to home. Future NASA missions will continue to search for clues to the ultimate size and scale of our cosmic home.

[Doc Richard]

Doc Richard: James R did not deflect the question. The question is erroneous in that it implicitly assumes that the big bang was an explosion in space. It wasn't. It was an explosion of space. You are making the same mistake by assuming that "expansions should be substantially spherical". You are assuming that the expansion was/is into an existing space and that space existed prior to the big bang. It is space itself that expanded.

How big the universe is we do not know. We do know that it is much, much bigger than 27 billion light years across.

Thanks, DH. Interesting.

Is it not the case that space is the matrix for the distribution of physical objects, just as time is the matrix in which events happen?
If so, I myself cannot see much difference between an explosion in space and an explosion of space. Both involve a process of things flying rapidly outwards in all directions.

No matter without space, no space without matter. Or am I wrong again?
If not, it is impossible to conceive of the universe as an explosion in space, because outside the cosmos there is no matter, therefore no space.

Whatever, there is expansion, that much we do know.

If the cosmos is more than 27 billion light years across, that is a mortal challenge to the Big Bang theory, is it not?

[D H]

Is it not the case that space is the matrix for the distribution of physical objects, just as time is the matrix in which events happen?
That is not the case. That was the view up until 100 years or so ago. General relativity and modern cosmology changed all that.

If so, I myself cannot see much difference between an explosion in space and an explosion of space. Both involve a process of things flying rapidly outwards in all directions.
Space itself exploded in the big bang; it did not exist prior to the big bang. There was no matrix. There is a huge difference between the expansion of space and an explosion in space. A star that goes supernova is an explosion in space. So is a galaxy with an active galactic nucleus. The star or the galaxy spew stuff out at very high speeds, but never faster than the speed of light. Unlike matter, the expansion of space is not constrained by the speed of light.

If the cosmos is more than 27 billion light years across, that is a mortal challenge to the Big Bang theory, is it not?
No, because the expansion of space is not constrained by the speed of light. The matter that occupies space gets to ride the surf of expanding space.

An article, somewhat dated: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html

[James R]

Doc Richard:

An analogy that is often used is baking a loaf of raisin bread. The bread represents space and the raisins represent the galaxies. As the loaf expands the raisins get further apart.

Notice that the loaf doesn't have to start off as spherical, or end up that way. The entire loaf expands, retaining whatever shape it had originally.

Loaves of bread have boundaries, of course, and that's where this particular analogy breaks down. Our universe, as far as we can tell, is spatially infinite. When you speak of 27 billion light years, that is the extent of the visible universe only. There's nothing to say that there isn't more outside the region from which light could have travelled since the big bang. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that our visible universe is only 13 billion light years across, centred on the Earth, but that says nothing about the size of the universe as a whole. (Note: in fact, the 13 billion figure is not correct either, since it ignores the accelerating expansion.)

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

-=-

Without defining space, the above posts are useless babbling.

[AlphaNumeric]

Without defining space, the above posts are useless babbling.Everyone has a vague understanding of what 'space' is. You don't always need to give a formal definition for everything. I imagine few people can give a formal dictionary definition for the word 'the' but any native English speaker has a good grasp of how it is used. For instance, if you're a native English speaker you almost intrinsically know there's something wrong with the sentence 'Monday is first day of week'. In fact, I almost read it in a foreign accent since it's something you'd expect of a non-native English speaker.

It's quite hard to give a formal definition of such things as 'space' and 'time', yet everyone has a notion of them. You can give formal definitions involving mathematical terminology, in how space-time is viewed in general relativity, but I'd imagine you would not accept them.

In GR there is a very clear and distinct difference between an explosion of material in space and the explosion of space containing material. The form, assuming no back reaction, has a time independent metric. The latter does not. The former has time varying positions of the dtuff which makes up the matter, the former doesn't need to, they are stationary in a comoving frame. The FRW metric can model an 'exploding space-time' without needing to make reference to any actual matter.

So your claim James's statements are mute without a formal definition is mute itself.

[Doc Richard]

Oh.
I see.
At least, I think I understand a bit.
I understand that I do not understand.
Which is a start, I suppose.

There are several questions flying around in my head at the moment, but the only one that I can put into words is this: "Why in heaven's name would space want to expand faster than the speed of light in the first place?"

But this is not a question that I expect anyone here to answer.

Anyway, thanks for the enlightenment guys.

R

[James R]

"Why in heaven's name would space want to expand faster than the speed of light in the first place?"

