Subatomic vs Gravitational forces

[zeffur7]

There is no known boundary, so I cannot assume that. At 1 billion years after the big bang where would you place your first box? Anywhere you put it will have part of the universe in it and part of it outside of it, no matter the size.

We know that space has expanded. We should then also be able to predict its expansion rate and volume at various time intervals. Place the imaginary boxes into each of those estimated volumes. Assume the boxes aren't affected by space-time because they are hypothetical frames of reference that are only to be used merely to trace the world lines of all visible objects at various positions in space at various time intervals.

As you move forwards or backwards in time (assuming you could simulate the changes just after the big bang until now), you should be able to trace the world lines or paths of all visible objects throughout all of time & space.

 

[davo789]

But we don't know the size of the universe. Back to the balloon example, imagine you're standing on one of the dots; there is a horizon of how far you can see. The same applies in this universe. There is a visual horizon, beyond which we have no idea how far the universe extends. Some theories suggest the universe is infinitely large, the consequences of which are mind-blowing! If you fill our visual universe bubble with squares, the centre of expansion will appear to be where we are, but now we're just going in circles since we know that everything is moving away from everything else.

And I'm not sure what you mean by this?

Consider the lines of the boxes as imaginary lines that are always within the dimensions of space at various times. Also consider the lines to not be affected by space-time, because they are only a hypothetical frame of reference for visible object positions at different moments in time for later use in tracing the world lines of each visible object as they have moved through space.

 

[Drakkith]

We know that space has expanded. We should then also be able to predict its expansion rate and volume at various time intervals. Place the imaginary boxes into each of those estimated volumes. Assume the boxes aren't affected by space-time because they are hypothetical frames of reference that are only to be used merely to trace the world lines of all visible objects at various positions in space at various time intervals.

As you move forwards or backwards in time (assuming you could simulate the changes just after the big bang until now), you should be able to trace the world lines or paths of all visible objects throughout all of time & space.

Ok. All this will show is that the universe expanded. Looking back you will see it shrink. Or rather you will see everything getting closer together. There still isn't a center or anything, nor is there an edge.

 

[zeffur7]

Ok. All this will show is that the universe expanded. Looking back you will see it shrink. Or rather you will see everything getting closer together. There still isn't a center or anything, nor is there an edge.

You should also be able to plot the world lines of all the visible objects as you increase or decrease time & events in time within your model. Those lines should intersect at the origin of the big bang. That location should be the location in "nothing" where it all began.

So what are the dimensions of nothing.. apparently it is large enough to contain our expanding universe. :)

 

[davo789]

I'm not sure you're really listening to us. The origin of the big bang is everywhere. As such, if you were to join everything up with lines and reverse time, they will all end up with zero length in the same place. That same place is the entirety of the universe in place with no size.

As I said in my OP, 'nothing' is nothing. There is no dimension, no nothing. It is really difficult to imagine because you are not designed to imagine it. If our universe is floating in a multi-dimensional space then you still might not necessarily be able to pinpoint the 'centre'. If the universe is infinitely large then there will be no centre in a 4th dimension. If we live in a curved universe (e.g. like the balloon model) then there might be a 'centre' of expansion in another dimension, but that really is no use to us!

You can't ask 'what are the dimensions of nothing'; If 'nothing' is nothing, then it has no dimension and therefore no size. If the outside is made up from higher-dimensions, you might be able to ask 'what are the dimensions' (perhaps it is infinitely large) but the way you worded it implies you are thinking of it as a 3D space, which is wrong. You cannot imagine 4/5/6 etc. dimensional space for the same reason that you can't imagine a zero dimensional space.

 

[Drakkith]

You should also be able to plot the world lines of all the visible objects as you increase or decrease time & events in time within your model. Those lines should intersect at the origin of the big bang. That location should be the location in "nothing" where it all began.

So what are the dimensions of nothing.. apparently it is large enough to contain our expanding universe. :)

That location is infinite in size. Which means it happened everywhere at the same time.

 

[zeffur7]

I'm not sure you're really listening to us.

