Big Bang - Where's the hole?

page: 17
7
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C

CLPrime understands it. He may disagree with it - but I get the impression from his explanations and from his intrinsic lack of fielding the debate that he gets it.

He knows that the debate really has no answer as my point is that the theories are not nearly as well established as you would like to think.


A good portion of my time since I was 13 has been spent trying to answer your question. My reservations are the same as yours insofar as I recognize that, no matter how accurate and predictive GR may be, it may still be fundamentally inaccurate so long as it fails to describe the physical mechanism you're asking for. Of course, it's already fundamentally incomplete because it lacks such a mechanism.

So...when I have an answer, I'll let you know




posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
so in reality all galaxies are exactly the same distance from each other,, since space expanded equally,,,,

No, not really. The distribution of galaxies would be related to density fluctuations in the early universe which collapsed over time. Hence they wouldn't be perfectly grid-like but arranged more chaotically, which is what we see.


and the universe is infinite for it has no edges, and it exists everywhere and takes up all space,,, and every point is the exact center of everything ,.,,,,.. every point is the exact same distance from the furthest object away from it,,,,,,, as every other point,,,, this is what your saying?


Kind of. No matter where you are in the universe, the furthest point you can see would be roughly 47 billion light years away. No matter where you are in the universe, it will look like it does from here, with everything moving away from you.



in my analogy I only meant to say what you were saying about locally,,, everything is moving away from us,.,.,. thats the only example.,.,.,.,., im saying,..,.,,. if this concept of locally moving away started at a point in space,.,.,. and everything that now exists away from everything else started to move away from everything else at this point,.,., it all moved away from that point,.,.,.,. and that activity would have created the opposite of a dense mass where that point was,,,, a large vast space,,,..,


Again, look at the balloon analogy. Start with the balloon really small and galaxies on its surface. You inflate it. Where is the point that everything is moving away from, and where is the big void?



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
when the universe expends and exhausts all of its potential and finite energy,,, wouldnt the same potential energy exist in the universe that always has?


I don't understand what you're asking. I don't think you understand what energy is?



also doesnt the big bang violate the law of thermodynamics,,, was all of the energy of the universe created during the big bang?


It does not. In an oversimplified, vague way, the "total" energy of the universe is exactly zero, so there is no problem. In a more technically detailed way... it's technical, but is still no problem.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
A good portion of my time since I was 13 has been spent trying to answer your question. My reservations are the same as yours insofar as I recognize that, no matter how accurate and predictive GR may be, it may still be fundamentally inaccurate so long as it fails to describe the physical mechanism you're asking for. Of course, it's already fundamentally incomplete because it lacks such a mechanism.

So...when I have an answer, I'll let you know


Of course, GR isn't the final word. We lack a theory of quantum gravity, and we know that our understanding of such things as singularities necessarily must be modified by such a theory.

But for what it is and what it claims, GR is right.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by wirehead

No, not really. The distribution of galaxies would be related to density fluctuations in the early universe which collapsed over time. Hence they wouldn't be perfectly grid-like but arranged more chaotically, which is what we see.


And even then, over large enough distances, we do see such uniform distribution. It's one of the key evidences of metric expansion (an explosion would tend to be - if you'll excuse the highly technical term - clumpier). Even slow expansion isn't uniform enough...the observed uniformity requires extremely rapid expansion.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 



What an ironic choice of words, considering I know how to write down the low-energy graviton propagator in quantum field theory! Although that's not hard, it's been known for many decades...


Last I checked, experimental attempts to locate this graviton were... less than successful.


MOND, incidentally, is something taken seriously by precisely zero theoretical physicists. I know many of the world's experts in this kinda stuff, and they all think it's hilariously dumb.


Really couldn't care less what they think. The theory stands or fails on its own merits. I like variety in my repertoire of theories. You never know when the ridiculous turns out to make sense.

