Big Bang - Where's the hole?

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Two ideas are widely accepted. First, a Big Bang occurred. Second, all the galaxies are moving away from each other.

So, no matter where we look in deep space (North, South, East, West) we would see all the galaxies moving away from us. Have a look at this bullet hole in glass.



If this represented the universe, and if we existed somewhere along one crack in the glass, we might think that every crack is moving away from us. More to the point, where the bullet impacted the glass there is hole, and the force of the bullet's direct impact is what sent the cracks outward.

If the Big Bang sent the material flying outward, then shouldn't there be a void where the Big Bang actually occurred?




posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Theoretically bangs we think of leave holes, but I think (in my limited knowledge of astrophysics) the big bang was the "source" of all material. That mans it'd be more like dropping a water balloon onto the floor and looking at the puddle rather than a bullet in glass. For the bullet analogue to work there would have to be something for the big bang's initial point to smack and shatter. But remember the big bang says all things came from it, so there's nothing to shatter. I think the water balloon would yield the more similar result, an expanding puddle and a solid center.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


If its fractal there would be bullet holes, in bullet holes, in bullet holes, all connected, so we could be in it.

Eta, your bullet hole could also represent our galaxy, if there is an underlying code to nature, ie, flowers, storms, whirlpools. It's possible thats what our universe is, a black hole. Or it's in one.
edit on 5-7-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-7-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
If there were talks between human and nonhumans or humans not native to EA*RTH who have traversed the universe. I wonder if our cosmic family see the universes creation process the same way as EA*RTH humans or do they have further truth on this matter? And if not then does that tell somehting of their age and advanced abilities?



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
The hole is 45 degrees out of phase with local time and one unit offset the epicenter of the origin of the bang. In otherwords it is not able to be seen from our location due to time and space displacement.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
shouldn't there be a void where the Big Bang actually occurred?


Yep, its where I live.

VoidHawk



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Some scientists say what is happening is actually "inflation" rather than an explosion....more like what happens to cake batter as it bakes.....there's no hole in the center of it, everything expands evenly to fill the space.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
The Big Bang couldn't have occured unless the universe existed inside of another space. Hence, in order to have an explosion, it must occur within an already existing area.

Unless of course, the law of physics isn't really a law to begin with.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I'm interested to hear the answer to this, I think jiggers right, there ought to be a hole.

Where's all the experts when we need one?



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Well I think your question is easily explained by the fact that the big bang was not actually an "explosion", it was an "expansion" or "inflation". That is actually what is causing the galaxies to get further apart even to this day... the space between those galaxies is expanding, the galaxies are not actually shooting away from each other. The space between galaxies actually grows and thus they appear to move away from each other. If the Universe did in fact start as a very condensed point of energy or a singularity, the expansion of space would cause that energy to diffuse evenly and there would be no apparent center point.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
If the Big Bang sent the material flying outward, then shouldn't there be a void where the Big Bang actually occurred?

Short answer: Backwards in time. Other short answer: You're soaking in it.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
1 out put singularity from 1 input blackhole, multiple output locations/holes connected = smbh galaxy centers, smbh connected = stellar b.h. but the hole may be a combination of many holes feeding this quadrant refomulated dark energy. And things may be expanding just from the forces each celestial object keep sending all things alien outward to have more space to grow.. my 3 cents good question OP.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by iamhobo
 



The Big Bang couldn't have occured unless the universe existed inside of another space. Hence, in order to have an explosion, it must occur within an already existing area.
Yes I agree. But it's not "another space", the space which existed before the Big Bang is the same space we exist in now. According to all the latest data, it is now thought that the Universe consists of infinite flat space. According to some modern theories the Big Bang did not create space, but it took place inside that infinite space which already existed. If the Universe is infinite and flat, it's mathematically illogical to claim that space was created by the Big Bang... obviously. I personally think it's much more logical to accept the infinite flat space theory rather than believing the complete Universe and all the space of the Universe is a finite bubble of curved space surrounded by a void... but many people simply wont let go of that idea.
edit on 5/7/2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Why would we think its moving away when its still? I thought the universe expanding theory meant that every thing was being stretched out.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
In the way that I have always envisioned the Big Bang, there is no 'hole' at the center. There is a 'point' yes, at which everything that is now expanding, would have started from.

Forgive my crude drawing, I am NOT an artist by ANY means. I have tried to show an explosion. In an explosion, everything escapes the central point in equal and opposite directions as fast as it can. This is the best I can do to explain my idea, and to depict it.




posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
People still believe in the Big Bang? It's completely outdated, totally impossible, illogical, non scientifical and nonsensical and is only even feasible as a mathematical equation on a piece of paper, if hardly. Yet if you ask a believer of this dying faith they will ask you to ignore the "small problem" of something coming out from nothing, and look at the rest of the theory, which is also has some problems.. and more problems. Then more problems arise with the theory.

