It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Big Bang - Where's the hole?

page: 21
7
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 09:31 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

I have no idea what you're asking.

To simplify my queries.I am looking for approx numerical values from any posters here really.
What is the rate of expansion?
How much is the time dilation?
How much is the resulting prevailing gravitational accln? or at what rate it is reducing.
What would happen to a mass of 1 ton were it somehow dropped in the middle of this expanding space?

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 09:44 PM

Originally posted by Moduli

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.

Except (for example) the paper he published with Neil Turok way back in '98 describing an infinite universe emerging from nucleation.

Chaotic inflation also involves infinite spacetime (not to mention infinite universes).

It's not as if an infinite space is unheard of in cosmology.

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 09:52 PM

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

What is the rate of expansion?

The Hubble "constant" is 71 (km/s)/Mpc. For every megaparsec away, the observed redshift corresponds to a relative velocity of 71 km/s.

How much is the time dilation?

That, I don't know.

How much is the resulting prevailing gravitational accln? or at what rate it is reducing.

What prevailing gravitational acceleration?

What would happen to a mass of 1 ton were it somehow dropped in the middle of this expanding space?

There's all kinds of matter in this expanding space. You are matter in expanding space. Gravitationally (or otherwise) bound objects/systems are not affected by expansion.

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 11:09 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by Moduli

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.

Except (for example) the paper he published with Neil Turok way back in '98 describing an infinite universe emerging from nucleation.

Chaotic inflation also involves infinite spacetime (not to mention infinite universes).

It's not as if an infinite space is unheard of in cosmology.

This is the opposite of what is described in these theories. It is absolutely bizarre to me how you do not understand how the word nucleation has nothing to do with anything being infinite. Do you think the description of nucleation of bubbles in a can of soda requires anything to be infinite? The word "infinity" used in these models has nothing do to with the physics whatsoever.

The only things "infinite" in any mode like this are, e.g., curvature singularities or proper times / incomplete geodesics, which are what describe regions being causally disconnected. Any other infinities that show up are entirely inessential, and are there because someone decided they would be convenient.

Insisting that infinities are important here is like insisting that in order for something to be math it must be done in black text, because that's what you saw in this paper this one time--comically missing the point!

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:33 AM

From wikipedia:

Within the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) model, the presently most popular shape of the Universe found to fit observational data according to cosmologists is the infinite flat model

en.wikipedia.org...

Is it wrong?

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 08:09 AM

And yet you seem to not be able to grasp the fact that the "bubble" created by the nucleation of the vacuum collapse, according to multiple theories (not the least of which is the Hawking-Turok Instanton model), becomes an infinite universe. The Hawking-Turok model gives an open infinite universe, while current observation (as Maslo points out above) indicates a flat infinite universe, but we're not discussing open vs closed vs flat geometry...the fact that you're rejecting an infinite space is contradicted by both theory and observation.

And, by the way...I didn't say that the "bubble" formed by nucleation has to be infinite. I'm obviously stating it as a possibility. A possibility that I happen to prefer.
edit on 13-7-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 09:45 AM

Originally posted by CLPrime

The Hubble "constant" is 71 (km/s)/Mpc. For every megaparsec away, the observed redshift corresponds to a relative velocity of 71 km/s.

Observed redshift would imply, that the galaxies have actually moved away from each other, since only space expanding with the corresp. time dilation, light itself will spped up to compensate for the time dilation and hence there should not be any observed redshift.

There's all kinds of matter in this expanding space. You are matter in expanding space. Gravitationally (or otherwise) bound objects/systems are not affected by expansion.

Actually not, our local space is not expanding.

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Observed redshift would imply, that the galaxies have actually moved away from each other, since only space expanding with the corresp. time dilation, light itself will spped up to compensate for the time dilation and hence there should not be any observed redshift.

If that were true, then GR would also fail to model gravity, as gravity in GR is just expansion reversed and localized.
Light will not speed up to compensate for time dilation. Time dilation, in its simplest form, is caused by the fact that the speed of light must be constant. Light follows the curvature of spacetime, it doesn't get sped up or slowed down by it.

There's all kinds of matter in this expanding space. You are matter in expanding space. Gravitationally (or otherwise) bound objects/systems are not affected by expansion.

Actually not, our local space is not expanding.

I know, and I told you why (you even quoted it). That was the whole point of my answer.
edit on 13-7-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 12:02 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime

If that were true, then GR would also fail to model gravity, as gravity in GR is just expansion reversed and localized.
Light will not speed up to compensate for time dilation. Time dilation, in its simplest form, is caused by the fact that the speed of light must be constant. Light follows the curvature of spacetime, it doesn't get sped up or slowed down by it.