I'm reading (i.e. listening) to you quite well, actually. If your premise is that our expanding universe expands into "nothing" then that 'nothing' *must* have great capacity. I don't pretend to know whether or not it has 3 or a zillion dimensions, but it must have at least 3 dimensions to contain our 3D space as our universe expands into it. I see no evidence that proves our universe is creating 'new space' as it expands. You seem to think our universe or something that propels our universe is creating the space that the visible objects in our universe are moving through, but I don't see any evidence to support that proposition.

The origin of the big bang is everywhere."

Your statement does not seem correct to me because the big bang supposedly originated as a singularity. By definition that is a single, dense thing at a single location at some point in time. As the universe continues to expand "into nothing--whatever dimension that is), it clearly isn't 'everywhere'. It clearly IS expanding into space at an accelerating rate. If it fills/occupies different volumes of space at different times, then it (our universe and it's contents) isn't everywhere.

It has been clearly stated that the dimensions of our universe are unknown. Therefore, it also seems erroneous to claim our universe is 'everywhere' when we don't even know the dimensions or extent of 'everywhere'.

As for all the visible objects expanding at an accelerating rate away from all other visible objects in the universe (as in the dotted balloon example), I've read that is true, but I still don't quite understand how that can be true when we've observed galaxies collide and watched solar systems disappear into black holes. If everything is moving away from everything else at an accelerating rate, then how could such events ever occur? It seems that more space between objects would prevent the chance of collisions.

 

[zeffur7]

That location is infinite in size.

How can you be certain that location is "infinite in size"? We don't know what is/isn't surrounding our big bang singularity just before it banged or even now as it is expanding.

Which means it happened everywhere at the same time.

How do arrive at that conclusion? If everywhere includes the 'nothing' component, which don't comprehend, then how can you arrive at your conclusion? Clearly 'nothing' must be a fundamental component of the system.

 

[Drakkith]

I'm reading (i.e. listening) to you quite well, actually. If your premise is that our expanding universe expands into "nothing" then that 'nothing' *must* have great capacity.

Again, the universe is not expanding INTO anything. It is simply expanding. OR you can take it to mean that the distance between everything in the universe is increasing, not that the universe is expanding.

I see no evidence that proves our universe is creating 'new space' as it expands. You seem to think our universe or something that propels our universe is creating the space that the visible objects in our universe are moving through, but I don't see any evidence to support that proposition.

Have you looked for any evidence? Or have you simply dismissed anything that proposes that effect?

Your statement does not seem correct to me because the big bang supposedly originated as a singularity. By definition that is a single, dense thing at a single location at some point in time. As the universe continues to expand "into nothing--whatever dimension that is), it clearly isn't 'everywhere'. It clearly IS expanding into space at an accelerating rate. If it fills/occupies different volumes of space at different times, then it (our universe and it's contents) isn't everywhere.

From wikipedia: There is little evidence regarding the absolute earliest instant of the expansion. Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.

So, nothing about the Big Bang theory says that it started as a singularity. There are theories that try to describe the initial state and possibly before, but those are not under discussion here. Contrary to your statement, it is NOT clearly expanding into space. That explanation does NOT explain our observations. Since it does not, it cannot be correct. Furthermore, there is no evidence on whether the universe is infinite or not, though I don't think you could really ever have evidence proving that it is infinite. The model of the universe expanding works whether or not the universe is infinite or finite in size.

It has been clearly stated that the dimensions of our universe are unknown. Therefore, it also seems erroneous to claim our universe is 'everywhere' when we don't even know the dimensions or extent of 'everywhere'.

Your argument is about whether the Big Bang occurred everything, not whether the Universe is everywhere, so I don't even know what you are trying to say here.

As for all the visible objects expanding at an accelerating rate away from all other visible objects in the universe (as in the dotted balloon example), I've read that is true, but I still don't quite understand how that can be true when we've observed galaxies collide and watched solar systems disappear into black holes.

The rate of expansion is very very small. The force of gravity overcomes the expansion and holds everything from the Earth, the solar system, the galaxy, and galaxy clusters together against this expansion. It is only once you get to the scale of galaxy superclusters and above that the distance is so great that gravity cannot overcome the expansion. Gravity gets weaker with distance, however the expansion only gets larger as the distance between two points increases. What this means is that our local supercluster of galaxies is held together as a whole by gravity. However, nearby superclusters seem to be moving away from us instead of gravitating together. As we look further away we see an increasing speed for this movement.

