Register to reply

Non-ballistic big bang and expansion not from a center

by chaszz
Tags: bang, expansion, nonballistic
Share this thread:
G. E. Hunter
#37
Nov18-11, 02:43 PM
P: 10
Quote Quote by phinds View Post
G.E.Hunter,

You have clearly misunderstood the baloon analogy and it has been explained many times on this forum, so do a forum search if you want to understand it.

There is no edge to the universe and there is no center.

your posts are, from the point of view of modern science, utter nonsense and you would do well to learn some basics before making such statements.
Thank you. Good to hear you know everything. I'll keep that in mind.
cephron
#38
Nov18-11, 04:11 PM
P: 125
Hey G.E.Hunter, instead of taking phind's words as gospel truth, why not read the FAQ and see for yourself what the current model of the universe is?

http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=206

It sure helps me out a lot.
pmghss
#39
Nov18-11, 05:32 PM
P: 17
Our universe is contained within an infinite area.
phinds
#40
Nov18-11, 06:13 PM
PF Gold
phinds's Avatar
P: 6,326
Quote Quote by pmghss View Post
Our universe is contained within an infinite area.
You really should not make an unspportable claim of personal opinion as though it is a fact. If you have evidence that what you say it true, I'd be very interested in seeing it and in fact, I suspect that the Nobel Prize Committee would too.
juanrga
#41
Nov19-11, 12:35 PM
P: 476
Quote Quote by chaszz View Post
Thanks. It's an interesting explanation. And another example that at both very small and very large scales, common sense cannot wrap itself around or sometimes cannot even approach what is being discussed. At this rate within fifty years no one will understand physics on any rational level at all except physicists. Possibly we are there already. As someone without training or math aptitude, I have lived for many years via popularizations. Many times now I can't even understand the popularizations anymore.
I believed that «common sense» do not play any role in physics since Galileo epoch or so... but was substituted by scientific method.

About popularizations of science, I am sorry to say this but almost all of them are wrong.
Imax
#42
Nov19-11, 10:54 PM
P: 186
Quote Quote by chaszz View Post
In a recent thread, it is stated that the universe did not start its expansion in a ballistic type event, and it did not expand from a center.
The BB can’t be ballistic. The Universe can’t expand from a single point, a BB singularity, and be homogenous and isotropic.
ThomasT
#43
Nov20-11, 02:18 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by G. E. Hunter View Post
A balloon squished to a single point, suddenly expands in all directions. The surface of the balloon is the outer edges of the universe- if there is such a thing, and the internal contents is the universe. So we can find a center of the universe if we can find it's finite edges, then calculate the diameter assuming it's a circular expanse, then use half that to approximate the center of the universe. But the point of the 'big bang' was the outer edges of the universe all at one center. That should be easy to understand.
Afaik, the 'big bang' refers to a point of no particular size/extent but of calculable temporal separation from the current, observable, universal epoch. There appears to be a discernible very large scale structure wrt the currently visible universe. And I wouldn't call that structure itself either homogeneous or isotropic. But it does seem to be a consequence of particular fundamental wave dynamics, IMHO.
ThomasT
#44
Nov20-11, 02:23 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by Imax View Post
The BB can’t be ballistic. The Universe can’t expand from a single point, a BB singularity, and be homogenous and isotropic.
First, there's no particular reason to assume that our universe has expanded from 'a single point'. Second, our universe isn't necessarily altogether homogeneous and isotropic. There's what we can see and map. Which suggests fundamental dynamics. But there's no way of knowing if our universe is or isn't part of some preexisting, perhaps infinite, medium.

To elaborate, lawful wave dynamical evolution in an isotropic medium suggests observational isotropy, which is more or less what's observed -- wrt cmb anyway.

