1. Originally Posted by origin
No. I am saying that the entire universe was contained in that tiny point nothing else.
When the BIGBANG happened ; this tiny point of universe was created or this tiny point of universe was already existing before BIGBANG ?

2. Originally Posted by AlexG
Originally Posted by OnlyMe
Actually the only thing we can say with certainty, is that there is no center we can point to. Because from where we are we cannot see an edge or boundary, from which a center could be inferred.
No. We can say with certainty that there is no center. Unless of course, we are at the center. Because we see everything receeding from us equally in all directions.

That can only happen when we are at the center.
This is only true if space is not expanding uniformly, such that the redshift resulting from expansion, which appears the same globally, requires us to be at the center.

Originally Posted by AlexG
Or there is no center and everything is receeding from everything else in all directions at all points.

The latter is far more likely than the former, doncha think?
Or as suggested above, space expands uniformly throughout, in which case any where we are, as long as it is not close enough to an edge or boundary, would look the same. If we could see an edge or boundary the rate of expansion would not look different. We would just be able to see that our light horizon and the redshift associated with it would be different. Our light horizon would not be spherical.

Evidence does suggest that in all directions the universe extends beyond the EM horizon from which we measure it. The redshift we equate with expansion also appears to be uninform in all directions. That being the case we cannot know where in the whole of the universe we are. It is unlikely we are at the center, so as I said..,

Originally Posted by OnlyMe
Actually the only thing we can say with certainty, is that there is no center we can point to. Because from where we are we cannot see an edge or boundary, from which a center could be inferred.
All we really know is what lies within that EM or light horizon that defines the limits of the universe we "see". We seem to have some fundamental need to explain beginnings and that which is beyond or in the dark. This is both one of our great assets and to some extent the chains that tie us to the spirits of our ancestors. Sometimes, it leads to new discoveries and sometimes it reinforces old warnings.., "beyond here be dragons...".

Claiming we know with certainty, the whole of the universe, which we can see and understand only a part of, is arrogant and misguided. We are still searching for answers and while we do so it is important that we remain aware of the difference between, "What we know" and "What we believe" or "What we think we know".

The big bang model holds a position supported by both popular publication and a reasonable degree of scientific consensus, but it is not the only theory that has scientific support. There are those who promote both a cyclical adaptation of the big bang and even a steady state model. Some who maintain that the universe is finite and some who suggest it is perhaps infinite. All knowledgeable sources agree that we can "see" only a fraction of the universe. That portion that lies within our EM or light horizon. Everything beyond that fragment of what we can see and measure, is speculation.

Even within that bubble we can observe and measure, our best theories are beginning to be challenged. Gerneral relativity is requiring tweaks and the additions of dark matter and dark energy to explain what we see as the detail, of our observation of distant astronomical structures and kinetics, improves and our best theories within the area of quantum mechanics, seem to fall short as the energy levels reach higher ranges.

We would be fools to think that we are the ones of our kind, who have the final answers when there remains so much we cannot fully explain. So it remains that our maps of the world though they extend to far greater distances than those of our ancestors, still have great sections at the limits of our understanding, where the label, "Beyond here be dragons" still applies. At least we recognize that within the limits of our current level of technology, we cannot expect to ever reach the edge of what we know, where the maps of old often showed the edge over which one would fall off the world, we at least now just show a boundary beyond which we may not pass or know with certainty what lies in wait.

All of this leads back to...

Originally Posted by OnlyMe
Actually the only thing we can say with certainty, is that there is no center we can point to. Because from where we are we cannot see an edge or boundary, from which a center could be inferred.

3. Originally Posted by hansda
When the BIGBANG happened ; this tiny point of universe was created or this tiny point of universe was already existing before BIGBANG ?
Don't irritate your itchy spots it only makes them worse!
All I know [been told by Alex] there was no "before the BB" since there was no time before the BB.

4. What if the redshift occurs because our universe is rotating and we aren't in the center of the universe or on the edge?

5. Originally Posted by Emil
What if the redshift occurs because our universe is rotating and we aren't in the center of the universe or on the edge?
I did once find a scientific study that did show the Universe was rotating (like a galaxy does).
But if they were right how would that tell us where in the Universe we were?

6. Hi origin.

Originally Posted by origin
My guess is you have not gotten many answers because the following questions are so awkwardly worded that I no one is exactly sure what you are asking, I will attempt to answer what I think you are asking.

I think you are saying "a small point compared to what"?
Small compared to the current size of the universe.
The universe is expanding, far galaxies are moving away from us. It stands to reason that in the past they were closer and about 13.7 billion years ago everything was in essentially the same point. So I would say it is a small point compared to the home brew I am drinking.

