Big bang moving 3 time the speed of light?

originally posted by: iplay1up2
a reply to: buddha


I have no idea, how they figure that. I still believe God created everything, no matter what scientist say. I just don't think it went down the Adam and Eve way. If we exist so can God.

I like the god version better than mans version where all Adam has to do is think he's Eve.

a reply to: iplay1up2

What if God created everything using Science and Evolution?

Prove me wrong.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: LSU2018

We can't go back in time to see how the universe started

Yes , that can be done
When one goes out at night to look at the stars , they are seeing an image possibly millions of years old.
Quick Google search
Visuals

HHHHHHWAT? That doesn't tell us when the universe started.

Yep. You didn't go to my link , did you ? Most are Hubble and radio telescope views that show movements after the Great Expansion started.
The rest is doing the math.

a reply to: iplay1up2

The Adam and eve way?

Tell me, what happens during the 2nd generation to get the 3rd generation?

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: iplay1up2

What if God created everything using Science and Evolution?

Prove me wrong.

What if you're wrong?

a reply to: Masterjaden



That's kind of how I would envision it. Time would have so much more to do with everything because of gravity. It's almost like that little part is missing on a lot of theories. Red shifting for example. Black holes... Possible that gravity itself has time enveloping the black hole so what's inside does not show? Perhaps light could escape if it wasn't enveloped completely in the so far off past that we can't see it. Just a random thought for example.

Maybe space was just one big endless tub of hydrogen and one day something caused gravity to exist in one little spot and snap... the universe forms.

Also, the speed of the 'expanding universe'. I figure... and this is just a random hair brained thought... Since you can take a object and put a jet of fire behind it, it will push the rocket in whatever direction... Wouldn't galaxies and stars do pretty much the same thing? Would light make some sort of a propulsion? I know fire - heat - pressure does a pretty good job and that's something galaxies are full of.

Not a big believer in "dark matter - dark energy" myself.

Maybe explanations are just really that simple but we as 'scientist' just like to over complicate things far too much.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: StallionDuck

But that would mean that the universe is only 27 Billion light years across, not 93 billion as is the latests estimates.

What does one consider the Universe ? In the case of expanding faster than light , one would be speaking of space and not physical objects such as galaxies.
I know that is not the best of examples , but one can search the internet for better .

Take a sheet of paper. Put a dot on each end. Now fold it. Now , open it back up. Did the dots move , or the space between them ?
Probably my last post today.
Tired.

As I mentioned... That's the problem. Every explanation I've seen only opens up to more unanswered questions. I mean... Hell, at this rate, I could be a scientist. All I have to do is make up ideas. I've got a pretty good imagination. lol You may not be able to fit square pegs in a round hole but you might be able to fit round pegs in a square hole. If not... Break out the knife.

One can always plug a mathematical "concept" to make other maths add up.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: iplay1up2
What if God created everything using Science and Evolution?
Prove me wrong.

It was a big bootstrapping operaton. God created an imbalance in the barrier between reality and virtuality, which eventually expanded and evolved into cognitive beings which... created the concept of God in the "past" allowing him to create the imbalance.

Actually, since all you need is an observer to bring virtuality into reality, it could have all been done in Stephen Hawking's imagination through what is essentially remote viewing. My theory is that the older you think the universe is, the older it gets.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: StallionDuck

But that would mean that the universe is only 27 Billion light years across, not 93 billion as is the latests estimates.

What does one consider the Universe ? In the case of expanding faster than light , one would be speaking of space and not physical objects such as galaxies.
I know that is not the best of examples , but one can search the internet for better .

So the notion of the universe can be qualified? No consensus among physicists what constitutes the universe?

Should I just search the internet?

Like when I searched the Internet after reading your earlier reply:

No , it does not. Space is being created ahead of the expansion , and expanded behind. Still moving at the 99.9% of the speed of light.

I can link a couple articles from a quick and dirty search that suggests you’re dead wrong, should I stay away from the Internet or should you stop pretending to be Sheldon?

@OP: Brian Cox (particle physicist) was on Joe Rogan’s podcast a week ago and he goes into depth regarding cosmic inflation.

a reply to: Quantumgamer1776

Tell me, what happens during the 2nd generation to get the 3rd generation?

A whole lot of incest.

originally posted by: StallionDuck
But that would mean that the universe is only 27 Billion light years across, not 93 billion as is the latests estimates. In either case... Even if the universe was expanding like a balloon and we're on the surface of that balloon, it wouldn't explain us not being able to see a big bang 13 billion light years towards the center.

No to mention, looking at it in a 3D perspective, being on the surface of that balloon would still have an X/Y/Z axis. That means nothing in one direction, everything in the other direction.
...

