The Big Bang: Where Did It Happen?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Aladdin, Dec 15, 2011.

  1. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,410
    One issue you seem to be having is on insisting that the nature of the inside of the universe (space, time etc) exist outside the universe... and you are applying concepts from inside the universe (e.g. expansion) to the higher-order reality in which the universe may reside.

    But it is not as simple as this.

    Imagine the universe is the TARDIS from Dr.Who (if you know that show), but that the inside of the TARDIS is expanding, growing, new rooms being added all the time. It is not expanding INTO anything, it is creating the additional space.
    From the outside - from the higher-order reality - the TARDIS stays the same size. There is no "expansion".

    If you can get your head round that idea then maybe it will help.


    Your confusion is in insisting that the term "expand" must mean what you conceptualise when you hear the term.
    You can only seem to conceptualise something expanding within a larger realm - so whenever you hear the term, that is what you imagine.

    But with regard the universe, this concept appears valid from our internal viewpoint, but can not be said to be valid from an "external" perspective. Yet the term "expand" is used because there is no other term that even gets close to describing what is actually happening.

    Some even suggest that it is only 3 or 4 of our dimensions that expand, and that in the higher-order realm we remain a point of no more than planck-length, and all the 10, 11 or more dimensions are packed tightly within it, even though from an internal perspective we see what we term "expansion".

    What you read with regard these theories is not "science" - but the popularised interpretations of scientific studies, dumbed down for the mass media.
    You are criticising the language being used yet you do so because you are unable to conceptualise what is going on from that language.
    But the it is the use of the popular language that is to blame, not the underlying theories / ideas / concepts.
    If you really want to understand, go and read the papers on it. Understand their theories from the source.
    But understand also that scientific use of words can be different to layman's usage.

    Correct: science does not nor can not work with 100% proof. It works with statistical accuracy based on the current observations. To even raise that point suggests you really have little understanding of the concept of science.
    Do you think a vacuum is "nothingness"?
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2012
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,818
    I have done you a disservice with my attempts to explain the BBT. I thought it would help you to understand by saying the universe is expanding into nothing where I was almost implying that 'nothingness' had some sort of physical reality. Clearly that has muddied the waters, so to speak. The universe is expanding - end of story. It is not expanding into anything, because the universe is all that there is. The universe is the universe, the whole ball of wax, there is nothing else, so clearly it can't be expanding into anything at all -there isn't anything else!

    If you want rock-solid proof then science is the wrong place to look. The only 'rock solid proof' is found in religion and pseudo-science. Ironically, that 'rock solid proof' is typically rock solid wrong.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Aladdin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    125
    Well, I can't claim that I understand GR. If someone here can recommend a good explanatory source (online or book) I think I'd like to give it a try someday.

    As the legend has it, in 1919 there were only three people in the world understanding relativity (of which only two were obvious to Eddington

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ). Almost a century later how many could claim this understanding? A million? More? Less?

    And then there's this quote attributed to Einstein: "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore."

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    Never mind, I won't go any deeper. The reasonable conclusion is if the universe expands, than it obviously can't really can't expand into nothingness, unless you think of some empty space without matter or energy-that I can swallow. Just because universe is all that is, it doesn't mean there is something beyond everything (the everything we know).
     
  8. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    Well, I do know one thing: nothing means nothing, and if math says that universe universe is expanding into nothingness, than it's obviously something wrong with calculations, it's the same as saying I (or anybody else) can survive infinitely long without food and water-and we know that's not truth. just because mathematical calculations say something, it doesn't mean it's always true, at least, not in this case.
    Cheers.
     
  9. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Well, there's really nothing more than can be said. You know what you think you know, and anything that you can't understand must be wrong.

    That's not an uncommon reaction. Most people who really know nothing about how science and physics work react in the same manner. If you can't understand it, it must be wrong.
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,358
    Gravage:

    There's not a thing called "nothingness". The universe doesn't expand into "nothingness". It just expands. Not into anything.

    Double the amount of space between any two objects in the universe. Then the universe has expanded. Such an operation does not need to refer in any way to anything "outside" the expanding space itself - especially in an infinite universe (and perhaps slightly less obviously in a finite one).

    There is no space outside the universe, because the term "universe" encompasses all of space. Anything "outside" the universe is not space that can be expanded into; rather it is something completely divorced from the "normal" space and time in our universe. If our universe is a "bubble" of spacetime, possibly floating in a multiverse of other bubble universes, then our universe doesn't expand into the multiverse. The multiverse has no space of its own, as such. The only spaces are the ones inside universes.

    Yes. The balloon analogy models a finite universe. It's an analogy, and this is another place it breaks down.

    Correct. But the expansion of the universe is observed fact.

    They don't think that.

    The universe doesn't expand into "nothing". It doesn't expand into anything at all. "Nothing" is not a magical substance. Nothing is not a stand-in for a magical substance. Nothing is the absence of something. The universe just expands - it doesn't expand into a magical substance.

