Big Bang - Where's the hole?

page: 20
7
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
there are a few viods in space (some supervoids) were there is very little matter. there are theories as to what causes them but maybe one of them could be the 'hole' your asking about.




posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Nope...that's because, in our reference frame, we're not flying through space at all.



so in relation to what, does time dilate?



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Cosmological scale discoveries that add vague credence to the possibility that the 96% of the universe we simply have to assume is there for the Big Bang theory to work somehow tell us something of any significance to the universe at large is not direct evidence! It's dark matter on top of fudge factors on top of epicycles; and all predicated on extraneous extrapolation of perturbation theory based inferred mass + gravity of solar system bodies applied to the universe; as if the immensity of the universe is impervious to our solar system bound gravitational sample bias.

The universe does not seem to care about our myopic solar system bias.
edit on 11-7-2012 by ZeuZZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
Cosmological scale discoveries that add vague credence to the possibility that the 96% of the universe we simply have to assume is there for the Big Bang theory to work somehow tell us something of any significance to the universe at large is not direct evidence! It's dark matter on top of fudge factors on top of epicycles; and all predicated on extraneous extrapolation of perturbation theory based inferred mass + gravity of solar system bodies applied to the universe; as if the immensity of the universe is impervious to our solar system bound gravitational sample bias.

The universe does not seem to care about our myopic solar system bias.
edit on 11-7-2012 by ZeuZZ because: (no reason given)


i have absolutely no idea what you just said.......BRAINSPLOSION SYNDROME
edit on 11/7/2012 by DaveNorris because: SPELLING



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


In relation to everything.
In relation to what does space expand?



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


but what is time as a "thing" that it can dilate ,, and what mechanism causes the dilation? and what experiences the dilation?

I dont think space expands,, you do...
edit on 11-7-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaveNorris
i have absolutely no idea what you just said.......BRAINSPLOSION SYNDROME
edit on 11/7/2012 by DaveNorris because: SPELLING


Basically we have extended theories of gravity and the maths we have used on a planetary scale to a universal scale. And then we view the universe through this local solar system bias as if the rest of the universe has to adhere to our own local laws. It's a self important, materialistic, newtonian, deterministic view that will not hold with time.

www.facebook.com...


The Case Against Cosmology
M. J. Disney

It is argued that some of the recent claims for cosmology are grossly over blown. Cosmology rests on a very small database: it suffers frommany fundamental difficulties as a science (if it is a science at all) whilst observations of distant phenomena are difficult to make and harder to interpret. It is suggested that cosmological inferences should be tentatively made and sceptically received

Given statements emanating from some cosmologists today one could be for given for assuming that the solution to some of the great problems of the subject, even“the origin of the Universe” lie just around the corner. As an example of this triumphalist approach consider the following conclusion from Hu et al. [1] to apreview of the results they expect from spacecraft such as MAP and PLANCKdesigned to map the Cosmic Background Radiations: “. . . we will establish thecosmological model as securely as the Standard Model of elementary particles. We will then know as much, or even more, about the early Universe and itscontents as we do about the fundamental constituents of matter”.We believe the most charitable thing that can be said of such statements isthat they are naive in the extreme and betray a complete lack of understandingof history, of the huge difference between an observational and an experimentalscience, and of the peculiar limitations of cosmology as a scientific discipline. By building up expectations that cannot be realised, such statements do a disservicenot only to astronomy and to particle physics but they could ultimately do harmto the wider respect in which the whole scientific approach is held. As such,they must not go unchallenged.

[......]

7 COSMOLOGY IN PERSPECTIVE

Of course we would all love to know of the fate of the Universe, just as we’dlove to know if God exists. If we expect science to provide the answers though,we may have to be very patient - and literally wait for eternity. Alas professional cosmologists cannot afford to wait that long. For that reason the word‘cosmologist’ should be expunged from the scientific dictionary and returned tothe priesthood where it properly belongs.I’m not suggesting that cosmology itself should be abandoned. Mostly byaccident it has made some fascinating, if faltering progress over the centuries.And if we are patient and build our instruments to explore the Universe in allthe crevices of parameter space, new clues will surely come to hand, as theyhave in the past, largely by accident. But we should not spend too many ofour astronomical resources in trying to answer grandiose questions which may,in all probability, be unanswerable. For instance we must not build the NextGeneration Space Telescope as if it was solely a cosmological machine. Weshould only do that if we are confident of converging on “the truth”. If we buildit to look through many windows we may yet find the surprising clues whichlead us off on a new path along the way.Above all we must not overclaim for this fascinating subject which, it canbe argued, is not a proper science at all. Rutherford for instance said “Don’t8let me hear anyone use the word ‘Universe’ in my department”. Shouldn’t wescientists be saying something like this to the general public:

