Big Bang - Where's the hole?

page: 18
7
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by zeta55
 


thanks but please dont agree with me,,, for i am not stating anything original of my own,,.,.,.. i merely playing devils advocate,,.., i am providing no information,,

the universe is the way it is.,,.,.,.

they think they know the way it is.,.,.,. they say the way they think it is.,,.,.,.,.

i merely am using what they say to form a rebuttal only using their argument and my miniscule amount of observation, tools of logic and reason,,.

this is the way i operate with pretty much everything.,.,.,. i cannot contribute a thought unless i receive input from another,,, whereas i may agree ,,,, or am able to dissect their logic and reason,..




posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
We are the hole. Our universe is a black hole caused by the implosion of a high density object in "space". It is an infinitely expanding area in which nothing can escape. Just as blackholes in our unvierse are more than likely other universes themselves, such that fits the fractalization that is our reality.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by zeta55

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.


Look again at the raisin bread gif. The raisin in the middle doesn't move: there is no void of raisins getting bigger in the middle.


Originally posted by ImaFungi
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)


They do move, which is why they appear redshifted. Their motion is simply the result of expanding space.


Originally posted by zeta55
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.


No, the entire point of the balloon analogy is that only the 2D surface of the balloon represents space. The interior, if you like, represents time.
edit on 9-7-2012 by wirehead because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by wirehead
 


Wirehead, You seem to be a very nice person that does not put other people down, just because they have a differing view. Thank you for that.

In the limited amount of time I have this morning, I will try to convey what thoughts I had last night about how everything seems to be moving away from each other, and at the same time, there could still be a central void in the universe, that is always getting larger.

I could probably draw a diagram, and make it more clear, but writing will have to do, for now.

Ok, so all matter is fused together in a super dense, super hot area, and then, the big bang occurs. Matter is moving away from the central point where it was all fused together.

This is where I may sound either incredibly dumb, or I might make some sense, to some people.

I am going back to the ballon analogy, but instead of just a flat surface, like the outside of the balloon, we are in a layer, or shell if you like, the thickness of what scientists have determined as the distance of the known universe.

So, around the vast empty void of which everything began moving away from, is a ring of galaxies, the thickness of whatever we think the age, or distance of the universe is.

So how can everything seem to be moving away from each other, while at the same time be moving away from a central point?

The only thing that I could think of, would be, the matter at the outside of the ring, is moving faster than what is in the middle, and the middle is moving faster than what would be at the inner edge of the ring, the area nearest the ever exspanding void.

If we view the galaxies at the outer edge of the ring, they will appear to be moving away from us, because they are moving away from the center at a faster speed than we are..

If we view the galaxies at the inner edge, they appear to be moving away from us, not because they are, but because we are moving away from them at a faster speed, so we get that illusion.

We are all moving away from the center, with the outer edge moving the fastest, and the inner edge moving the slowest.

That is the only thing I can think of that would make everything seem to be moving away from each other, while at the same time, be moving away from the center.

So if what I am saying is true, when we view the farthest galaxies, we are only viewing the ones in our area of the ring. We probably could never view the galaxies at he opposite side of the ring, due to the massive space/time that is the center void of the universe.

Also, if my theory is true, eventually everything will be so far apart, that a being in one galaxy, may never be able to see another galaxy.

Just a thought. Off to the real world now. Will check back in. Thanks



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by wirehead
 



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


Except that GR doesn't agree with the evidence. Hence dark matter and dark energy. Both are required to make GR function according to the evidence.

We can get into further scenarios where GR runs into problems (such as the twin paradox) - but most of these are solved by a preferential reference frame (a heretical concept to all but Einstein, apparently). Which can easily be established by a "quantum foam" or whatever you want to call it. Then your only issue is that time ceases to exist as a physical dimension and you have to start getting creative by explaining the phenomena of gravitation in quantum mechanical terms.

My point is - GR is horribly incomplete to describe the cosmos. Einstein readily recognized this. The 40s, however, started an era of "shut up and calculate" that lasted much through the 80s and didn't really start to show much sign of passing until the mid 90s. Since GR, the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, and others worked For All Practical Purposes - there was not seen much of a need to look beyond the immediately functional equations.

