If and when the "Big Bang"......

Chronos

I humbly disagree. The 'scientific community' is not blind to any possibility. The math we do know is already so complicated it takes decades to derive even the simplest solutions. To suggest they have simply missed 'simpler' alternatives appears to be ludicrous. However, don't let that stop you from exposing their incompetence.

4newton

>I humbly disagree. The 'scientific community' is not blind to any possibility.<

I have seen no sign if interest. What do you think of the concept?

>The math we do know is already so complicated it takes decades to derive even the simplest solutions.<

A clue that an idea has limited scope is if the math is too complicated or you need to use tricks to over come weakness in the math.

>To suggest they have simply missed 'simpler' alternatives appears to be ludicrous.<

It is not ludicrous.
Science has been unable to recognize simple solutions many time in the past. Does the sun go around the earth or is the earth flat?

>However, don't let that stop you from exposing their incompetence.<

I have no interest in exposing anything.

Not being able to see simple solutions is not incompetence and I do not intend to show disrespect of their skills and abilities.

It is understandable to follow a thread of an idea and to show resolve in trying to develop the idea. This requires some blindness to any idea but you own. NIH not invented here. It seem the more obscure your concept the more it is accepted. No one wants to let anyone else think that you don’t understand an idea.

What bothers me is an almost total disregard for the test of logic and the idea that if the common person can understand an idea it must be wrong. Understanding and discovery of new concepts is the result of inspiration. It is not the result of formulation.

When working on an idea everyone starts to develop tunnel vision. Did you ever try to proof read you own paper only to have someone else look at it and find the obvious errors? It is necessary to take a step back and criticize you own idea and have others look for obvious errors. That is why I am on here.

Up to this point I am disappointed. I have had no disagreement with the theories but I also have had no positive comments. I have had some good questions that have helped me better express the ideas. The problem may be that the idea is sound in logic but difficult to visualize in common experience. This is the same as trying to understand how the earth could be round from the view of the people in the dark ages.

Up to this time they have no answers to almost all the basic problems. The professional scientist is unable to see profit in these problems. If they try to develop a concept or an idea and they are proved wrong they suffer loss of stature and maybe even money. New ideas are left to people like me that care only about discovery. If I am wrong I have no problem rethinking my idea in fact I demand it of my self. It has been necessary to do so many times. I will never get recognition for any of these ideas they only go to the members of the club, which is only right. I do think however that I get more reward of discovery.
.

russ_watters

Those ideas were never part of science.

selfAdjoint

Russ? The geocentric-heliocentric controversy was never part of science? Copernicus, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Kepler, were they not scientists? For that matter weren't Aristarchus, Hipparchus and Ptolemy scientists in their day? Have you read the Almagest? There are at least two modern translations into English. Warning; it's tough.

Phobos

BBT does not speak of an outward expansion. It's more like the points in the universe are getting farther apart from each other.

There's no evidence for a higher dimension of space into which our 3D space is embedded. But your later description of this other dimension as Time sounds better.

It's the maximum rate of motion through space, not the maximum rate of the expansion of space. (e.g., the early inflationary period)

Are you referring to the Hubble Constant (our observed expansion of space) or the expansion of the hypersphere you describe away from its center?

Harveyf

My goodness, but the forum has suddenly erupted with dialectic on ideas in the expansion of space and hyperspheres. I am humbled by the profundity of thought. Then, too, I almost feel grateful that I cannot visualize the mathematical formulae as applied to the quantum physics required to dialogue on these theorum. I trust you will forgive my limited capacity for comprehending the exactitude of the science behind your ruminations, but I would appreciate continuing in this forum, if only to attempt receiving a glimpse of the far-flung territory you are covering in these debates. As the fledgling of the group, even though fast becoming a septigenarian, It has taken me up to this point in my existence to resolve the ramifications of religious exegesis injected into scientific discovery, to where I've been able to exclude such mythology from the reality of existence, and time and space. Now, I wish to enable my mind to grasp the scope of the universe about me in terms I, a most common denominator; human being, that is, can really understand. Since I am not versed in mathematical explanations, I can only hope for a dialogue replete with comprehensible visualizations. If analogy is the best I can hope for to achieve success towards this goal, I humbly ask of my peers in this forum if they can "come down to my level" in order to assist in my quest for wisdom of this knowledge you can impart. So; fellas and girls, tell me again: What, exactly do you mean a hypersphere as opposed to an "open" universe, and why, if there ever was a BB [like it appears there was], cannot the universal space accomodating it be created simultaneously? If, as you intimate, the "red shift" is indicative of material within the universe increasing its velocity away from the "core" of where a BB might have originated [for whatever reason], what might be the ultimate destiny of matter within this reality - and yes, I realize my manner of questioning appears more philosophical than scientific, but I have to believe there is a window of opportunity for both to be expressed so that even a layman like myself can appreciate the explanations on different levels for the benefit of all. Who knows; if an untested mind like mine can grasp the argument, who is to say that even this mind might not succeed in contributing something new to the equation of the why and wherefor of creation? With repsect, and in friendship.

selfAdjoint

The universe could have come into existence all at once and the size it has now, but atronomical observation from the time of Hubble in the 1920's up till now shows it is expanding, and we can project the rate of expansion back to find out when zero volume occurred. The fillip that has been added in the last few years is that the rate of expansion is increasing (shown be several lines of investigation). so of course that affects our estimate of the time since zero volume. Current estimate is 13.5 billion years.