I'd ask you: why do you think space should want to expand slower than the speed of light?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Everyone has a vague understanding of what 'space' is. You don't always need to give a formal definition for everything. I imagine few people can give a formal dictionary definition for the word 'the' but any native English speaker has a good grasp of how it is used. For instance, if you're a native English speaker you almost intrinsically know there's something wrong with the sentence 'Monday is first day of week'. In fact, I almost read it in a foreign accent since it's something you'd expect of a non-native English speaker.

It's quite hard to give a formal definition of such things as 'space' and 'time', yet everyone has a notion of them. You can give formal definitions involving mathematical terminology, in how space-time is viewed in general relativity, but I'd imagine you would not accept them.

In GR there is a very clear and distinct difference between an explosion of material in space and the explosion of space containing material. The form, assuming no back reaction, has a time independent metric. The latter does not. The former has time varying positions of the dtuff which makes up the matter, the former doesn't need to, they are stationary in a comoving frame. The FRW metric can model an 'exploding space-time' without needing to make reference to any actual matter.

So your claim James's statements are mute without a formal definition is mute itself.


I made the claim after asking for a definition. The claim is valid.
You claim everyone knows yet you do not define it. Refusing to provide a requested definition inherently invalidates any statement containing the "word".

[eburacum45]

I made the claim after asking for a definition. The claim is valid.
You claim everyone knows yet you do not define it. Refusing to provide a requested definition inherently invalidates any statement containing the "word".

Space is what stops everything happening in the same place. Time is what stops everything happening at once. Next question...

[Belalan]

Sigh, a number of things. Firstly string theory fails in the same manner as religion. It is impossible to prove and or disprove. In string theory when 26 dimensions fails they move onto 27 and keep on going when it doesn't work.

In terms of the 'middle of our universe' we first need to specify what exactly the universe is and by which theory you are going. Our universe has four spacial dimensions and one time dimension. The best analogy that I have found should be familiar to those who have read Flatland by A. Square.

Imagine you are an ant walking on an orange that is suspended in a quantum vacume. Your ant has various breathing devices that quantum tunnel a gaseous compound of 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen in from an external source to prevent him/her from sufforcating. The ant and the orange are wrapped in unobervable, unreactive and perfect insulation to prevent heat loss. The orange supports a gravitational field which causes objects to fall towards its surface at pi squared meters per second per second. For the moment the ant and the orange will not rupture due to the pressure difference between them and the quantum vacume because I said so*.

Now back to the analogy, you are the ant. Your goal is to walk to the edge of the universe (the orange) and you will achieve this by walking in a straight line. As you can see, because the universe can operate in a dimension higher than the one which you operate in you cannot do much to get to the edge. Now you decide to try and find the center of the universe again, you will not be able to.

To the more educated of readers, yes I know that in a quantum vacume that particles such as the higgs boson and the graviton do not function, thus meaning that the orange and the ant would be thrown into movement faster than the speed of light due to the imbalance caused by the existance of either. This movement would be non terminating and would be paradoxical as the nitrogen oxygen compound would be quantum tunneled from the present to the ant which is now travelling in the past in a backwards (from our current perspective) direction to our concept of time. In other words this analogy is so badly broken that it makes a mockery of the bread rising in the oven analogies. Don't you just love how we try to appeal to the non-scientific and grimace in pain at all the inaccuracies?

[goose]

Oh.
There are several questions flying around in my head at the moment, but the only one that I can put into words is this: "Why in heaven's name would space want to expand faster than the speed of light in the first place?"

Its just stuck going faster than the speed of light, and since something going faster than the speed of light cannot slow down to the speed of light, (or slower for that matter), it will remain there..... forever

[AlphaNumeric]

Sigh, a number of things. Firstly string theory fails in the same manner as religion. It is impossible to prove and or disprove. In string theory when 26 dimensions fails they move onto 27 and keep on going when it doesn't work. Utterly wrong and shows you've got no understanding of string theory, only an axe to grind.

26 dimensional space-time arises in bosonic string theory via anomaly cancellation. Anomalies are found in all quantum field theories and are when a classical symmetry doesn't exist in the quantum theory. This is an inconsistency and so only when anomalies are set to zero do you get a consistent theory. It's this which is guiding a lot of GUT work into extensions of the MSSM. In bosonic string theory you only get a consistent behaviour if the strings move in 26 dimensions. If you add in fermions then they alter the behaviour to make it 10 dimensions. Yes, there are 'sub-critical' string theories in other numbers of dimensions but they are enormously restricted, in no way is it physicists saying "Try 26, if that's wrong try 27!".