How can you be certain that location is "infinite in size"? We don't know what is/isn't surrounding our big bang singularity just before it banged or even now as it is expanding.

All I know is what models of the universe tell me, which is made by people much more experienced in this subject than I am. We have not seen any edge to the universe, nor is there any evidence suggesting that there might be. The models don't care if the universe is infinite or if it is finite, they still work the same.

How do arrive at that conclusion? If everywhere includes the 'nothing' component, which don't comprehend, then how can you arrive at your conclusion? Clearly 'nothing' must be a fundamental component of the system.

What "nothing"? Your boxes would be within the universe. There is no "nothing" that you refer to. Nowhere in mainstream science says that the universe came from nothing. At worst, the theories don't go that far because they cannot.

 

[zeffur7]

Again, the universe is not expanding INTO anything. It is simply expanding. OR you can take it to mean that the distance between everything in the universe is increasing, not that the universe is expanding.

The BBT rhetoric states that the universe is expanding. I take that to mean that space is expanding and all the visible things within it are moved to distant locations in space as the universe expands. At the same time those visible objects supposedly don't expand in volume, but they do have some motion within their specific galaxies.

Have you looked for any evidence? Or have you simply dismissed anything that proposes that effect?

Of course. I also seek out the knowledge of others who have studied such things, contemplated that knowledge, & shared that knowledge with others.

From wikipedia: There is little evidence regarding the absolute earliest instant of the expansion. Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.

So, nothing about the Big Bang theory says that it started as a singularity.

"Timeline of the Big Bang<br><br>

Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[32] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

"... there is no evidence on whether the universe is infinite or not, though I don't think you could really ever have evidence proving that it is infinite."

In this we have agreement.

Your argument is about whether the Big Bang occurred everything, not whether the Universe is everywhere, so I don't even know what you are trying to say here.

No, my argument isn't whether or not the BB 'occurred everything'. My proposition was that if we placed virtual boxes at 1 billion year intervals and we used the walls of those boxes as reference grids for where the visible objects were as they moved through the universe as the universe (space) expanded over 14 billion years, we should be able to plot the world lines of each visible object. As we moved from large boxes to smaller boxes each billion years in a model, we would get to a smallest box. That should be our best guess as to where the BB occurred.

We have not seen any edge to the universe, nor is there any evidence suggesting that there might be.

This has never been the focus of my inquiry in this thread.

What "nothing"? Your boxes would be within the universe. There is no "nothing" that you refer to. Nowhere in mainstream science says that the universe came from nothing. At worst, the theories don't go that far because they cannot.

The nothing that I referred to is the volume in which the expanded volume of the universe (space) must have expanded into. If I have a bunch of visible objects that are accelerating away from each other into newly created space (which is something that has been proposed) then that new expansion must be expanding into the volume of what some people claim is "nothing"--for lack of a word to describe it, I suppose. From what I've read, the comoving distance of the universe currently has a radius of ~47 billion light years. We are only now able to see light from points which occurred at distances of ~14 billion light years. That means the universe has expanded a lot in volume and those objects have moved a great distance in space as the universe has expanded. http://[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comoving_distance

 

[Drakkith]

Of course. I also seek out the knowledge of others who have studied such things, contemplated that knowledge, & shared that knowledge with others.

If so then I don't see why you are having such a problem accepting all this.

No, my argument isn't whether or not the BB 'occurred everything'. My proposition was that if we placed virtual boxes at 1 billion year intervals and we used the walls of those boxes as reference grids for where the visible objects were as they moved through the universe as the universe (space) expanded over 14 billion years, we should be able to plot the world lines of each visible object. As we moved from large boxes to smaller boxes each billion years in a model, we would get to a smallest box. That should be our best guess as to where the BB occurred.

Where would you put the boxes? What are the dimensions? We can't put them around the entire universe, so you have to specify a volume of space. And even then you're only going to find the volume of space that you enclosed, not the whole universe. You are suggesting things that are simply not possible.

The nothing that I referred to is the volume in which the expanded volume of the universe (space) must have expanded into.

The universe is not required to be expanding INTO anything.