I do nt subscribe to GR in any way shape or form. Gravity is a function of time alone and not bending of space.
Stiffness of space is enormous and it does not bend. Higher the gravity, faster is the time.
So according to you somehow the time knows that spped of light should be kept constant. By what
means or mechanism would time gain this intelligence

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

I do nt subscribe to GR in any way shape or form.

I know you don't. Fortunately, it takes more than one random guy on the internet to formulate, test, and validate any given hypothesis. It also takes more than some guy with a tomato and some strange quantum pH physics to overturn a theory that has been thoroughly tested and validated.

So according to you somehow the time knows that spped of light should be kept constant. By what
means or mechanism would time gain this intelligence

In accordance with Maxwell's equations, the speed of propagation of the EM wave must always be exactly equal to c according to any and all reference frames. The spacetime manifold is curved by the presence of mass-energy to ensure this. I believe we call that a LAW -- in this case, the law of gravitation embodied by the stress-energy tensor and Einstein's field equations. Every fundamental law of physics is intrinsic...it doesn't make anything intelligent.

edit on 13-7-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 06:49 AM

Originally posted by CLPrime
Every fundamental law of physics is intrinsic...it doesn't make anything intelligent.
All fundamental laws of physics are man made laws, limited to mans understanding.
So what according to you would constitute, the breaking of the law of gravitation?
or even what would constitute super luminality in any refrence plane known to man.

posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 12:53 PM
since you guys brought up the speed of light,,, i figured ill post this to see if CLprime can help me understand,,,,,, I was chatting with this guy about the higgs boson and he said this,..,.,,.,.,,

"Einstein never﻿ intended his theory to fix the speed of light as a constant truth. It's a relative theory. The speed of light is only a relative plane. The A1 particle, or Higgs boson, travels at the speed of light to the 100th degree (i.e., exponentially). Once we can detect that speed, another relative truth will emerge to give us much greater idea about the universe"

what does he mean the higgs boson travels at the speed of light to the 100th degree,, i thought nothing travels as fast as light?

posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 01:41 PM

If only space is expanding with time dilation, the c has to exceed c.
Dunno about higgs boson, if it exists at all, travelling exponentially to c.
But I'll lurk in the shadows and watch you guys battle it out on c.
, though prime has his own views about it.

posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 02:17 PM
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

ok so you mean,,, c is traveling at the speed of light, plus the speed of expansion of space there fore in total c is traveling faster then the constant speed of light..

posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 12:01 AM

For understanding, you could look at it that way.
However in simplistic terms the actual instantaneous value of c is given by d/t.
Lets say 1 hour has passed in our ref frame and only 1/2 hour has passed
in the expanding space. Our galaxy is approx 33000 parsecs and lets say the expanding space
is 3 megaparsecs. Then put the instaneous vaules of d and t,
the result will be greater than c.

edit on 15-7-2012 by Angelic Resurrection because: typo

posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 04:11 AM

Thank you sir, i never fully understood that. Like many above i just could not accept the idea that something coming from one singular point does not have a central origin.

Never looked at it from that angle.
'There will be no point of origin because every single particle around us already is part of that ever expending single point of origin.'

Funny, i understand it, but my mind is still trying to find that single point. If you look at our universe from a large distance (bare with me here) and turn back time, you will see the expansion in reverse and the universe will come back to a single point of energy... THAT point does have a location in our universe. Our universe may have become bigger and shifted position.. but the location of that point still exist.. It all depends, if you have a reference point to something to give it a location in the first place.. am i making any sense here?

Back to scanning comments.. still 5 pages to go (*make that 18)
keep it up, very interesting reading material.
edit on 1-8-2012 by Dimens because: uuhm some dumb reason

posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 05:07 AM

Originally posted by Dimens

Thank you sir, i never fully understood that. Like many above i just could not accept the idea that something coming from one singular point does not have a central origin.

Never looked at it from that angle.
'There will be no point of origin because every single particle around us already is part of that ever expending single point of origin.'

Funny, i understand it, but my mind is still trying to find that single point. If you look at our universe from a large distance (bare with me here) and turn back time, you will see the expansion in reverse and the universe will come back to a single point of energy... THAT point does have a location in our universe. Our universe may have become bigger and shifted position.. but the location of that point still exist.. It all depends, if you have a reference point to something to give it a location in the first place.. am i making any sense here?