[Evolon73]

I am by no means more than of average intelligence so bear with me.
I just watched an episode of Universe. And they said that according to
the doppler shift of distance galaxies the universe is expanding and doing
so more quickly.

Yet I have to ask:

If the doppler shift of far away galaxies shows that its expanding...

And the far away galaxies are the past.

Wouldn't that mean that it was expanding faster in the past than it is now.

And thus mean it is slowing?

[John99]

i dont believe in the correlation between speed, time and distance. not that if you go faster you wont get there quicker but time itself.

i think time is based on the individual and that individuals age is the sole factor.

[Dywyddyr]

i dont believe in the correlation between speed, time and distance. not that if you go faster you wont get there quicker but time itself.
Unfortunately there IS a correlation.
Regardless of "belief".

i think time is based on the individual and that individuals age is the sole factor.
In which case you think wrong.
A second is still a second, a year is still a year.
The perception may vary, the actual interval doesn't.

[John99]

In which case you think wrong.
A second is still a second, a year is still a year.
The perception may vary, the actual interval doesn't.

that is right, and the perception is directly related to time. tha fact is that time is longest at the first second of breath and gradually\steadily quickens.

[Dywyddyr]

that is right, and the perception is directly related to time.
No.
Perception is NOT time or the passage of time itself.

tha fact is that time is longest at the first second of breath and gradually\steadily quickens.
No.

[BenTheMan]

The big bang happened everywhere at once. It was not an explosion in space, but an explosion of space. Originally, everything was in the same place, then space expanded after the bang

This is a really good way to put it. The most helpful analogy to me is to imagine the surface of a balloon---as the balloon inflates, there is no ``center''. Another good analogy is a loaf of raisin bread---as the bread rises, all of the raisins move apart, and there is no real center.

[John99]

No.
Perception is NOT time or the passage of time itself.


No.

well, it is a theory and it is my theory.

[Dywyddyr]

well, it is a theory and it is my theory.
Except that it doesn't meet the definition of, or criteria to qualify as, a "theory".
And it's unsupported (indeed contradicted) by science (or even simple observation).
Way to go.

[John99]

why is it contradicted? in that case we can base time off of anything we want to. the revolutions of the earth or any arbitrary function. i am basing it off of real life experiences.

[Dywyddyr]

why is it contradicted? in that case we can base time off of anything we want to. the revolutions of the earth or any arbitrary function.
For example if you take a bus trip: at the end everyone agrees on how long it took.
Boiling an egg happens whether it's a 12 year old or a 90 year doing the cooking.

i am basing it off of real life experiences.
No, you're basing it on real-life perceptions, not actualities.

[John99]

For example if you take a bus trip: at the end everyone agrees on how long it took.
Boiling an egg happens whether it's a 12 year old or a 90 year doing the cooking.


Exactly. the younger the person the longer the egg takes to boil. this is a fact.

[John99]

IF you throw away all the clocks. THAT is the essence of REAL time.

[Dywyddyr]

Exactly. the younger the person the longer the egg takes to boil. this is a fact.
Nope: two minutes is two minutes.

IF you throw away all the clocks. THAT is the essence of REAL time.
Wrong again.
Clocks are simply a way of measuring time.

[John99]

but is is not actual human time. what i am telling you about is actual human time. a clock is just so we are all in the same page but it is not real time, it is fabricated. of course i do use clocks but i am stating facts.

[Dywyddyr]

but is is not actual human time. what i am telling you about is actual human time.
There is no such thing as "actual human time" - simply perceived passage of time.

a clock is just so we are all in the same page but it is not real time, it is fabricated.
A clock is a method of measuring shorter intervals of time than a day (or whatever).

i am stating facts.
No you're giving an opinion, based on nothing but perception and wishful thinking.

[John99]

Dywyddyr, i know what a clock is. perception is very important and this is another way to view time. what is more important to the human- the actual time they can tangibly relate to or the time an object in the sky changes a position?

even then peoples perception of the time it take the planet to move is different. i base this on age and perhaps you are aware of quickening.

a quick search and this is just one link i came across:

http://www.dreamhawk.com/quickening.htm

[Dywyddyr]

Dywyddyr, i know what a clock is. perception is very important and this is another way to view time.
But a "false" one. I.e it's purely subjective.

what is more important to the human- the actual time they can tangibly relate to or the time an object in the sky changes a position?
Meaningless twaddle: boiling an egg takes exactly the same actual time regardless of who's doing it.

even then peoples perception of the time it take the planet to move is different. i base this on age and perhaps you are aware of quickening.
Again you're appealing to subjective perception.

a quick search and this is just one link i came across:
http://www.dreamhawk.com/quickening.htm
Any website that starts with the words "I believe an enormous and powerful spiritual event is occurring at this time." doesn't exactly recommend itself as scientific or worth of any serious study.
I.e. it's a piece of specious new age bullshit.