Two factors changed this. First - we are exhausting the FAPPTRAP (For All Practical Purposes Trap) - we are reaching the limits of what those equations predict is possible in terms of engineering, which is forcing the consideration of 'hidden factors' and alternative explanations that may yield practical interpretations.

Second - the 60s and 70s saw a considerable change in social norms with arts and philosophy (even mysticism) seeing renewed interest. The individuals produced in this environment are now finding their way into leadership positions within academic and industrial research, being far more open to asking the questions of "What does this mean?"

The fact that Einstein's field equations have been demonstrated to be horribly incomplete is akin to the Raleigh-Jeans law and the resulting Raleigh-Jeans Catastrophe (or the Ultraviolet Catastrophe).

Enter Planck.

The main difference between dark matter/dark energy and the concept of energy quanta is that energy quanta could be readily found to describe a number of subatomic systems. Dark matter/dark energy are continually found to behave "unexpectedly" and even inconsistently.

Which is why I find their use to 'fit' GR to the observation horribly insufficient. I'm quite confident Einstein would agree. His theory isn't downright wrong - but he recognized it as horribly incomplete ("I should like to think the moon is there even when I'm not looking at it."), and would only agree it was even less complete upon the observations of red-shift in the universe.

The only reason to not agree with this concept is that of convenience. It's very inconvenient to admit GR to be only a tiny fraction of the picture - something that worked so elegantly and wonderfully until we started accumulating more observations - much like Newton's laws of gravitation prior.

Talk of raisins in bread is also eerily reminiscent of the raisin pudding model of atoms.

My issue is not a lack of understanding of the theory or the equations behind it. It's a fundamental issue with the interpretation of the data. I'm not the only one:

arxiv.org...

Quoting the abstract:


. . . However there is no compelling direct evidence yet for (the dynamical effects of) dark energy. The precision CMB data can be equally well fitted without dark energy if the spectrum of primordial density fluctuations is not quite scale-free and if the Hubble constant is lower globally than its locally measured value. The LSS data can also be satisfactorily fitted if there is a small component of hot dark matter, as would be provided by neutrinos of mass 0.5 eV. Although such an Einstein-de Sitter model cannot explain the SNe Ia Hubble diagram or the position of the `baryon acoustic oscillation' peak in the autocorrelation function of galaxies, it may be possible to do so e.g. in an inhomogeneous Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi cosmology where we are located in a void which is expanding faster than the average. Such alternatives may seem contrived but this must be weighed against our lack of any fundamental understanding of the inferred tiny energy scale of the dark energy. It may well be an artifact of an oversimplified cosmological model, rather than having physical reality.


Basically: "If you're allowed to make random guesses - so are we."

For more fun related to dark matter: www.scientificamerican.com...

Yeah... we really know what's going on out there. We have such a solid understanding of the present that we can deduce the past.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Why aren't we all in a black hole now?

Consider - all the mass there now is was at one time in a somewhat confined space in the first few ms after the bang. WAY more than enough density to wrap space around itself right then and there.

Maybe the background radiation we're seeing isn't residual bang, it's hydrogen infall from outside the hole we're in.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
Why aren't we all in a black hole now?

Consider - all the mass there now is was at one time in a somewhat confined space in the first few ms after the bang. WAY more than enough density to wrap space around itself right then and there.

Maybe the background radiation we're seeing isn't residual bang, it's hydrogen infall from outside the hole we're in.


Several explanations come to mind:

1. High density alone is not enough. To create a black hole, you need a gravitational (density) GRADIENT to cut off some part of spacetime from the rest. When the whole universe is homogenously filled with high density matter, no blackholes form.

2. Inflation prevented black holes from forming.

3. There were indeed some black holes created during big bang, these are so-called primordial black holes, but thats still a hypothesis, tough.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 



Why aren't we all in a black hole now?


This could possibly explain the red-shift observations (perhaps with the exception of anything along our spherical plane).

Everything further inside the event horizon is being pulled in faster while we are being pulled in faster than anything further out of the event horizon.