Back to scanning comments.. still 5 pages to go (*make that 18)
keep it up, very interesting reading material.
edit on 1-8-2012 by Dimens because: uuhm some dumb reason

I have to ask the question as to why space is expanding, you can just create more space between objects unless those object are getting smaller and thus would appear to be reseeding away from each other expanding the space between them
That would make the matter or energy that composes their structure is slowly shrinking away

That's when you look at the everything in the visible universe and try and grasp how it all functions off the principle of conservation of energy
only the gravitational force is a minimum constant in its effect on matter explaining galactic rotational problems on the otherside of its effect the force becomes greater then all the other forces creating a blackhole
across the universe it always is constantly forcing matter down into Itself

all other forces electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear are just the most effective way to conserve the energy present in the form of mass within all viable stuctures creating the diversity of partials atoms molecules elements planets stars galaxies and more for the longest possible amount of time that can be acheaved

It's like the universe has been in rewind since the the big bang

posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 05:23 AM
i tend to look at pocorn kernels as the most likely shape or structure of the macro Universe

especially the odd kernals that have see-through holes in them

how do i account for no vast void seen in our observable universe...
well that can be answered by the fact that our observable cosmos is only 14.5 billion light years large in any direction,.... the theoretical 'hole' may be 20 billion LY (light years) distant and thereby unseen
~OR~
the hole does not exist in our dimension of matter cluttered time-space... but the hole may exist in the other minimum of 9 dimensions

just a pausable thought
edit on 1-8-2012 by St Udio because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 05:50 AM

Originally posted by Dimens

Thank you sir, i never fully understood that. Like many above i just could not accept the idea that something coming from one singular point does not have a central origin.

Never looked at it from that angle.
'There will be no point of origin because every single particle around us already is part of that ever expending single point of origin.'

Funny, i understand it, but my mind is still trying to find that single point. If you look at our universe from a large distance (bare with me here) and turn back time, you will see the expansion in reverse and the universe will come back to a single point of energy... THAT point does have a location in our universe. Our universe may have become bigger and shifted position.. but the location of that point still exist.. It all depends, if you have a reference point to something to give it a location in the first place.. am i making any sense here?

Back to scanning comments.. still 5 pages to go (*make that 18)
keep it up, very interesting reading material.

I think my original line that you quoted was slightly off now that I look at it again (my fault), it should have read, "There will be no point of origin because every single particle and point of space around us already is part of that ever expending single point of origin."

Get the difference. There is no reference point outside of the expanding Universe that one can view it from because the very structure of space itself is a part of that expansion. The space and matter were all a part of that point of origin at first. The space that our minds perceive of as emptiness/void/nothingness is actually something, it is a structure that we exist in and are a part of. Before the Big Bang, that structure wasn't there, the "emptiness/void/nothingness" didn't even exist. There is no "outside" of it that can have been viewed that everything expanded into, so there is no point that the point of origin can have moved from, and no other point it can have moved to.

Yes, it's a weird thing to wrap your head around. Took me a long time.

posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 07:05 AM

Indeed, the idea of there actually being a void of nothing before the big bang is baffling, no rules.

Still have a hard time dumping this idea, say the empty void is a big funnel.
Fill that funnel from the small side with water (our universe).
Once the funnel is full, its hard to see the spot where it all entered the funnel, but it is still there.

We are still occupying that void with our space right. But then if 1 mile in a void could also be 1000 miles it does get a bit weird, even with a external point of reference. I guess it will be impossible to have a reference point like that in a void that does not poses any physics laws or anything. Makes sense.

Originally posted by St Udio
i tend to look at pocorn kernels as the most likely shape or structure of the macro Universe

especially the odd kernals that have see-through holes in them

how do i account for no vast void seen in our observable universe...
well that can be answered by the fact that our observable cosmos is only 14.5 billion light years large in any direction,.... the theoretical 'hole' may be 20 billion LY (light years) distant and thereby unseen
~OR~
the hole does not exist in our dimension of matter cluttered time-space... but the hole may exist in the other minimum of 9 dimensions

just a pausable thought
edit on 1-8-2012 by St Udio because: (no reason given)

Your hitting a nail there i think. Our universe did expand over a period of 14.5 billion years and we have no way to determine what that void that we are part of is made of because we cannot see it.
We could be inside a snow globe for that matter an not have a clue. I hope they soon find a way to at least see if signals from outside our observable universe are reaching us, or find a way to look through that boundary to find any signs of life or structure.
Guess the hole does not exist in this dimension is hard for me to accept because we can only prove that once we prove other dimensions are real, really like that idea two, don't get me wrong.

new topics

top topics

7