Harveyf

Thank you, selfAdjoint. Thus; given that thirteen and a half billion years is the latest estimate for what you call, "zero volume," I take that to mean that the BB occured at that moment in time, thrusting from a seemingly central core all of the necessary ingredient material that makes up the universe as we know it. My question then, which I originally postulated was, when this material began its expansion, was the space; the "black" of it, so to speak, already existant, or was it created along with the expanding matter? To put it another way, in using the balloon analogy, the dots upon the surface of the balloon's fabric expand as air is introduced into the balloon...is the fabric itself being created as part of that expansion, or did the space [the balloon's surface or in universal terms, the "empty"] already exist, awaiting matter's introduction into it in the BB?? More importantly, am I missing some absolute in physics which makes my question moot, or am I lacking in a scientific principle which makes my analogy errant? Thanks for your patience.

RingoKid

the other thread is moderated and it wouild seem reserved for uber boffins. I didn't know that or read the instructions before posting it, seems neither did you as your post has now registered 3 times....

thanks for you reply John, I posted one back . It hasn't registered yet but it might. I would repost it but i can't remember what i posted so hopefully it'll turn up in a day or so

cheers

here is the link for anyone interested...

http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=40273

RingoKid

BTW I been posting stuff like this for a while seeking some sort of feedback...

a universe trapped between a leading edge brane and a trailing edge brane thus resembling a universe embedded in a bubble skin 13.7 billion light years thick...ie, seemingly the time it takes for a photon to travel in a straight line beteween the two branes

and if the leading edge is expanding at lightspeed faster than the trailing edge that would give you your impression of a slow moving photon or time moving faster depending on whether you were looking forward or backward, and the impression of the spacetime hypersphere expanding..ie inflation of the universe

but seeing as how we are trapped in our 3d + 1d(time) bubble universe we can never have an accurate frame of reference to measure anything

RingoKid

and think ripples in a spherical pond for a multiverse

marcus

Olias has just posted link to a new paper about cosmology
which has no formulas. It is by a good writer named Rudi Vaas.

he does Scientific-American-level articles in popular science magazines
in Germany and also some more academic technical stuff. he's good in science and a good journalist as well

this paper "Time before Time" is a little bit more academic and philosophical than Vaas's popular sci. journalism articles, but it
may nevertheless turn out to be useful.
One nice thing about it is that it is free for download

http://arxiv.org/physics/0408111

It talks about the different visions people have had about the beginnings of the universe, including the new LQG vision in which there is no big bang singularity----he gives references to Bojowald and Ashtekar papers.
(but his discussion is entirely un-mathematical)

Harveyf

Thank you, Marcus, for your consideration; from what I can see, the essay is most informative, and provides much food for thought. Thank you, again.

John

4newton was saying the universe is like a sphere with a hollow core: an expanding bubble, just like my idea. He made the point that if we could go straight back to the center, it would be a Big Fountain.

The one radian idea was murky. I didn’t bother to understand it. I did ACCEPT IT and pursued a model where light can only travel 60 degrees (or so) around the surface of the expanding bubble. It never really worked in my head, but I didn’t get uptight.

All of his other concepts seemed right on. He answered a lot of the same questions I answered, by using the same expanding shell model. First, light has to curve around the shell. The universe isn’t a solid “loaf of bread” expanding in all directions with us in the center. It just seems that way. But as he said, if it were expanding in all directions (and we weren’t in the center) there would be a preferential direction.

(Assuming we are not in the center) the only way it can appear to everyone, everywhere in the universe, that everything is expanding away from them is if they are on the surface of an expanding bubble, or inside of an expanding shell where light follows the curve of the shell.

As for red shift going to 0 at one radian: I believe light has the ability to go around and around the expanding bubble. But we see light that was given off at an earlier time, which means the bubble was smaller then, so the light has followed a spiral path to get to us. It doesn’t matter how many times it has spiraled around.

I agree with 4 newton’s approach, and agree that when we try to expose the incompetence of others, that’s not the way to discover things.

If this conversation is good, we can also answer Ringokid's questions, who has a glimpse of the same expanding sphere with a hollow core.

Chronos

The universe is not spherical. That is an urban legend. There is no observational evidence it is composed of spheres surrounded by spheres, or anything resembling that. If you boil that concept down, you end up asserting there is a preferred reference frame. That is not consistent with current theory.

John

I think this is another "the earth is flat" conflict. I can't find any reason why an expanding hollow sphere doesn't work. I just naturally came to that conclusion, and so did two other people right here. And there are no other suspicions here of what it could be, except the expanding loaf and the "Big Fountain". There has to be some reference frame. It has to have some kind of physical shape, right? What does current theory say?

The only thing I have heard is, it is kind of flat (sic), but that is also what an expanding hollow sphere would appear to be. This is very similar to the "earth is round" debates.

RingoKid

Chronos...current M theory would have universes as rippling bubbles floating and interacting in the 11th dimension

I would also have them inside each other

Imagine, if you will bubbles...
expanding as they float around
bumping into other bubbles
and inside of these bubbles
is another bubble expanding
and so on...

...and if all these bubbles
made a musical note,
as they bumped and merged
and expanded,
they created chords and melodies
and so on...

Here's something to think about assuming we are a sphere within a sphere..etc

What if the universe is expanding faster again by repulsion/attraction of a parallel universe. Does that mean another brane collision is imminent from the leading or trailing edge of our bubble skin and will it open up new dimensions or obliterate our universe ???

will we even be conscious of it if say we are transformed into a higher or lower plane existence...ie the energy powering us/our fundamental string building blocks as individuals gets reconstituted so that in the new post brane collision universe i get transmuted into a rock or an enlightened entity that no longer needs a physical presence to justify it's existence ???

reincarnation, nirvana anybody ???