Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Aladdin, Dec 15, 2011.
you missed my point
inotherwords every being has there own ball surface
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
And this is where I think science has moved in the wrong direction, you can't move/expand something existent in something that is described like nothingness. Nothingness=non-existence. Which means universe can't be expand in something non-existent. It is pretty much like I say I'm made of non-existent materials. If there is no space outside the universe, than it's impossible for the universe to expand (aka, universe would never been able to expand, you have to have something where in the universe can expand, it can't be nothing), including to be created in the first place. You can't create something if you already don't have some kind of energy in the first place.
Science is obviously lost here.
I don't understand why is balloon analogy so bad/wrong?
It perfectly describes/explains/proves the expanding universe, and it proves there has to be some outside space for the universe to be able to expand, if you don't have space where to expand, than there is no possibility of expansion in the first place.
Cosmic Plasma's create matter
Yes, I did know that (I saw your post about cosmic plasma in some other thread). But I was just making an example that you can't be made of non-existent particles/materials.
Anyway, thanks for reminder.
sorry mis-understood your point
Don't be so quick to condemn something you don't actually understand.
The universe doesn't expand in anything. It just expands.
An analogy is a loaf of raisin bread baking in the oven. The raisins are the galaxies. As the bread bakes, all the galaxies move away from each other.
The analogy breaks down at precisely the point where you ask what is "outside" the entire loaf. Obviously, there's space outside your raisin loaf, and the loaf as a whole expands into that space. But the expansion of the universe is not an expansion in space - it is an expansion of space. There is no "outside the universe".
If you believe it is impossible, prove it rigorously. Otherwise, this is an empty claim.
How's your general relativity? Up to scratch?
Except a universe.
What is "obvious" to you is not at all obvious to cosmologists who actually understand the big bang theory. Common sense is not a good way to determine right from wrong science. A lot of things in science go against common sense but are nevertheless true.
You missed the point of the balloon analogy. In that analogy, the universe is the surface of the balloon and only the surface. The point at the centre of the balloon is not part of the universe in this analogy. The surface expands but it does not expand "into" anything. There is no "outside space" that is defined as part of the universe - only some theoretical higher-dimensional space. The direction in which the balloon expands in the higher-dimensional space is not a direction that anybody inside the balloon universe (i.e. on the surface) can point to.
Someone is lost, but it isn't the science. Don't you think it is just a teeny tiny bit arrogant to say, "if it doesn't make sense to me, then all of the scientist, professors, colleges and universities in the world must be wrong? Doesn't it seem more probable that maybe you are the one that is wrong?:shrug:
Then there is no paradox.
Here are my opinions:
But even the surface of the balloon has to expand somewhere, it can't expand into nothingness. It's like saying "you're still alive, but with no energy to sustain your life"-I hope you know what I mean. It just does not make any sense. If you have something that expands, it can't expand into nothing, there is always something outside that expanded universe.
Also, if you use the surface of the balloon analogy, that would mean universe is finite after all.
Higher dimensions of space are a matter of speculations and hypotheses, not really a proven theory.
This is the part where science lost its focus, you can't manage to combine nothing and something.
Just because my language sounds like I'm arrogant, I'm not. I simply tell everything what I think, I don't hide anything.
And I do stand by that, if scientists really think universe is expanding in nothingness, than they should look in the dictionary what "nothingness" means.
I'm not smarter than these guys (actually, I consider myself a very average when it comes to intelligence), but it's not the first time they are lost, since universe is too big to understand it fully-I personally think it's their ego and not willing to admit that they can't simply know some things, is what exactly leads them to extreme conclusions like this with the Big Bang theory/universe expansion into nothingness. Of course, I might be very wrong about this, but I truly don't believe scientists are really that noble and that good as they are presented in the public and media. This conclusion has come up with my bad experience with people, while I was a kid and a teenager.
Also, my opinion is that comparing "nothing" and "something" is like comparing apples and oranges.
yes there is because every being is in another galaxy
it is indeed
like QGP? . . or my other alternative speculations elsewhere
It's not philosophical it's non-sense, however an entity that's uncreated and infinite is inherently necessary it's definitely not the physical world.
I don't think the universe is expanding into nothing the fabric of space-time is just expanding or expanding into itself until we learn more about the nature of the universal expansion.
No, it is not your language.
It is this.
And all of this. As you stated you are average. So maybe you cannot understand, but I think if you tried you could. Their egos have nothing to do with it. The evidence is there and predictions based on the theory have been shown to be true.
You are ignorant of the evidence and the science of the BBT, so for you to say it is wrong when you don't even understand what the big bang is, well it is arrogance wrapped in ignorance. Sorry, I too call 'em the way I see 'em.
I'm fiine with 'just expanding'.
IMO . . . . . one has to 'get-out-of-the box' on occasion . . . . lie back in your easy chair(s), close your eyes . . . and try to visualize a pre-existent 'energy' universe, prior to the material (observable) universe. This pre-universe exhibits as an EXTREMELY high energy matrix (for want of a better term) that may be equivalent to QGP, dark energy, or other (I like SQR). This pre-universe (PU) is all pervasive - but ONLY as energy . . . no mass. The PU is a static, thermodynamic equilibrium condition. When this 'equilibrium condition' is perturbed (statistical? quantum?), a proportion of the energy converts to 'mass' via a virtual particle transition . . . which may induce a 'cascade' effect. The transition of PU, via virtual particles, creates 'mass' . . and thus evolves the 'observable universe' of which we are a part.
O.K. so far? . . . .
Now, the more difficult visualization . . . .
This highly-energetic PU, remember, is all-pervasive and is the pre-existent 'fabric' of an otherwise unobservable (from our POV) "universe". IMO, as the transition from PU to 'mass' (observable from our POV) occurs, a PU net energy 'drop' (i.e., converted to mass) is created. SInce a kind of energy deficiency then exists within the otherwise equilibrium PU condition, mass that is 'created (by the PU --> mass transition) is essentially "pulled" into the remnant PU condition and sustains a continuing process. The hypothetical "edge of the (observable) universe" is represented by a transition front that gives the 'appearance' of an expansion phenomenon.
Basically, what appears to be outward expansion and allied thermodynamic 'cooling' (as per Standard Model, BB enthusiasts) is possibly due simply to the PU --> mass transition. I visualize this transition as a kind of 'evaporation' of PU energy with a concommitant 'condensation' of mass. . . . an observed expansion + gravity connection?
Thanks for your comments . . . + or -!!
BTW . . .upon reading after posting . . .I suppose this should be in Alternate Theories?
Well, if you're so smart try to explain how exactly can the universe expand into nothingness. Nothing means nothing, you can't expand something into nothing-and that is my point, you don't have to be very intelligent to realize that.
Universe needs to expand into something, not "nothing/nothingness". And that something must be space (space outside the universe)-no space, no expansion, you can't expand something/anything, if you don't have space where it can expand. Yes, scientists do need to look words in the dictionary like "nothingness" and "something", they obviously don't know what they talk about when they say "universe expands into nothingness".
Plus, you can't really be sure that the Big Bang theory is correct, it has circumstancial evidences, but not direct, rock-solid proofs, plus there is that limitation with the telescopes on how far they can "see"/observe.
You're bragging with your intelligence and yet you can't see/realize the difference between "nothing/nothingness" and "something".
You're basing your conclusions, not on what you know, but on what you don't know. It would be extremely difficult to explain it to you in terms you can understand, because you don't appear to have the basics necessary to understand.
Separate names with a comma.