[John99]

look you are thinking in practical\linear terms. think back (remember- i said think back but we all know you cannot think back, you can only remember) to when you were a child. did time not pass slower?

[Dywyddyr]

look you are thinking in practical\linear terms.
Nope, I'm simply thinking.

think back (remember- i said think back but we all know you cannot think back, you can only remember) to when you were a child. did time not pass slower?
No it didn't.
It seemed to but it didn't really.
The end of the year arrived at exactly the same time for me as it did for my parent and grandparents who were much older.
Which should give you some indication that time does pass at different rates for different ages.

[John99]

just like daylight savings time is manipulated?

if we can just change the time like that then we can also adjust it in terms of human time. a one year old is actually six months old to them but to someone older they are a year old and to someone older still they are two years old. because that is how the perceive it to be.

[John99]

does anyone agree with me even in the slightest? surely i am not the only one aware of this.

[Dywyddyr]

just like daylight savings time is manipulated?
Strawman.
All we do there is switch the NAME of the hour.
It doesn't affect the passage or the measurement of time.

if we can just change the time like that
But we don't "change time" at all.

then we can also adjust it in terms of human time. a one year old is actually six months old to them but to someone older they are a year old and to someone older still they are two years old. because that is how the perceive it to be.
Sheer utter unsupportable (and unsupported) nonsense.

[Dywyddyr]

does anyone agree with me even in the slightest?
Unlikely.


surely i am not the only one aware of this.
You're not, there have been threads about it - it's the perception that alters, not time itself.

[John99]

it's the perception that alters, not time itself.

ok. just wanted to say: what is the difference?

[Dywyddyr]

ok. just wanted to say: what is the difference?
A perception is an individual's take on things, it's purely subjective and usually totally unverifiable.
E.g. is a noise loud or not?
Oh wait, you'll tell me noises get louder as you get older too, rock music is MUCH too loud these days and it's annoying. On the other hand people talk so much more quietly than they used to when you were young and you keep having to tell them to speak up.
A perception is not a fact (except for the fact of the perception itself) and is not reality.

[John99]

noise is real. time is more complex. just like when people ask ;if a tree falls in the woods does it make a noise?' the answer is OF COURSE it does.

another good one is when people believe that the journey to is longer, some times much longer, than the journey back. somehow i think this is related but only slightly, although it is still time related.

[Dywyddyr]

noise is real. time is more complex.
It doesn't alter the fact that it's perception.

another good one is when people believe that the journey to is longer, some times much longer, than the journey back. somehow i think this is related but only slightly, although it is still time related.
It is related: it's a perception not a reality.

[Evolon73]

I am by no means more than of average intelligence so bear with me.
I just watched an episode of Universe. And they said that according to
the doppler shift of distance galaxies the universe is expanding and doing
so more quickly.

Yet I have to ask:

If the doppler shift of far away galaxies shows that its expanding...

And the far away galaxies are the past.

Wouldn't that mean that it was expanding faster in the past than it is now.

And thus mean it is slowing?

I know you guys like arguing semantics but instead of debating the reply to my question can someone try to answer my question please?

[Dywyddyr]

I am by no means more than of average intelligence so bear with me.
I just watched an episode of Universe. And they said that according to
the doppler shift of distance galaxies the universe is expanding and doing
so more quickly.
Yet I have to ask:
If the doppler shift of far away galaxies shows that its expanding...
And the far away galaxies are the past.
Wouldn't that mean that it was expanding faster in the past than it is now.
And thus mean it is slowing?
Not quite, it's a case of the further away they are the faster they're moving relative to us.
Not to any "fixed point".

I know you guys like arguing semantics but instead of debating the reply to my question can someone try to answer my question please?
Pfft semantics? Hardly.
But arguing is fun.

Edit: this (http://www.astronomynotes.com/galaxy/s7.htm) might help. I know what I mean, but putting it down in writing is harder than I thought. :D

[ripleofdeath]

Dear Fellows;
I have often wonderd if there was a " Big Bang" as they say in the beginnng of our Universe. I surmised the explosion should have dispersed in all directions equally. So when we look from our perspective at space which side are we on ? Or are we in the center the side or the back end. When they say they can see 15 billion years back in time what is on the other side? I believe that we don't know for sure where the end is and where our planet is in relation to the center if there is one. I welcome your input and information anyone has to offer on this subject.