“It is not likely that we primates gazing through bits of glass for a century ortwo will dissemble the architecture and history of infinity. But if we don’t try we won’t get anywhere. Therefore we professionals do the best we can to fit theodd clues we have into some kind of plausible story. That is how science works,and that is the spirit in which our cosmological speculations should be treated.Don’t be impressed by our complex machines or our arcane mathematics. Theyhave been used to build plausible cosmic stories before - which we had to discardafterwards in the face of improving evidence. The likelihood must be that suchrevisions will have to occur again and again and again.”


Further Reading:

Modern Cosmology: Science or Folktale?
Current cosmological theory rests on a disturbingly small number of independent observations
www.americanscientist.org...

Big Bang Never Happened Home Page and Summary
bigbangneverhappened.org...



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


oh, now i get it, actually i posted a thread on a similar thing a few weeks ago. link

it basically asks if what we think of as dark matter is actuall just us assuming that gravity is consistant throughout the universe.......

but yeah, i get what your saying now



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

but what is time as a "thing" that it can dilate


The metric of the spacetime manifold. We've been over this.



and what mechanism causes the dilation?


We've been over this too. Negative pressure - Einstein's cosmological constant - is the mechanism.



and what experiences the dilation?


The (metric of the) spacetime manifold.



I dont think space expands,, you do...


Stating the obvious.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


okokok,.,..,., say you were god,,, the creator of this exact universe..,.,,.,,. say you and I hovered above ( ?) before the big bang.,.,,..,.,,.,. how would you set up the conditions in order for the big bang to occur and eventually form the universe we exist in today? and describe a little the process of expanding space and what it would be or how it would work, and prior to the big bang what would exist,, what the initial matter would exist in... and how the bang would begin/occur..
edit on 11-7-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


All that would be a needed is an infinite empty space. Since this space would be a quantum vacuum, all you need to do is wait and, eventually, probability will kick in and the quantum vacuum will fall to a lower energy level, releasing an infinite and uniform amount of vacuum energy throughout the infinite space. This vacuum energy causes the otherwise still-empty space to expand rapidly. As the universe expands and cools, the vacuum energy experiences a change of state and becomes regular energy (photons, as well as high energy particles).

And there you have it, a uniform, expanding, matter-filled universe, just as we see today. And it all came from an infinite empty universe. No singularity, no nothing...just an infinite empty space obeying quantum physics.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


All that would be a needed is an infinite empty space. Since this space would be a quantum vacuum, all you need to do is wait and, eventually, probability will kick in and the quantum vacuum will fall to a lower energy level, releasing an infinite and uniform amount of vacuum energy throughout the infinite space. This vacuum energy causes the otherwise still-empty space to expand rapidly. As the universe expands and cools, the vacuum energy experiences a change of state and becomes regular energy (photons, as well as high energy particles).

And there you have it, a uniform, expanding, matter-filled universe, just as we see today. And it all came from an infinite empty universe. No singularity, no nothing...just an infinite empty space obeying quantum physics.


Pretty much nothing about these statements is correct...

First, you don't need an infinite or empty spaces for this to happen. You just need... well, somewhat technical things, but let's just say you need a space where the tunneling probability is nonzero.

Second, when the tunneling happens, an infinite amount of energy is not released, it's definitely a finite amount. It might be big, but not infinite.

Third, the tunneling process, from the point of view of the semiclassical observer, *is* singular. Someone in that universe does see a "big bang" starting from a singularity.

Although I will say most of the popular explanations of this aren't very good, so it's easy to be confused about it. And it's a fairly technical topic, too, so a casual understanding of it isn't really enough to know anything about it.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


Don't mistake my narrowed scenario for confusion. I know that an infinite space is not needed. By "would be needed," I meant as one of a couple possibilities, not the only possibility.

If the space is infinite, then the vacuum energy released would be infinite, given a uniform collapse. If the space is finite, then the energy is finite.

My scenario was one of several...it just happens to be the one I prefer.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
Don't mistake my narrowed scenario for confusion.


I'm not "mistaking" it, I'm "understanding" it because the things you are claiming are flat out false. Not oversimplifications: false--misunderstandings--fallacies--incorrectnesses!



I know that an infinite space is not needed. By "would be needed," I meant as one of a couple possibilities, not the only possibility.


It has absolutely nothing to do with it. It is totally unrelated in every way. Nothing in the discussion being infinite ever has anything to do with anything.