If I have a bunch of visible objects that are accelerating away from each other into newly created space (which is something that has been proposed) then that new expansion must be expanding into the volume of what some people claim is "nothing"--for lack of a word to describe it, I suppose.

Since the universe isn't required to be expanding into anything, your arguments are invalid. Nothing anywhere says that the universe MUST be expanding into some pre-existing or created volume.

 

[zeffur7]

Where would you put the boxes? What are the dimensions? We can't put them around the entire universe, so you have to specify a volume of space. And even then you're only going to find the volume of space that you enclosed, not the whole universe. You are suggesting things that are simply not possible."

For for the sake of simplicity, let's use the current observable universe as our largest virtual box. If we made marks on the walls of the box where all of the visible objects are located, then we would consider the first box in our model completed. The 2nd box in our model would be 1 billion years before now. Obviously, we aren't able to reverse time literally, so we would have to calculate the volume of the observable universe and plot every visible object on the walls of our 2nd virtual box. We would continue this process until we arrive at the smallest box. If we connect the dots, we would see world lines that lead from a larger volume universe to a smaller volume universe as time is reversed. That smallest volume must be where it all started.

The universe is not required to be expanding INTO anything.

I didn't state that the universe was "required" to do anything. I've merely pointed out the obvious. If the universe (space) is expanding, then it *must* be expanding into something. Call it nothing, call it an unknown dimension, or whatever.. it has supposedly increased in volume from a singularity to a volume that has a radius of ~47 billion light years. You tell me.. what did it expand into?? What word do you prefer to use to explain where all that new volume came from as the universe expanded over those billions of years?

Your argument that the universe isn't expanding into anything or that it just expanded everywhere at the same time, isn't consistent with an accelerating, expanding universe. In fact, it seems woefully inadequate--not to mention illogical. No offense intended, btw.

 

[Drakkith]

For for the sake of simplicity, let's use the current observable universe as our largest virtual box...That smallest volume must be where it all started.

But what about all the stuff outside of your box still? There is no reason to believe that the observable universe is everything, so you have to consider the rest of it. All your doing is looking at the observable universe, not the whole thing. So not only would the initial expansion start inside this box at t=0, it would start outside the box as well.

I didn't state that the universe was "required" to do anything. I've merely pointed out the obvious. If the universe (space) is expanding, then it *must* be expanding into something. Call it nothing, call it an unknown dimension, or whatever.. it has supposedly increased in volume from a singularity to a volume that has a radius of ~47 billion light years. You tell me.. what did it expand into?? What word do you prefer to use to explain where all that new volume came from as the universe expanded over those billions of years?

But that's the thing, it isn't obvious, it's wrong. You can't call it nothing, as your implying that *nothing* is *something*. It is not. I don't know how to explain it to you, all I know is that the math behind the models of the universe don't say that the universe is expanding into anything. See my reference below.

Your argument that the universe isn't expanding into anything or that it just expanded everywhere at the same time, isn't consistent with an accelerating, expanding universe. In fact, it seems woefully inadequate--not to mention illogical. No offense intended, btw.

There are a great many things that are illogical, Quantum Mechanics as a whole being one of them, as the universe does not care whether we think it should be logical or not. I'm not arguing using some made up opinions, I'm telling you what I have learned about the science behind this. Everything I have read from knowledgeable sources has told me this. As a reference, here's the first sentences from wikipedia's article on the metric expansion of space:

The metric expansion of space is the increase of distance between distant parts of the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion—that is, it is defined by the relative separation of parts of the universe and not by motion "outward" into preexisting space. In other words, the universe is not expanding "into" anything outside of itself.

You can read the article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

 

[zeffur7]

But what about all the stuff outside of your box still? There is no reason to believe that the observable universe is everything, so you have to consider the rest of it. All your doing is looking at the observable universe, not the whole thing. So not only would the initial expansion start inside this box at t=0, it would start outside the box as well.

We currently have no way of determining what is outside the largest virtual box--even though, from what I have read, the universe is supposedly much larger than our observable universe. Until we can peer beyond the "wall of light" aka "?surface of last scattering?" we really won't know much more about the universe beyond what we can currently see/image.