Sincerely, Machiaventa:shrug::shrug:

what a cool question.

think about it ! if it is an explosion then it is circular /orbital and we will have a complete opposite which means on the other side of the universe is likely to be a complete mirror of our planet.

[Dywyddyr]

think about it ! if it is an explosion then it is circular /orbital and we will have a complete opposite which means on the other side of the universe is likely to be a complete mirror of our planet.
Not at all.
It doesn't mean, or even imply, anything like that.
And it's already been pointed out that the "explosion" doesn't have to be spherical (circular? orbital? :confused:) here (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2356631&postcount=35).

[ScaryMonster]

http://emptyeasel.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/selfportraitcenteroftheuniversebystacybrown.jpg

If the Shape of the Universe is a rotating Toroid, then wouldn’t the hole in the middle of the donut be the center?

http://www.freewebs.com/firstperfidian/PB-1-UNIVERSE%20SHAPE.bmp

[James R]

Evolon73:

I just watched an episode of Universe. And they said that according to the doppler shift of distance galaxies the universe is expanding and doing so more quickly.

Yet I have to ask:

If the doppler shift of far away galaxies shows that its expanding...

And the far away galaxies are the past.

Wouldn't that mean that it was expanding faster in the past than it is now.

And thus mean it is slowing?

That's a somewhat difficult question. The Doppler shift that we observe today is not (primarily) determined by the velocity the observed object had when light left it years ago. The shift has come about due to space expanding as the light travelled from the distant object to us. You can think of it as the wavelength of the light being gradually stretched as the light moves through space.

[ripleofdeath]

Doc Richard: James R did not deflect the question. The question is erroneous in that it implicitly assumes that the big bang was an explosion in space. It wasn't. It was an explosion of space. You are making the same mistake by assuming that "expansions should be substantially spherical". You are assuming that the expansion was/is into an existing space and that space existed prior to the big bang. It is space itself that expanded.

You need to expand your knowledge of topology.

How big the universe is we do not know. We do know that it is much, much bigger than 27 billion light years across.
D H
View Public Profile
Send a private message to D H
Find More Posts by D H
[/URL].


soo
it seems you have already defined the unknown universe in your own terms and now we may as well stop talking about it.
thanks !

whos for soup ?

[Dywyddyr]

soo
it seems you have already defined the unknown universe in your own terms and now we may as well stop talking about it.
thanks !
whos for soup ?

:confused:
The content of that quoted post was from here (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2356631&postcount=35), posted by DH, yet you gave it as mine.
How strange.
Maybe you're taking too much soup.

And the terminology "defined in your own terms" is misleading.
There are other possible terms than the scientific one?
That are actually valid for a question like this?

[science man]

Dear Fellows;
I have often wonderd if there was a " Big Bang" as they say in the beginnng of our Universe. I surmised the explosion should have dispersed in all directions equally. So when we look from our perspective at space which side are we on ? Or are we in the center the side or the back end. When they say they can see 15 billion years back in time what is on the other side? I believe that we don't know for sure where the end is and where our planet is in relation to the center if there is one. I welcome your input and information anyone has to offer on this subject.

Sincerely, Machiaventa:shrug::shrug:

I've never heard that 15 billion year expression but I do know this. The universe continuos therefore there is no such thing as a side and there is no such thing as middle of the universe. Ok, the location where the big bang occured is where every piece of matter came from but it is not the center/middle of outerspace.

[deicider]

if the numbers were finite (of matter,space,energy etc of big bang )then there is a center.
If not(the infinity theory) there can't be no end or center.

[D H]

Not necessarily. You are implicitly assuming that space is Cartesian. It isn't.

[deicider]

I dont know what space is(so far),what is it?
If the universe if expanding that means its not infinite(and that the big bang had finite numbers)...i could only *speculate*(fwith my human casual life-logic) that there is a center...

[icarus2]

Center is not exist at 4D, But we can say the center at 3D.

In Earth, We live at the 4D. But we can say 3D center of earth.
Also we wish know center of earth in curiosity. though, it has not means specially

[icarus2]

In this view, can say the space center of universe? and where?

add menas in physics, fine the center of mass in universe1(our universe)
and space(geometrical) center is same to mass center? space center is same to bigbang point or region(3d)?