While it's a case of inductive reasoning - quantum mechanics came about from the repeated inability of classical physics to explain the radiation of hot bodies. The idea was considered ridiculous (since light had been demonstrated to be a wave) but it resolved the issues.


But hey, that just proves you're right, though, doesn't it? After all, science is never interested in making progress. It's not like we give prizes out for that kind of thing, or anything. And it's not like every grad student in theoretical physics thinks carefully about gravity and tries to see if he can make any cool discoveries about it. Not at all.


James Watson and Francis Crick would certainly take exception to the premise of this claim.

You should really read more about the individuals who developed the theories you base many of your models off of - Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Hawking, etc. Their theories and equations are used and abused with little regard for the process that actually developed them - the debates surrounding them - and the self-analysis each author applied.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
You should really read more about the individuals who developed the theories you base many of your models off of - Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Hawking, etc. Their theories and equations are used and abused with little regard for the process that actually developed them - the debates surrounding them - and the self-analysis each author applied.


And the reason their theories succeeded instead of being put in the trash can of history was because they agreed with the evidence.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by wirehead
 


"Again, look at the balloon analogy. Start with the balloon really small and galaxies on its surface. You inflate it. Where is the point that everything is moving away from, and where is the big void? "

are you trying to understand what im trying to say?

start with the balloon really small and all area of the balloon is the physical universe including inside.,.,,., eventually as the balloon expands,,,,,, the matter closest to the center will continue to separate untill there is no more matter in the center,.,.,. and all the physical matter that exists is continually expanding outward from that central starting point,,,, millions of years later the balloon is still expanding along with all the physical matter,,,, and that central starting point is getting larger and larger and more vast,..,,.,.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by wirehead
 


Indeed it is. And the fact that it is so accurate and predictive is a testament to just how right it is - when taken for what it claims to be.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
start with the balloon really small and all area of the balloon is the physical universe including inside.,.,,.


Okay, there's your problem. The balloon analogy is an analogy and for it to work you must treat space as if it is the 2D surface of the balloon, not the entire thing.



, eventually as the balloon expands,,,,,, the matter closest to the center will continue to separate untill there is no more matter in the center,.,.,. and all the physical matter that exists is continually expanding outward from that central starting point,,,, millions of years later the balloon is still expanding along with all the physical matter,,,, and that central starting point is getting larger and larger and more vast,..,,.,.


If you want to imagine a solid object expanding (say a loaf of raisin bread) the raisin in the exact middle will not move at all.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
"If you want to imagine a solid object expanding (say a loaf of raisin bread) the raisin in the exact middle will not move at all. "

ok imagine the bread continuing to expand,,, larger and larger and larger ,,,,, that center raisin still not moving,,, still in the center,,,.,.,.

but according to reality,,,, isnt all material in the universe moving? so how can that center raisin not move? and if it has to move,, what direction would it be traveling in relation to the center position it and all things started?



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

ok imagine the bread continuing to expand,,, larger and larger and larger ,,,,, that center raisin still not moving,,, still in the center,,,.,.,.

but according to reality,,,, isnt all material in the universe moving?

Depending on where you are in the raisin bread, you might see that central raisin moving away from you. Unless you're standing on that central raisin. But then again, you'll see whatever raisin you're standing on as stationary... Which is why there's nothing special about the central point.



so how can that center raisin not move? and if it has to move,, what direction would it be traveling in relation to the center position it and all things started?


What direction indeed! How could it move away from the center and create a void?



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by wirehead
 


if all material is moving away from a common center,,,, eventually there will be no material in the space of that common center.....


because every bit of material had to move since the begging.,,., and it had to move away from each other,..,,. no bit ever just stayed still in the center.,,.,.,. so i assume in the center of the universe is the largest expanse of space between matter possible in the system of physical universe,,,, especially after the long expanse of time and vast amount of expansion between locally observable matter,,,, this center expanse only grew larger....



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

if all material is moving away from a common center,,,, eventually there will be no material in the space of that common center.....


But you just agreed that the raisin in the middle of the bread won't move! We're going in circles...