Though that also presumes the possibility of a gravitational singularity with infinite distortion of space-time.

Something I'm not entirely sure I agree with (especially since I don't find space-time to be a very convincing arrangement - I believe the two to be completely separate and time to be a product of experience as opposed to a physical reality).

But I like it better than dark energy. Though the functional difference would appear to be minimal.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by zeta55
 


What happens when you look to either side? Is the movement away from you the same to either side as it is in front and behind you?

In the balloon analogy, the central point inside the balloon is a point in time. The outward movement is movement through time, not space. At the center, t =0. The balloon's current radius represents t = 13.75 billion years. A smaller balloon regresses time, and a bigger balloon progresses time.

The surface of the balloon is a 2-dimensional analog of our 3-dimensional universe.
In order to envision the entire 3-dimensional universe, we would need a 4-dimensional sphere -- which is obviously impossible to picture.

So, compress the entire 3-dimensional universe down to a 2-dimensional surface. Imagine you're a Flatlander.
Now, that 2-dimensional surface gets wrapped around to form the surface of a sphere. Not the whole sphere, interior and all, just the surface. Again, don't worry about shells, or trying to get a 3-dimensional surface...a 2-dimensional surface is all you need.

People seem to be getting sidetracked by what's inside the balloon. Don't worry about the inside. This is just an analogy to picture how every object can be moving away from every other object, with space expanding between them, while each object appears to be standing still according to observers on that object. The universe is most likely not wrapped around a 4-sphere, therefore there is no "inside"...the balloon is just a tool.

jiggerj also seems to be getting sidetracked by the hole being used to inflate the balloon. There is no such hole. The volume inside the sphere is not inflating/growing in order to expand the surface. It's the surface that's expanding all on its own. The balloon is still just an analogy.

As the surface of the balloon expands, every point is moving away from every other point. The further Point B is from Point A, the faster Point B will seem to be moving away from Point A (according to Point A)...whereas, according to Point B, it isn't moving at all (Point B would say that Point A is moving away, while Point A would say that Point B is moving away).

Here's a handy gif:



Note that the galaxies (the yellow dots) are not getting bigger, just further apart; the spring things are light waves being redshifted; and there is nothing on the inside...this outer surface is all there is.
Pick a dot and see what happens to all other dots around it. It doesn't matter which one you pick...relative to that dot, it stays in one place while all other dots move away from it.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


This makes more sense as a 4d representation with the metric inflation of the 4th dimension carried over into the 3rd.

Since that would allow you to look "up and down" without looking "in" to the sphere.

Of course - that begs the question of what constitutes a 4th dimension (arguably time - but I find the whole system overly simplistic to start drawing such conclusions).



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


In order to be entirely accurate, using your method, we need a 5-sphere. The entire 4-dimensional spacetime manifold is subject to this metric expansion (both space and time are expanding).

There is no "metric inflation" of the interior of the sphere/balloon...unless we say the radial dimension is time, in which case, yes, it expands just like everything else.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Honestly, I don't agree with time being a dimension. I think it more appropriate to be an emergent phenomena as opposed to a real phenomena.

But, there again - we're all taking out considerable creative licenses.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


I would say that GR doesn't work without time being a dimension, but that won't work with you...so I won't say that.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


lol.

Well - a quantum mechanical model that results in GR can work without time (though lacking a complete version of that... it's a bit specious of me).

Of course - that begs the question of what time really is (as we can quite firmly say we experience it). And explaining that would result in some "out there" explanations (that argue from the ridiculous - that we don't actually exist and all of our experiences are artifacts of quantum states; to the hard-to-evaluate - such as consciousness arising as a product of interaction with a parallel universe that functions as a record of wave-function collapse).

Like I said - I like to keep plenty of ideas floating around. While I might have my little 'pet ideas' that I prefer above others - I do not prefer them to the exclusion of considering other ideas (even if I don't believe them to be correct... or just don't like them because I find them bland).

And if I can make arguments like that... I must cede that others are allowed to believe in dark energy and other things I criticize.