Well we can see from the red shift that the universe is larger now than it was when you wrote the above sentence, so it certainly hasn't always been this size.

There is no external to the universe for us.

Our universe is the universe. Think of an outside of the universe is futile.

When you say...

Originally Posted by origin
I think you are saying "a small point compared to what"?
Small compared to the current size of the universe.
....you will understand and excuse me I hope when I say that is a trivial answer.

The point was THEN. Not NOW. See?

As you understood, my question was 'compared to what'?.....but you simply 'defaulted' to your own expedient 'context' of NOW rather than what I actually asked about THEN.

If there was nothng else THEN, then how can we say anyting about the 'size' of what existed 'then' by comparison to anything 'then'.

Hence the query I made about IF there was nothing to compare it to then, we cannot say for sure that what we see now is not just THE SAME SIZE but 'evolved' in such a way that the currently observable phenomena is interpreted as 'being bigger' than then.

That is what I was getting at, mate.

So, my question remains: If there was no 'larger context' then or now, then what can one say about the 'size' then by 'comparison to what' then? It could always have been the same size as we 'see' it now, but interpret the current state of evolvd phenomena as 'bigger' rather than 'just different' in interpretation of that evolved phenomena.

Sorry, rushed. Back in a couple of days. Cheers and thanks again for your response, mate!

.

7. Originally Posted by RealityCheck
Hence the query I made about IF there was nothing to compare it to then, we cannot say for sure that what we see now is not just THE SAME SIZE but 'evolved' in such a way that the currently observable phenomena is interpreted as 'being bigger' than then.
That doesn't make any sense. We do not need to know the universe's relative size to anything. The evidence shows that the universe is expanding. If you cannot see that this means the universe was smaller in the past, then we will have to end it here since logic apparently cannot used in the discussion.

8. Originally Posted by OnlyMe
This is only true if space is not expanding uniformly, such that the redshift resulting from expansion, which appears the same globally, requires us to be at the center.

Or as suggested above, space expands uniformly throughout, in which case any where we are, as long as it is not close enough to an edge or boundary, would look the same. If we could see an edge or boundary the rate of expansion would not look different. We would just be able to see that our light horizon and the redshift associated with it would be different. Our light horizon would not be spherical.

Evidence does suggest that in all directions the universe extends beyond the EM horizon from which we measure it. The redshift we equate with expansion also appears to be uninform in all directions. That being the case we cannot know where in the whole of the universe we are. It is unlikely we are at the center, so as I said..,

All we really know is what lies within that EM or light horizon that defines the limits of the universe we "see". We seem to have some fundamental need to explain beginnings and that which is beyond or in the dark. This is both one of our great assets and to some extent the chains that tie us to the spirits of our ancestors. Sometimes, it leads to new discoveries and sometimes it reinforces old warnings.., "beyond here be dragons...".

Claiming we know with certainty, the whole of the universe, which we can see and understand only a part of, is arrogant and misguided. We are still searching for answers and while we do so it is important that we remain aware of the difference between, "What we know" and "What we believe" or "What we think we know".

The big bang model holds a position supported by both popular publication and a reasonable degree of scientific consensus, but it is not the only theory that has scientific support. There are those who promote both a cyclical adaptation of the big bang and even a steady state model. Some who maintain that the universe is finite and some who suggest it is perhaps infinite. All knowledgeable sources agree that we can "see" only a fraction of the universe. That portion that lies within our EM or light horizon. Everything beyond that fragment of what we can see and measure, is speculation.

Even within that bubble we can observe and measure, our best theories are beginning to be challenged. Gerneral relativity is requiring tweaks and the additions of dark matter and dark energy to explain what we see as the detail, of our observation of distant astronomical structures and kinetics, improves and our best theories within the area of quantum mechanics, seem to fall short as the energy levels reach higher ranges.

We would be fools to think that we are the ones of our kind, who have the final answers when there remains so much we cannot fully explain. So it remains that our maps of the world though they extend to far greater distances than those of our ancestors, still have great sections at the limits of our understanding, where the label, "Beyond here be dragons" still applies. At least we recognize that within the limits of our current level of technology, we cannot expect to ever reach the edge of what we know, where the maps of old often showed the edge over which one would fall off the world, we at least now just show a boundary beyond which we may not pass or know with certainty what lies in wait.