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by wirehead

Originally posted by ImaFungi

if all material is moving away from a common center,,,, eventually there will be no material in the space of that common center.....


But you just agreed that the raisin in the middle of the bread won't move! We're going in circles...


obviously we are going in circles,.,.,, we are trying to objectively view the universe,,, you think your mathematical map is a perfect reflection/representation of reality as it is in its totality,,,,,,, I think regarding some of the ideas in that map presented there are some logical misunderstandings for me at least.,.,..,.,

i did not agree the raisin in the middle wont move,,, because according to your model,,, and reality,,,, all the raisins are always moving since the beginning of movement,,



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
obviously we are going in circles,.,.,, we are trying to objectively view the universe,,, you think your mathematical map is a perfect reflection/representation of reality as it is in its totality,,,,,,,


No, I would never say that. It's just a model, and it must be at least partially incomplete. I think you don't quite grasp the model, because the problems you see are not actually in the model. That's okay though because it's not a very easy idea and it's a lot easier to describe with math or pictures.



i did not agree the raisin in the middle wont move,,, because according to your model,,, and reality,,,, all the raisins are always moving since the beginning of movement,,


Well, no. If the bread is expanding, the raisin in the middle won't be moving since the beginning, or at all, ever. But depending on where you are in the bread, it will look like it's moving away from you (because you are moving in the bread).



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by wirehead

Originally posted by ImaFungi
obviously we are going in circles,.,.,, we are trying to objectively view the universe,,, you think your mathematical map is a perfect reflection/representation of reality as it is in its totality,,,,,,,


No, I would never say that. It's just a model, and it must be at least partially incomplete. I think you don't quite grasp the model, because the problems you see are not actually in the model. That's okay though because it's not a very easy idea and it's a lot easier to describe with math or pictures.



i did not agree the raisin in the middle wont move,,, because according to your model,,, and reality,,,, all the raisins are always moving since the beginning of movement,,


Well, no. If the bread is expanding, the raisin in the middle won't be moving since the beginning, or at all, ever. But depending on where you are in the bread, it will look like it's moving away from you (because you are moving in the bread).



ok and thats why you say space itself is what is expanding..,,.,..,,. and that center raisin would be like the center of this .,,.,.,.,.,.




posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Kind of more like this



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
edit on 8-7-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



the thing i dont get is,,,,,, if all those pieces started as the same piece.,.,,. they themselves would have had to at one point move? or your saying space came into existence between them,,, and separated them,, instant to instant evenly,.,.,.?

and even still,,,,, those 3 points that can make a triangle,,,,,the space between them is expanding,,,, if that trend continues,,,, and that triangle is the center of the shape of the universe,,,, that center space will be expanding,,,,
how can there be material that is further from that center triangle without it separating earlier or coming into existence first,,,, if time started at a single point,.,.,. thats my biggest problem i think,..,,.,.,.


also in that image,,,,, how did those pieces get to the positions of frame 2 from frame 1,,,, without the pieces moving from their frame one position,,,, in reference to their frame one position in time and space,,,,.



edit on 8-7-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


I have to agree with Fungi on this. If everything began moving away from a central point of space, and or time, that space, or time should be larger than the rest of the universe.

Going back to the balloon analogy, if I were in a galaxy on one side of the balloon, and I looked to the exact opposite side of the ballon, I would be looking through an ever increasing space, and or time. The only way the space in the center could get smaller, is if some of the galaxies decided to stop, and go back toward the center.

That would then cause for revision of the big bang theory, would it not?

Someone said, all things are moving away from each other. How do we know that "All" things are moving away from each other. We can only base that observation from our point in space. Just because everything is moving away from us, how do we know what direction things are moving in a galaxy, say, 40 billion light years away?

I need to do some serious deep thinking on the statement, all things, no matter where they are located, are moving away from each other, yet there is no center.

There are some things, I think we will never have an answer to. Just like the universe is endless, so too, could be our answers.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join