And insofar as this is a characteristic of all explosive/ballistic events, the origin of our universe could be ballistic/explosive. We just have no way of knowing, afaik.
ThomasT
#45
Nov20-11, 02:30 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by juanrga View Post
I believed that «common sense» do not play any role in physics since Galileo epoch or so... but was substituted by scientific method.
I think you might be quite wrong about that. Study the development of the quantum theory. There's more 'common sense' classical reasoning involved in it than you might suspect. Anyway, ordinary categorical deductive logic/inference, as well as inductive inference are both part of the scientific method.
juanrga
#46
Nov21-11, 04:07 AM
P: 476
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
I think you might be quite wrong about that. Study the development of the quantum theory. There's more 'common sense' classical reasoning involved in it than you might suspect. Anyway, ordinary categorical deductive logic/inference, as well as inductive inference are both part of the scientific method.
It is just as I said. Quantum mechanics was developed following the scientific method, not using an ill-defined «common sense». The bibliography about the impact of quantum mechanics on people (and their «common sense») is very vast.
pmghss
#47
Nov21-11, 11:59 AM
P: 17
Quote Quote by phinds View Post
You really should not make an unspportable claim of personal opinion as though it is a fact. If you have evidence that what you say it true, I'd be very interested in seeing it and in fact, I suspect that the Nobel Prize Committee would too.
It is simple. Either this universe is itself the infinite area, or it may be just a glob of matter contained in an infinite area.

I use my own quote. Outside does not stop.
phinds
#48
Nov21-11, 03:37 PM
PF Gold
phinds's Avatar
P: 6,326
Quote Quote by pmghss View Post
It is simple. Either this universe is itself the infinite area, or it may be just a glob of matter contained in an infinite area.

I use my own quote. Outside does not stop.
You really should read some basic cosmology. As for posting this stuff, you should stop while you are behind (that is, before you get further behind).
ThomasT
#49
Nov23-11, 12:07 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by pmghss View Post
Either this universe is itself the infinite area, or it may be just a glob of matter contained in an infinite area.
From what knowledgeable posters here have said, and from what I've read, either of these do seem to be possible, as there doesn't currently seem to be any definitive reason(ing) for favoring one scenario over the other.

However, I take it that you favor the view that our universe is finite, which I do also. And this view seems to me to suggest that our universe is part of a preexisting medium ... which might also be a finite 'disturbance' in a still larger preexisting medium, or itself infinite, and so on.

The hook for me is the apparent expansion of our universe. That is, why would there be apparent expansion in an infinite universe? Why would observable matter be getting farther apart on very large scales in an infinite universe?

Note: Following my viewing of some computer simulations which extend what's known of the very large scale structure of our universe, I might have to revise my opinion, as stated in post #43, that the very large scale structure (that is, the stellar distribution) of our universe doesn't seem to be particularly isotropic or homogeneous. I was basing this on my limited knowledge of some apparently anomalous and vast 'wall' structures, and the irregularly organized (to me at the time anyway) filament-like structures of galaxies and galactic groups revealed by surveys. But maybe I just wasn't thinking big enough. The computer simulation suggests a fairly even distribution of the filament-like structure wrt its very very large scale view of our universe. Sort of like the cross section of a sponge. But then I got to thinking that maybe the simulation isn't 'thinking' big enough. If the simulation is based on some 'fractalization' assumptions (is it? ... I have no idea), then is it possible that a still much larger view will reveal the wall structure anomalies that are evident from observations ... and so on?

Wrt this, one thing that came to mind was that the filament-like structure suggests regions of constructive and destructive wave interference. Is this an acceptable/possible inference from the data?
pmghss
#50
Dec7-11, 06:06 AM
P: 17
Quote Quote by phinds View Post
You really should read some basic cosmology. As for posting this stuff, you should stop while you are behind (that is, before you get further behind).
I have studied basic cosmology and the standard model. That's why I choose to use common sense instead.

Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
From what knowledgeable posters here have said, and from what I've read, either of these do seem to be possible, as there doesn't currently seem to be any definitive reason(ing) for favoring one scenario over the other.