    Why?

    There is no space outside the universe. In fact, there's no "outside the universe" at all, because as soon as you talk about "outside" and "inside" you've imported notions of space, and space only exists inside the universe.

    Who, exactly, says the universe expands into nothingness? Give me a few quotes from cosmologists who say that.

    You can't say that the theory that rocks fall downwards when you drop them is correct either. There are only circumstantial evidences for that and no absolute rock-solid (see what I did there?) proofs.
     
  11. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Those who accept the BB are not looking at all the data, since there is plenty of data which disprove the BB. The BB is an example of mercenary science, by those who are not interested in the truth but more interested in the maintaining the funding stream via perpetuating a dogma.

    For example, Blue galaxy counts show an excess of faint blue galaxies by a factor of 10 at magnitude 28. This implies that the volume of space is larger than in the Big Bang, where it should get smaller as one looks back in time.

    In other words, there are ten times more blue galaxies way back in time (looking at a distance). This implies that space was larger closer to the BB; i.e., assumes the BB theory is valid. It really implies the BB theory is obsolete.

    Here is one list of the top 30 problems with the BB. Those who don't understand the BB are better off since this is obsolete. But too many people benefit by the illusion to change it into truth.

    http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
     
  12. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,818

    No, that concern is obsolete. Try and keep up. Your list of reasons to abandon the BB is rather laughable too.
     
  13. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Explain it to us rather than use a political tactic.
     
  14. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,182
    Everything has an origin . So , our UNIVERSE also has an origin . If BB is not acceptable ; what is the alternative to BB ?
     
  15. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,182
    It is observed that , our UNIVERSE is expanding .

    Why , our universe is expanding ?

    Is it due 'inertia of space' ?

    or

    Due relative movement of masses in the space ?

    or

    Something else ?
     
  16. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    Actually, I do know a lot but as an amateur astronomer, but saying that universe is expanding into nothingness is like saying I can survive in the sun.
     
  17. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    I just read your post carefully, especially this one:
    "There is no space outside the universe, because the term "universe" encompasses all of space. Anything "outside" the universe is not space that can be expanded into; rather it is something completely divorced from the "normal" space and time in our universe. If our universe is a "bubble" of spacetime, possibly floating in a multiverse of other bubble universes, then our universe doesn't expand into the multiverse. The multiverse has no space of its own, as such. The only spaces are the ones inside universes."

    And this:
    "You can't say that the theory that rocks fall downwards when you drop them is correct either. There are only circumstantial evidences for that and no absolute rock-solid (see what I did there?) proofs."

    I think I can agree with you here (I can't believe it I'm saying this). I think you gave me very reasonable explanation-big thank you for this. As an amateur astronomer I never did know how to explain to others "how exactly the universe expands in nothingness". I truly hope I can copy these 2 answers-if you don't mind. This settles the debate, no more arguing (at least not from my side).
    Also, thanks to both AlexG and Origin.
     
  18. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800

    Careful, mate.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    If we substitute that with 'space between any two universes in the multiverse', then it all just moves to a larger context 'space'....which would make any singular universal space merely a 'local' space occurring in an overarching 'mulitiple-universe space'.....like we can think of any one of our planet's singular 'local-sea water expanse' as occurring within our planet's overarching 'multi-sea' (ocean) water expanse.

    So if we view the 'outside space' as a multi-universal space into which our local universe arises/expands/subsides, then it is logical to say that the universe is occurring and expanding etc into that overarching multiverse-space. And so, unless one subscribes to the "Turtles all the way down' escape clause, one must eventually come down to some overarching 'space' in which all potential resides and in which all realities arise/subside according to the fundamental properties/parameters of that fundamental space, and in which only 'local universal phenomena sets' can be said to 'expand into' while the overarching space is NOT expanding but infinite both in potential and extent? That is the question/implication that arises from that observation.

    Just an impartial observation on the implications of the above-quoted. No claims are intended to be made or dismissed hereby.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Cheers mate!

    .
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2012
  19. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    Well, visible/observable part of the universe is seemingly expanding-that's the key difference.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2012
  20. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    If there are such a thing as multiverse does each miniverse have a distance between them? All the miniverses = the entire multiverse or Universe? If the Universe is "all that there is" do all the miniverses have to be added together? Or is each miniverse a universe in itself?
    The multiverse concept seems to cause problems to the concept of the Universe. What is the Universe? Is there any space between multiverses?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    Try a brief visit to the "Alternative Theories" thread . . . . .
     
  22. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,182

    What is the link ?
     
  23. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,182
    Can you explain this ?

    Why the distance between two stars is inceasing ?

    Is there a repelling force or anti-gravity , like repelling magnetic force or repelling electrical force ?

    or,

    Something else is causing the increase of distance between two stars .
     

Share This Page