The balloon analogy is usually given as only a very rough analogy because in that analogy there is no such place as the "center of the balloon." The 2D surface of the balloon is meant to be the roughly analogous 3D (spatially) universe in which live.

That is to say, the center space inside the balloon does not exist in that rough analogy; only the surface exists.

So in that case, the expanding surface of the ballon is the stand-in for the expanding 3D space that is our real-life universe. As that balloon surface expands, there is no single point on the surface of that balloon that can be said to be the center point of expansion.

In fact, the viewpoint of each and every point on that balloon can equally seem like the center of expansion. From any place you stand the entire surface expands the same way in all directions, as if your viewpoint from your specific location is the center of that expansion.

That differs from an explosion. No matter where you are in an explosion, the motions of the objects from your point of view would point backwards to the origin point in the center of that explosion. Instead In the balloon analogy, motions of objects (in general, on a large scale) as seen from your point of view would point backwards to your particular location, no matter where you are located.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: LSU2018

We can't go back in time to see how the universe started

Yes , that can be done
When one goes out at night to look at the stars , they are seeing an image possibly millions of years old.
Quick Google search
Visuals

HHHHHHWAT? That doesn't tell us when the universe started.

Yep. You didn't go to my link , did you ? Most are Hubble and radio telescope views that show movements after the Great Expansion started.
The rest is doing the math.

I saw the newest pics where we were able to reach out past another galaxy and there were so many stars the sky nearly looked solid white. I didn't see your link in this thread though, but it's all very intriguing to me. I just don't know how it could possibly expand infinitely. It has to stop somewhere.

How do you know we're not just seeing the image of the image though (like sound or light that travels to get to and from), and the longer our telescopes watch, the more accurate the image gets as we watch it get more distant?

Where did we start in the universe, and if we're moving, where do we stop? When? Why aren't we hitting other planets? Why are we the ones being hit by meteorites if we're all moving in the same direction? These aren't questions directed at you, just in general.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
Would that mean that the universe is expanding into the 4th spatial dimension? Because the 2D surface of a balloon is expanding into 3D space.

originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: Masterjaden

That's kind of how I would envision it. Time would have so much more to do with everything because of gravity. It's almost like that little part is missing on a lot of theories. Red shifting for example. Black holes... Possible that gravity itself has time enveloping the black hole so what's inside does not show? Perhaps light could escape if it wasn't enveloped completely in the so far off past that we can't see it. Just a random thought for example.

Maybe space was just one big endless tub of hydrogen and one day something caused gravity to exist in one little spot and snap... the universe forms.

Also, the speed of the 'expanding universe'. I figure... and this is just a random hair brained thought... Since you can take a object and put a jet of fire behind it, it will push the rocket in whatever direction... Wouldn't galaxies and stars do pretty much the same thing? Would light make some sort of a propulsion? I know fire - heat - pressure does a pretty good job and that's something galaxies are full of.

Not a big believer in "dark matter - dark energy" myself.

Maybe explanations are just really that simple but we as 'scientist' just like to over complicate things far too much.

Bingo. It's like common core math for science. When 2+2=4, why do we need three pieces of paper to explain it.

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
Would that mean that the universe is expanding into the 4th spatial dimension? Because the 2D surface of a balloon is expanding into 3D space.

Exactly. You said it just as good if not better than I could.

How do you imagine a 2D concept in 3D space.... Since our universe is 3D, the concept of this 2D balloon is impossible. You can describe it all day but you can not show how it actually happens.

One thing is certain. We'll never, NEVER, know how vast the universe is or where it started or where it ends or where we are in it. The best scenario would be to sit back and enjoy the beauty of it until we find the technology to reach out and touch one of the stars we can't even see with our current telescopes.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: LSU2018

Every idea starts as a Theory
Once upon a time it was theorized the world was round and circled the sun

It is just a little bit more complicated than that
Research
Theory
Peer review
Acceptance
So on and so forth

It was also theorized that the world was flat. It has also been theorized that the earth was hollow.
In fact, 1000´s of theories people once believed, has been proven wrong in time

So no matter how many times you try to pas this theory, as fact, it doesnt change the fact, that it is only a theory. Maybe time will tell, but right now they are only theorizing, based on other theories.

The theory of gravity, got so many holes in it, scientist cant explain. If it is proven that we got it wrong, where does that leave the theory of the big bang?
I can only guess, but i believe that Newton and Einstein got it wrong, and that Tesla may have been on to something. I dont believe we understand gravity at all, and i believe that in the future, we will have new theories to explain it all. Science is just a modern form of believe system, to explain the unexplainable. I believe in math.

Just my opinion

a reply to: Nothin

I have books that tell me it's all good.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Nothin

I have books that tell me it's all good.

Please don't go believing all of your books.
Some of them are pure fantasy, don't 'cha know?

a reply to: Nothin

Some of them...

yes.