As for our expanding observable universe, it seems relatively clear to me that the virtual box construct that I used earlier clearly points out that our singularity banged at some origin in the universe and has been expanding ever since that time. Into what does it expand? You claim the math doesn't define that. Ok. For now I'll consider the BB origin to be within the space of our observable universe, and that space should be definable within &/or with respect to the dimensions of our observable universe.

But that's the thing, it isn't obvious, it's wrong. You can't call it nothing, as you're implying that *nothing* is *something*. It is not. I don't know how to explain it to you, all I know is that the math behind the models of the universe don't say that the universe is expanding into anything. See my reference below."

It may not seem obvious to you, but expansion is a fairly clear concept to me. Having a way to refer to the volume into which our universe has expand, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It doesn't make much difference to me that our current mathematical tools don't/can't define the universe which is beyond our OU. As you can see above, my original quest was about finding the origin or our big bang. My virtual box concept is a useful tool to visualize the volume of our current observable universe and compare it to smaller volumes at 1 billion year intervals. That smallest OU space is where it began for us. That origin can be related by relative position to the dimensions of our current observable universe. Where is that in the larger, perhaps infinite universe, beyond what is visible to us? I think that is unknown at this time and possibly unknowable.

There are a great many things that are illogical, Quantum Mechanics as a whole being one of them, as the universe does not care whether we think it should be logical or not. I'm not arguing using some made up opinions, I'm telling you what I have learned about the science behind this. Everything I have read from knowledgeable sources has told me this..." As a reference, here's the first sentences from wikipedia's article on the metric expansion of space:

"The metric expansion of space is the increase of distance between distant parts of the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion—that is, it is defined by the relative separation of parts of the universe and not by motion "outward" into preexisting space. In other words, the universe is not expanding "into" anything outside of itself."

You can read the article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

I don't doubt you are citing what is illogical--I have also read that information. I just don't think that assessment is the final word on the matter. Something that illogical is prime for a correction/revision. Nothing expands in volume without that volume coming from somewhere. Being ignorant of or not accounting for that "somewhere" with a mathematical construct or not, just tells me this subject needs much more study & better explanations.

 

[Drakkith]

Ohhh, I see what this is about. You just don't believe that it's true and don't want to learn why. If that is your view then I will no longer try to help you understand the current mainstream model of the universe. All I'll say is this: If your so sure that you know what the expansion of the universe is, then why does the collective view of modern astronomy disagree with you AND have valid reasons to back it up? Good day to you sir.

Edit: Also, consider Quantum Mechanics and such effects as Quantum Tunneling. Are they just as illogical and in need of correction according to you?

 

[Drakkith]

FYI here is an older thread that is proposing the same thing you are, that extrapolating back in time will show us where the big bang was.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=126881

 

[zeffur7]

Ohhh, I see what this is about. You just don't believe that it's true and don't want to learn why. If that is your view then I will no longer try to help you understand the current mainstream model of the universe...

I'm curious to know the "why". Is the explanation reasonable or is it based on incomplete mathematical models, illogical explanations of what 'expansion' means, and competing theories that contradict each other? From what I read there is so much debate about the BBT that it seems hard to imagine that there is a mainstream model that most physicists agree on. Perhaps that is why people find it difficult to agree on what shouldn't be difficult to understand.

Btw, someone from NASA has apparently already considered my line of thinking and created an image that is somewhat similar to what I was describing to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg

It isn't really the shape that I would use, but the grid/boxes that are shown should help you to visualize what I was describing if you didn't fully understand what I was describing earlier.

...I'll say is this: If your so sure that you know what the expansion of the universe is, then why does the collective view of modern astronomy disagree with you AND have valid reasons to back it up?"

My position isn't that I "know what the expansion of the universe is". My position is that some of what is purported to be true, isn't logical. In as much as has been described by experts, it is clear that there is much less known than there is to be known about the universe and that their theories are constantly in flux. That's the reality of science and scientific theories.

Edit: Also, consider Quantum Mechanics and such effects as Quantum Tunneling. Are they just as illogical and in need of correction according to you?

I know little of quantum mechanics at this time, so I can not answer that question.