People just look at the so-called "proof" via interpretations of observational data that do not relate to reality. Microwaves MUST mean that everything was once in one spot that exploded/expanded? Red Shifts MUST indicate greater velocity the older the light is from ever farther objects away from Earth?

Where are our free thinkers?

You guys can believe whatever you want, and state whatever opinion you'd like. My opinion is this - Stop making false assumptions and interpretations and use your deductive reasoning abilities to understand that this never has nor ever will be proven as a viable theory.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Infi8nity
 


You would be correct. It is theorized that as the expansion continues, it is creating the 'space' as it goes along. Couple the age of the universe, and the speed of light, and you have the approximate size of the universe. At lease, that was my understanding of it.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte
People still believe in the Big Bang? It's completely outdated, totally impossible, illogical, non scientifical and nonsensical and is only even feasible as a mathematical equation on a piece of paper, if hardly. Yet if you ask a believer of this dying faith they will ask you to ignore the "small problem" of something coming out from nothing, and look at the rest of the theory, which is also has some problems.. and more problems. Then more problems arise with the theory.

People just look at the so-called "proof" via interpretations of observational data that do not relate to reality. Microwaves MUST mean that everything was once in one spot that exploded/expanded? Red Shifts MUST indicate greater velocity the older the light is from ever farther objects away from Earth?

Where are our free thinkers?

You guys can believe whatever you want, and state whatever opinion you'd like. My opinion is this - Stop making false assumptions and interpretations and use your deductive reasoning abilities to understand that this never has nor ever will be proven as a viable theory.


How is it an assumption when we are witnessing everything expanding? If everything is expanding, it had to have come from somewhere. Trace it all back, and I bet you, you will find a central point from whence it all came.

It also takes a hell of a lot more 'faith' to believe some omnipotent being burst everything into existance. Waited thousands or millions of years, depending on your particular view of Christianity, and then decided "Whoa now, my creation is going how I wanted it to go. I had better send myself, claiming to be my own son, to Earth and have myself tortured and killed. That way, I can forgive everyone's sin. (This sin, by the way, was my fault as well. Since they were my creations, I knew what they were going to do, so I threw a mystical tree into the mix, and forbade them to eat from it. Even though I knew they would, only so I could kick them out, and then follow the whole 'sacrifice' myself thing.

Yeah, you're right.. the big bang doesn't make sense.
edit on 5-7-2012 by Daemonicon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Personally... I don't think we know enough to say anything regarding the origins of the universe. At least, not anything that should accompany the word "certainty" (even if it's "1%").

The entire theory of the big bang is based off of information we've been able to gather from our planet. We've not really made it to another planet - let alone another star system. There are innumerable factors out there that we can be completely unaware of (and have no reason to suspect).

Interpreting red-shift as an indication of velocity may be seen in the same context as the "raisin pudding" atomic model 500 years from now: Not entirely incorrect but of no practical use as a model given more complete information.

When you look everywhere and see that it's moving away... My immediate conclusion is not to presume everything is moving away (I see it as a resurgence of the geocentric philosophy, if somewhat different). I would, first, presume that something is affecting light in such a manner as to attenuate it. The uniformity of it and correlation with distance would indicate a natural property of light as opposed to magically expanding space.

Occam's Razor states that the theory making the fewest assumptions/presumptions is most probable to be correct. As such - I side with a yet to be discovered property of light being the cause of the observed red-shift as opposed to magi-space.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
OP, did you see the thread a few weeks ago where they found a galaxy that according to current understanding of the age of the universe and the time it takes to form galaxies, should not exist? They can either form faster or the universe is older than understood. But the cosmic background radiation was dated, and is 13 point something billion years old. I feel that the big bang was a local event and not a universal event. To think that what we see from here is all that there is and that that nothing ever existed before the oldest things we can see, ever ever ever ever ever ...and yes, i understand that when we look at something 13 billion light years away, that we see what it looked like 13 billion years ago.....these things we see at that distance probably have been destroyed and re-formed into something else a couple of times by now....) Infact, if there are aliens 13 billion light years away that became an interstellar species 200 years ago, we would have no way whatsoever to know about them. And they would have no way whatsoever to know about us at all....unless they have superluminal transportation and came here, but why would they come here if they dont know anything is here?

So uh, basically I'm trying to say i believe in multiple big bangs in different places. And i think that galaxy that seems to be older than the big bang probably *IS* older than the big bang.

This is so hard to understand. I mean, how can time have a beginning? and at the same time, how can it NOT have a beginning? What was there before time? How did time start if there was nothing there to start it? .....

My mind is spaghetti-ing itself up again, gotta go..





 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join