What are the Limitations of the Universe beginning with the Big Bang ?

The creative event known as the big bang came from/comes from that which we consider to be quantum infinite potential or quantum foam.

This infinite quantum soup is percieved by us as the big bang. Superposition tells us the big bang is not limited by space or time.

According to our measurement of the big bang it contained all the energy and space time within it in its inception and started off the size of a single particle and over time it has grown to the universe we know today.

These same quantum fields of energy permeate every atom. Some call it zero point others vacume energy some call it dark energy some say dark matter. Reguardless the universe is infinite energy everywhere all the time.

Perception of the universe makes it what it is, however it is still infinite. Superposition tells us this.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
So, for example, the space between this galaxy and the next closest, is not expanding, because it is not free of masses. But the space between superclusters of galaxies, as well as places like the Bootes Void, are expanding. The reason is thought to be that some facet of what dark energy is, prevents it from acting on areas of space which contain masses.

Is the Bootes void expanding at the same rate as the space between superclusters?
I've always considered that the best potential spot for aliens, it would be nice to be able to easily dismiss that idea.

watching golf this weekend.

Sa reply to: DEPAOR

Yes, I think that explains it.

If you want to get astronomy which goes waaaay beyond your mainstream knowledge, just follow this link.

I always thought that I knew "a bit" about astronomy, but as it is with a proud owner of really only a smattering amount of knowledge, this comes to light in the face of pure, true science. I am looking at you, Stephen W. Hawking, with the due respect.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Simply put, I am not sure, because the stuff I have read on the matter does not make clear how EXACTLY the difference in distribution of matter/mass, actually effects whether or not space time in a given locality is expanding.

However, if I had to guess, or make an assumption, I would assume that the Bootes void, which arguably contains less matter, less mass than the spaces between superclusters does, is probably expanding faster, since it would only be logical to assume that the less mass there is in a given region, the more dark energy can act upon it to expand the region in question.

Now, with regard to your considering the Bootes Void the best spot for aliens... I cannot agree in the slightest. There are several reasons for this, and although listing them and going on a tangent about each one would be fun, it would be somewhat off topic, so let me simply say this:

As far as I can make out, the best places to look for life other than our own in the universe, are going to be places that are busy with activity, teeming with galaxies, stars, planets. A void like Bootes was never a good bet, and its even less of a good bet now than it ever was, given what we are learning just now about expansion. The life that was bought forth here on Earth required input from the hearts of stars distant from here, the percentile chance of which, given the distances involved, were never particularly high to begin with, and we are in one of the busier lanes of interstellar activity. It would become statistically laughable to expect life to have come about somewhere less busy, with regard to star birth, the presence of galaxies and so forth.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
If you want to get astronomy which goes waaaay beyond your mainstream knowledge, just follow this link.

I always thought that I knew "a bit" about astronomy, but as it is with a proud owner of really only a smattering amount of knowledge, this comes to light in the face of pure, true science. I am looking at you, Stephen W. Hawking, with the due respect.

Is the subject Astronomy or Physics ?
Methinks physics of the universe

First of all, I do not believe in the big bang, I believe the universe is just growing at a variable rate. Like a leave growing on a tree, it's energy barrier would keep anyone from seeing elsewhere outside the energy field..so we would not see other leaves. It is probably not a leaf, it just could be something like a sheet of ice forming. All things can have that energy barrier though.

I mean, there is a one in a million chance that the Big Bang theory could be right, but there are a lot of other theories out there that could also be right too. I think there are way better chances of there being a being referred to as god than there being a big bang that created this universe. There is no way in hell we could determine what created the universe from this point in space, the big bang theory is just someone's guess. You can structure research to verify anything you want.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
It would become statistically laughable to expect life to have come about somewhere less busy, with regard to star birth, the presence of galaxies and so forth.

True, but that's assuming we are seeing nothing because nothing is there. (A wise assumption)

There's always the chance it's a galactic empire that's really bad at hide and seek.

originally posted by: Lagomorphe

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Lagomorphe
The BIG fart came out of someone’s anal sphincter.

The quetstion is simple...

Where did this sphincter come from?

The sphincter has always existed

The fart is eternal

If the fart is eternal please explain from which eternal entity it was emitted please?

There never was an entity, the universe has always...just been. The fart was always there, nothing created it, nothing influenced it (other than physics as we know), it just always has been there. Like I said in my first post, we cannot grasp the concept of infinite because we only understand beginnings and ends. There doesn't have to be a beginning, and there doesn't have to be an end, our concept need not apply here.

It was there before us, it will be there after us, and we will never know why.

a reply to: Gothmog

Is the subject Astronomy or Physics ? Methinks physics of the universe

Still, astronomical observation is important.

What would we know about the Universe without Astronomy?

originally posted by: Vector99
It was there before us, it will be there after us, and we will never know why.

We will never know why because we can't know what was before us and we can't know what's after us.

The fact that we actually know that is astonishing.

originally posted by: Maverick7
If you check out Newcomb's Paradox you will get a better grasp on the problem.