However, I take it that you favor the view that our universe is finite, which I do also. And this view seems to me to suggest that our universe is part of a preexisting medium ... which might also be a finite 'disturbance' in a still larger preexisting medium, or itself infinite, and so on.
...
I'm not sure about what is defined as a "finite" universe. What I was hinting at was that our "universe" might be blob of matter, similar to solar systems or galaxies, floating around other blobs of matter. This could possibly explain dark energy.

Picture a blob of matter a billions of times more massive than our universe. And this blob passes close to our blob (universe). The immense amount of gravity/dark energy (take your pick) could cause our blob to distort, stretch, bend, or any other number of contortions. From our view we could be seeing this event and explaining it as the "everything accelerating away" theory.
phinds
#51
Dec7-11, 06:27 AM
PF Gold
phinds's Avatar
P: 6,326
Quote Quote by pmghss View Post
... Picture a blob of matter a billions of times more massive than our universe. And this blob passes close to our blob (universe). The immense amount of gravity/dark energy (take your pick) could cause our blob to distort, stretch, bend, or any other number of contortions. From our view we could be seeing this event and explaining it as the "everything accelerating away" theory.
This is even MORE nonsensical. You say you have studied basic cosmology but you apparently have never heard of isotropy.
Cosmo Novice
#52
Dec7-11, 07:13 AM
P: 366
Quote Quote by pmghss View Post
I'm not sure about what is defined as a "finite" universe. What I was hinting at was that our "universe" might be blob of matter, similar to solar systems or galaxies, floating around other blobs of matter. This could possibly explain dark energy.
This is complete rubbish and does not fit with ANY current observations. It would require mass that was not part of our Universe and I am not sure how this is "common sense"


Quote Quote by pmghss View Post
Picture a blob of matter a billions of times more massive than our universe. And this blob passes close to our blob (universe). The immense amount of gravity/dark energy (take your pick) could cause our blob to distort, stretch, bend, or any other number of contortions. From our view we could be seeing this event and explaining it as the "everything accelerating away" theory.
As phinds has stated this would completely disgree with the cosmological principle of homogeneity. In fact the whole idea of "matter thats is not part of our Universe" is ridiculous. The Universe = the totality of everything, a unified spacetime in which all bosons/fermions exist and I think talking about "outside" is pointless.
pmghss
#53
Jan16-12, 07:46 PM
P: 17
Quote Quote by Cosmo Novice View Post
This is complete rubbish and does not fit with ANY current observations. It would require mass that was not part of our Universe and I am not sure how this is "common sense"

As phinds has stated this would completely disgree with the cosmological principle of homogeneity. In fact the whole idea of "matter thats is not part of our Universe" is ridiculous. The Universe = the totality of everything, a unified spacetime in which all bosons/fermions exist and I think talking about "outside" is pointless.
One of the points I was trying to make is that "outside" is infinite, and what we call "universe" may just be a blob of matter floating around other blobs of matter.
I am not meaning a multi-verse, in which each "universe" is separate and travel to and from each one is impossible.

Oh, and apparently I am not the only one who has these so called "rubbish" theories. Have a look at the episode of "The Universe: God and the Universe", and start around 09:50.
phinds
#54
Jan16-12, 09:07 PM
PF Gold
phinds's Avatar
P: 6,326
Quote Quote by pmghss View Post
One of the points I was trying to make is that "outside" is infinite, and what we call "universe" may just be a blob of matter floating around other blobs of matter.

Which is exactly what is nonsensical, by definition. "Universe" is by definition, all there is. There IS no outside.

Oh, and apparently I am not the only one who has these so called "rubbish" theories. Have a look at the episode of "The Universe: God and the Universe", and start around 09:50.
Uh ... dude, if you plan on learning physics from sensationalized popularizations of fanciful theories, then I can only say good luck with that.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Where did the Big Bang happen? Would that be the center of the universe? Cosmology FAQ 0
Big Bang With No Center Fallacy? Astronomy & Astrophysics 5
Please explain the Big Bang and universal expansion... Cosmology 7
Big Bang - No Single point of Expansion Cosmology 67