Of course - that's with the understanding that I get to criticize other ideas to the same extent my own will be. It's not like we have anything better to do as we wait for the experimenters to bring us more fodder.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Thousands of years ago we didn't believe in another earth-like planet because we didn't have the tools to see it. Now we have the tools, POOF! there it is. So who's to say what exists and what doesn't? Maybe we just haven't developed the means to see it yet.

When we have all the pieces to the universe, then we can decide what doesn't exist, because we will have ideas that just don't fit in the proven structure of our reality. Until then, we can't really say, can we?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


in your gif thered be a gigantic hole in the direct middle,,, imagining the gift as 3d,.,,., also imagining all physical material started as the same item.,.,

the thing is,, in reality the outer 2d surface is not all there is,..,., you are getting sidetracked by these analogies trying to explain one minor detail of the universe,., and failing to see that the analogies is not congruent with the universe
edit on 9-7-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


time i would say,,, is the irreversibleness of cause and effect.,.,,. and just as distance can be measured in various ways of inch,, foot,,, meter,,, light year,,.,. mile..,,.,.

time, or change, or cause and effect can be measured in various ; second,,, year,,,, planck length,,,..

whether conscious observers exist to measure these things of physical reality,.,. the deviations exist in physical reality itself,,,and the diversity of components of reality can be contrasted ( which is measurement) and are necessary for things such as organization,,order,, stability, structure,.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Time is a measurement of one thing: entropy. The destruction or change that inevitably destroys, breaks down, or mutates any substance or object in our reality.

That's all it is. Time is a definition to the process of breaking down. Because that's the only real way we can mark time. If everything stayed the same, time wouldn't matter, even if it did pass.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C

My point is - GR is horribly incomplete to describe the cosmos. Einstein readily recognized this. The 40s, however, started an era of "shut up and calculate" that lasted much through the 80s and didn't really start to show much sign of passing until the mid 90s. Since GR, the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, and others worked For All Practical Purposes - there was not seen much of a need to look beyond the immediately functional equations

....

The fact that Einstein's field equations have been demonstrated to be horribly incomplete is akin to the Raleigh-Jeans law and the resulting Raleigh-Jeans Catastrophe (or the Ultraviolet Catastrophe).



Here you are absolutely correct. GR isn't and can't be the final picture. I also don't think our current cosmology is the full picture, either. I just happen to think dark matter is much more reasonable than MOND, for several reasons.

Our standard cosmology will have to be modified, that's certain. I don't think we'll ever toss out the expansion of space as a concept, though. Dark matter / energy is another thing and I don't think there's an astronomer alive who hasn't tried to find some alternative explanation.

If you really want to poke holes in cosmology, you should look into inflation, which you strangely haven't mentioned. Although now I'm just giving you more fodder...




The only reason to not agree with this concept is that of convenience. It's very inconvenient to admit GR to be only a tiny fraction of the picture - something that worked so elegantly and wonderfully until we started accumulating more observations - much like Newton's laws of gravitation prior.


Inconvenient? This is what science is, it's exciting!



arxiv.org...


Yeah, I've read this paper. You'll notice it introduces even more dark matter to fit the picture.

When WFIRST and Euclid come on-line, we'll have even better measurements which will further constrain our models. But that's what they are- models.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by CLPrime
 


in your gif thered be a gigantic hole in the direct middle,,, imagining the gift as 3d,.,,., also imagining all physical material started as the same item.,.,



If you insist on talking about the middle of the balloon then you're not talking about the balloon analogy, sorry. Unless you allow that the middle of the balloon is in time and not in space, since space, in the balloon analogy, is just the 2D surface of the balloon.




the thing is,, in reality the outer 2d surface is not all there is,..,., you are getting sidetracked by these analogies trying to explain one minor detail of the universe,., and failing to see that the analogies is not congruent with the universe
edit on 9-7-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


The analogies are just ways for us to try to explain the actual models (math and physics) to you. They're incomplete by nature. They're cartoons.

The observed redshift of every extragalactic object in the sky is not trivial. It looks like everything is moving away from us. That's a pretty big, glaring fact one must explain.

edit: an analogy helps you get the idea, but it isn't the full picture.
edit on 9-7-2012 by wirehead because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
7
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join