If the space is infinite, then the vacuum energy released would be infinite, given a uniform collapse. If the space is finite, then the energy is finite.


No, nothing is ever infinite here. An infinite amount of space collapsing is impossible, the probability of that happening is exactly zero! An infinitesimal amount of space collapses. This is a phase transition, it proceeds via a nucleation site forming and a region of space becoming causally disconnected from the rest of space. No infinities.



My scenario was one of several...it just happens to be the one I prefer.


There are no "several" possibilities, there is one description. And you are definitely not allowed to "prefer" any one over others even if there were, because that's not how science works.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by CLPrime
 


okokok,.,..,., say you were god,,, the creator of this exact universe..,.,,.,,. say you and I hovered above ( ?) before the big bang.,.,,..,.,,.,. how would you set up the conditions in order for the big bang to occur and eventually form the universe we exist in today? and describe a little the process of expanding space and what it would be or how it would work, and prior to the big bang what would exist,, what the initial matter would exist in... and how the bang would begin/occur..
edit on 11-7-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


Imagining yourself outside of space and time is meaningless and/or impossible. I don't know "what the initial matter would exist in" or what that means, but it's not necessary to describe how our universe is currently behaving. I don't know how or why a big bang would begin or occur.

We can say that the universe used to be small and dense and hot, and it expanded to look as it does today.

How does space expand? The short answer is that space will expand, contract, bend etc. depending on what its matter and energy content is. It's actually unavoidable. We know that it happens because we can see gravitational lensing, or frame dragging. Since our universe contains stuff, that stuff must be affecting the shape and metric of space. It happens to be expanding.

edit: your post reveals the confusion caused by trying to imagine "what's outside" of space and time. You write about a god above (?) the site of the big bang- but "above" is a spatial term. In trying to imagine it, you've reintroduced space.
edit on 11-7-2012 by wirehead because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


That would be dilation. It's all metric expansion (dilation).


Thanks, but pardon my impertinance.
Now would you be able to quantify, based on the best known instantaneous
value of this rate of expansion, the Time Dilation and Acheived Acceln due to Anti Gravity?
Further hypothetically, what would happen to say a Ton of mass were it dropped in this space,
being fully aware that EM itself would have to be superluminal in this gobbledegoogy space?



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


There are several inflation models, so, yes, I am able to pick one that I prefer...until we gain a better understanding (in which case, it may even happen that all inflation models are rejected...however unlikely that may be).

Your infinitesimal instanton is an interesting idea. As is your objection to the infinite result of the nucleation of this instanton. Hawking would disagree with you, of course.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


I have no idea what you're asking.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
Cosmological scale discoveries that add vague credence to the possibility that the 96% of the universe we simply have to assume is there for the Big Bang theory to work somehow tell us something of any significance to the universe at large is not direct evidence! It's dark matter on top of fudge factors on top of epicycles; and all predicated on extraneous extrapolation of perturbation theory based inferred mass + gravity of solar system bodies applied to the universe; as if the immensity of the universe is impervious to our solar system bound gravitational sample bias.


So, explain how else stellar life cycle (balance of gravity vs pressure from nuclear reactions) and galactic dynamics appear to be the same everywhere in the Universe through a telescope.

In everything that we've seen the laws of physics are the same here, as there. This "extraneous extrapolation" works damned well, does it not? General relativity was predicted and confirmed in the solar system and then we observe gravitational lensing behaving at a titanic scale as the Einstein equation predicts. Similarly with the decay from rapidly rotating pulsars. Another damn impressive extrapolation of quantum mechanics and relativity.


The universe does not seem to care about our myopic solar system bias.
edit on 11-7-2012 by ZeuZZ because: (no reason given)


What exactly is this bias? If we didn't have this supposed bias, what would be better explanations?



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Moduli
 


There are several inflation models, so, yes, I am able to pick one that I prefer...until we gain a better understanding (in which case, it may even happen that all inflation models are rejected...however unlikely that may be).

Your infinitesimal instanton is an interesting idea. As is your objection to the infinite result of the nucleation of this instanton. Hawking would disagree with you, of course.


In other words you're using one of those models that you made up and has nothing to do with real science, because it's nonsense.

Hawking, by the way, agrees with me based on the fact that he actually understands physics, and according to every single paper on the topic he's ever published. Hawking and I are not the ones who misunderstand vacuum decay, oddly enough. Not a surprise, though, since it's been understood since the '60s... You can find this stuff in undergraduate textbooks now, it's not even that difficult!





top topics
 
7
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join