Frankly, I find you to be over-reacting to my last position about that one illogical statement "... In other words, the universe is not expanding "into" anything outside of itself." You can clearly see from the above image that everything started at the singularity on the left side of the image & has expanded & changed as it has moved with bang inertia & the expansion of the universe/space. As all visible objects move to the right & spread further apart, that area on the right beyond the furthest visible object (i.e. that space where it will go next).. is invisible space to us or is it something created by the dark energy to then be called 'spacetime' in our definition set? Whatever that black area is on the right side of that image--that is the undefined area that I'm referring to. You don't want to name it. Ok.. It is there whether you name it or not.

 

[Drakkith]

From what I read there is so much debate about the BBT that it seems hard to imagine that there is a mainstream model that most physicist agree on. Perhaps that is why people find it difficult to agree on what shouldn't be difficult to understand.

To my knowledge there is very little debate on the BBT among knowledgeable scientists. All competing theories have little or no evidence while the BBT has almost overwhelming support. The details are under debate of course, but the general theory is widely accepted.

Btw, someone from NASA has apparently already considered my line of thinking and created an image that is somewhat similar to what I was describing to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg

That is nothing like what you are proposing. That is simply a visual aid to help people understand the history of the universe. It is not accurate in anything but the most general sense.

My position isn't that I "know what the expansion of the universe is". My position is that some of what is purported to be true, isn't logical. In as much as has been described by experts, it is clear that there is much less known than there is to be known about the universe and that their theories are constantly in flux. That's the reality of science and scientific theories.

Does it need to be logical? Very little about the universe is logical to us when you really dig down deep. When you get to the scale of the very large or the very small the universe is very very different from what we experience.

I know little of quantum mechanics at this time, so I can not answer that question.

Let me put it this way. Quantum Mechanics almost makes the expansion of the universe look like a childrens pop up book. Almost none of it would be "logical" to anyone. Yet it works beautifully and is what underpins almost all of modern technology.

Frankly, I find you to be over-reacting to my last position about that one illogical statement "

Over-reacting? At this point I'd say I'm unde-reacting. What did you expect after several pages of people telling you that the universe isn't expanding into anything? And it really isn't the fact that you don't understand it, the problem is that you have these preconceptions about what should or shouldn't be correct and cannot seem to look past them. That and you keep insisting that things "must" be a certain way. I'm sorry but it's simply not true.

 

[zeffur7]

...What did you expect after several pages of people telling you that the universe isn't expanding into anything?

Oh.. I don't... perhaps a reference to something like this:
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf

That would have saved us all a lot of time, wouldn't you agree?

One thing you might want to consider.. when you tell a person something is true, and you support it with a reference that is illogical & incomplete... you may want to consider that a sequence of information about how scientists arrived at that conclusion might be a good thing to share. Just an idea.

Also, thanks for your all of your efforts.

 

[Drakkith]

Oh.. I don't... perhaps a reference to something like this:
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf

That would have saved us all a lot of time, wouldn't you agree?

One thing you might want to consider.. when you tell a person something is true, and you support it with a reference that is illogical & incomplete... you may want to consider that a sequence of information about how scientists arrived at that conclusion might be a good thing to share. Just an idea.

Also, thanks for your all of your efforts.

At what point did you specify that you wanted that information? 99% of your posts have been you claiming that what we were explaining was illogical and couldn't be possible. Do you really think that is going to motivate me to go sift through the internet to find references for you? This whole situation could have been avoided had you simply said: "That doesn't seem logical to me. Can you point me to any good references that explain how we came by this view?". Then we could have helped you and you could read them and then ask any questions you had on the material. And honestly your overall attitude suggested to me that you wouldn't have believed any references I linked anyways, so why would I spend the time and effort searching for them?

Edit: Also, I did provide links to wikipedia a couple of times. They had references at the bottom of those articles. Did you happen to look at those?

 

[davo789]

My position is that some of what is purported to be true, isn't logical.

Tired of this thread as I am, your one post here explains everything. "Isn't logical" to YOU. I have no idea what your background in physics is, but this really is a very complicated theory which people have spent the best part of a century trying to figure out. And maybe they are wrong, and perhaps there are one or two holes in the theory, but these holes are so subtle that only the people who are working at the forefront of this theory really understand them. I really think you need to do some reading for yourself, because to me and Drakkith and all the other people who have tried to help you out, the things we have said make perfect sense. Once you really understand what's going on, phrases like "the Big Bang occurred everywhere" are just a logical manifestation of the theory itself.