Essentially things outside of our sphere or realm are not knowable. The origin of the Big Bank may, indeed, have an 'explanation' (the one I like best is Brane Theory, or the release of energy when two Branes touched (Brane is short for Membrane).)

But the terminology for the 'explanation' would include things, concepts and words which we do not have the capability to understand. Just as a 'flat worlder' can never know what 'UP' means, so it is with concepts outside one's realm.

HTH.

There is also a Theory that as one question is answered , the next is exponentially more difficult. The end game is that at least the last question will never be answered . Ever.

a reply to: rickymouse

What Is The Evidence For The Big Bang?



Scientists Claim Proof Of Big Bang

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: rickymouse

What Is The Evidence For The Big Bang?

Scientists Claim Proof Of Big Bang

If you get a bunch of scientists out there pushing the Big Bang theory, then they will find evidence to support their theory, evidence that can also support other theories people can dream up. Consensus of the day is the Big Bang theory is real, that does not mean it is real, it only means it is accepted by a lot of parrrots who aren't intelligent enough to understand there could be a more accurate theory of how things started. Putting an age on the universe is also not legit, we do not have enough knowledge to put a date on it. Things are connected throughout the universe, almost instantaniously some times. No speed of light limitations. Now that has already been discovered by einstein and is accepted but the reason is not known how it occurs. This connection, way faster than the speed of light is what makes some think we can open worm holes. The lines of connection between the earth and the sun are also faster than the speed of light. Until this was realized scientists were saying that effects on the earth from solar activity were just coincidences. Those lines of connection alone would mean that predictions of the universe's age and creation could be askew. Then Dark matter has to be considered, that does not actually fit into the Big bang theory anywhere correctly.

I am not saying that the big bang theory is wrong, only that we as of yet do not have the ability to say it is correct. But humans are gullible, they want to believe in science but do not understand that when something is accepted by science, it only means that a bunch of scientists believe it is real. There are a lot of scientists that feel the same way as I do, The first video you posted just says a lot of astrologists believe it is true, that does not mean it is true. I will not accept something like their opinions with evidence to prove it that excludes anything that contradicts it. I am fine with believing that we do not yet know how the universe was formed. I also think at this time, all of the testing done to prove the big bang theory just pays the salaries of people who investigate it. These people want us to keep giving them money, they will deny the validity of anything that contradicts their beliefs and statements at risk of loosing face and financing.

originally posted by: AlienView
First, maybe there is a multiverse, so this question only applies to this particular universe here that i assume you are part of.

From what I've read no one knows exactly how or why the Big Bang occurred, how much energy was released, when it occurred,
as our current measurement of time begins with it
and what are its limits, if any.

They say that current measurements of the ever expanding universe show that it is not only not slowing down
- But in fact [supposedly] is speeding up. The threat then might be that it expands too much and........

But what started to occur to me is that without knowing for sure how much energy was unleashed in the beginning - There might
be limitations to it - Can it reach an omega end point and then stop ?

And if the Universe were to reach this end point - then what?

If the driving force generating the initial and continuing expansion were to reach an omega point
- then what would happen ?

Is it possible the Universe would then collapse and implode, possibly folding into a huge Black Hole ?

I'm unsure about the multi-verse theory, It's hard enough trying to comprehend the scale of our own universe but I think if there were to be multiple universes, they would likely be a copy of our own once the energy is entirely spent and all matter collapses in on itself to form something colossal enough to create a universe.

We have absolutely no way of knowing that there is another universe connected to ours and I don't think we will ever find out. I am hopeful that the James Webb telescope expands our view of the observable universe but even the telescope won't prove the multiverse theory is right.

You can never be certain that the big bang occurred the way it did, I think the universe has always been around.
I am convinced that life also continues after death, in the form of another body, just the same as the universe should.

a reply to: AlienView

The Friedman equations should answer you question - the article below describes his work in the 1920's.

The Most Important Equation in the Universe
www.forbes.com...

What's remarkable is that Friedmann put this out before we discovered that the Universe was expanding; before Hubble even discovered that there were galaxies beyond the Milky Way in the Universe! It wouldn't be until the next year that Hubble would identify Cepheid variable stars in Andromeda, teaching us its distance and placing it far outside of our own galaxy. Furthermore, it wouldn't be until the late 1920s that Georges Lemaître and later, independently, Hubble, would put the redshift-and-distance figures together to conclude that the Universe was expanding. By that time, the young Friedmann had already tragically died of typhoid fever,

Some other beings are currently looking through a microscope and analyzing our star and amazed at how much empty space there is inside the atom they're analyzing.

I think it's impossible for exactly similar events - down to subatomic levels - to be duplicated. For instance, considering all the time and energy and events that had to happen in the universe for the Earth to come about, I don't think it's possible for all that stuff to happen again to create not just another Earth-like planet, but the actual, same and exact planet Earth. And I think that applies whether you're going micro or macro. There's never an exact duplication.

a reply to: rickymouse

5 Major Problems With The Big Bang Theory | Answers With Joe




What’s Wrong With the Big Bang Theory? | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios








“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”
― Max Planck, Where is Science Going?