All of this leads back to...
I agree with almost everything you said when it comes to scientific theories/hypotheses of the universe (or I should say hypotheses of the universe, since you can't really prove directly in the first place), but I thought steady state universe theory/hypothesis is abandoned long time ago. How come this theory/hypothesis is still considered as one of realistic, possible and acceptable scenarios of the universe's origins and creation?

9. It's not.

10. Originally Posted by AlexG
It's not.
It's not what?

11. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Don't irritate your itchy spots it only makes them worse!
Itchy spots or not but its physics . We just can not leave it like that . We have to reach a logical conclusion , where no question-mark can be put .

All I know [been told by Alex] there was no "before the BB" since there was no time before the BB.
If there was no universe before BB ; that means our Universe was craeted at BB . "All the mass and energy of our Universe was created at BB" .

This again is a violation of the Law of Physics that says , " mass and energy neither can be created or destroyed " .

12. Originally Posted by hansda
When the BIGBANG happened ; this tiny point of universe was created or this tiny point of universe was already existing before BIGBANG ?

The physics that we currently have can analyze the universe back to a time of about $10^{-43}$seconds after the big bang. Anything before that time is speculation. So as far as we know the universe was presexisting as a tiny point.

13. Originally Posted by hansda
Itchy spots or not but its physics . We just can not leave it like that . We have to reach a logical conclusion , where no question-mark can be put .

If there was no universe before BB ; that means our Universe was craeted at BB . "All the mass and energy of our Universe was created at BB" .

This again is a violation of the Law of Physics that says , " mass and energy neither can be created or destroyed " .
I am a believer in"God", so these problems don't seem to be a problem to me.
In an inspired dream I was told "there are 12 dimensions but scientists only see 11. The twelfth dimension is God putting the Energy into the Universe." (pre 2000 AD)

So the energy is a gift from outside the Universe in my view. So I don't like a zero energy Universe. But that is only because I try and defend my belief and not from facts I know from research.

God to most forum scientists seem be atheists and would find talk of God an itchy spot best left alone.

14. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
I am a believer in"God", so these problems don't seem to be a problem to me.
In an inspired dream I was told "there are 12 dimensions but scientists only see 11. The twelfth dimension is God putting the Energy into the Universe." (pre 2000 AD)

So the energy is a gift from outside the Universe in my view. So I don't like a zero energy Universe. But that is only because I try and defend my belief and not from facts I know from research.

God to most forum scientists seem be atheists and would find talk of God an itchy spot best left alone.
You mean to say , GOD is part of PHYSICS ? or , GOD created PHYSICS ?

15. Originally Posted by hansda
You mean to say , GOD is part of PHYSICS ? or , GOD created PHYSICS ?
I have just told you about a dream. I don't know what it implies, but thinking about it, it might be like throwing a lit cracker into the mix and letting it "Bang". The Universe is God playing with some fireworks. Look I don't know. But Energy was external to the Universe before the BB.

But the likes of AlexG say there is nothing beyond or exterior to the Universe, so I'm trying to imagine how the Universe is able to expand. What is harder to comprehend, Alex's physics or my God?

16. Originally Posted by origin
That means that , the Law or Laws which predicted BB may not be totally complete .

The physics that we currently have can analyze the universe back to a time of about $10^{-43}$seconds after the big bang. Anything before that time is speculation.
How do you get this figure of '10 to the power of -43' seconds ?

So as far as we know the universe was presexisting as a tiny point.
You mean our Universe was pre-existing as a tiny point before BB ?

17. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
I did once find a scientific study that did show the Universe was rotating (like a galaxy does).
But if they were right how would that tell us where in the Universe we were?
Yep,

...............IS THE UNIVERSE SPINNING?

............Was the universe born spinning?

18. If the Universe is spinning when the BB had just started the BB wasn't just spinning but it was rapidly spinning (conservation of angular momentum).

The rapidity of the spin would make one wonder if the Universe is not "flat" it might be 3 times as wide as it is thick in the other dimension.
These figures are only for illustration. I don't have the dimensions of the Universe in my pocket.

19. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
I don't have the dimensions of the Universe in my pocket.
How can that be?
It's just really big. Is infinite!
You say you can not comprise infinity?

20. Originally Posted by Emil
Such a "45-rpm" universe hasn't been predicted by any cosmology theory. In fact it would challenge inflation theory that strives to iron out any inhomogeneities in the universe.

All of the actual references were to observations of galactic scales. Projecting those observations to the universe as a whole both has some merit and runs into problems of both symetry and the above mentioned conflict with inflation, that are not adequately addressed.

These links are highly speculative and seem driven more toward commercial lay consumption than any real scientific audience.