 

[zeffur7]

At what point did you specify that you wanted that information?

I must admit this thread has drifted quite far from my original post. Sorry for that.

Like most people, when I receive information that is apparently illogical and I haven't yet read anything that provides me with a good explanation for how it could be reasonable, I tend to have doubts and questions. I also tend to try to understand by using visual tools to understand better. I guess that c/should have been the point at which you or anyone else may have noticed that I'm the type of person who won't settle for such an answer when by itself and with some explanation still seems illogical.
You and others in this thread have come to believe (accept as true) such things--perhaps based on lesser/more information than has been shared in this thread.

99% of your posts have been you claiming that what we were explaining was illogical and couldn't be possible.

Remember, the BBT is just a theory. Even the article that I cited above clearly points out its weaknesses. Debates and alternate theories on this subject are far from over.

Do you really think that is going to motivate me to go sift through the internet to find references for you?

No. I was hoping someone more knowledgeable on the subject than me would be aware of the document that I cited above. Apparently, that wasn't true, so some of us spent more time than we needed to because we took a different initial path.

This whole situation could have been avoided had you simply said: "That doesn't seem logical to me..."

I did in affect do that very thing. To which you became a bit upset because I wasn't just accepting what you & some others claim IS true,... based on a lot of better minds than ours claiming it is true. I think at that point it should have been clear to you that better information was required in order for me to see how they arrived at their conclusions. Reading wiki articles doesn't always provide that type of information.

And honestly your overall attitude suggested to me that you wouldn't have believed any references I linked anyways, so why would I spend the time and effort searching for them?

That's a bit of an unnecessary lash, although I know you are frustrated, so I'll just take it, if it helps.

Edit: Also, I did provide links to wikipedia a couple of times. They had references at the bottom of those articles. Did you happen to look at those?

No, I did not notice a url to the article that I cited above. YOUR reference to an old forum thread was the beginning of me finding the article that I cited to you in this thread. Thanks for that url, btw.

 

[zeffur7]

Tired of this thread as I am, your one post here explains everything. "Isn't logical" to YOU. I have no idea what your background in physics is, but this really is a very complicated theory which people have spent the best part of a century trying to figure out. And maybe they are wrong, and perhaps there are one or two holes in the theory, but these holes are so subtle that only the people who are working at the forefront of this theory really understand them.

I'm sorry you and Drakkith became frustrated. I think you wrote well why this can be a frustrating topic to discuss "this really is a very complicated theory which people have spent the best part of a century trying to figure out. And maybe they are wrong, and perhaps there are one or two holes in the theory, but these holes are so subtle that only the people who are working at the forefront of this theory really understand them." Perhaps it was naive of me to think someone in this forum might be able to explain those subtleties well enough so that what appears to be an illogical claim, can be considered quite rational within the construct of how mankind arrived at such conclusions.

...to me and Drakkith and all the other people who have tried to help you out, the things we have said make perfect sense. Once you really understand what's going on, phrases like "the Big Bang occurred everywhere" are just a logical manifestation of the theory itself.

As I wrote to Drakkith (above this post) "You and others in this thread have come to believe (accept as true) such things--perhaps based on lesser/more information than has been shared in this thread." My path to understanding required more information.

Thanks again to everyone who contributed to this thread.

 

[Drakkith]

Zeffur, here's how I see this. You came here wanting to know something and you got an answer that made no sense to you. So you tried to visualize it by explaining it the way you did. However to us that view is incorrect so we pointed it out. Here's where I see the problem started. Instead of simply asking why it didn't make sense you continually tried to tell us that your view was the only one that made sense because things "had to be that way". Do you not see the problem with this and how it could have been avoided by just asking how it worked?

I did in affect do that very thing. To which you became a bit upset because I wasn't just accepting what you & some others claim IS true,... based on a lot of better minds than ours claiming it is true. I think at that point it should have been clear to you that better information was required in order for me to see how they arrived at their conclusions. Reading wiki articles doesn't always provide that type of information.

Why didn't you say so? You used one of wiki's articles earlier in the thread so I had no way of knowing you wanted something else. Also, don't ever assume that someone knows what you want. It was very much not clear what you wanted. Remember that this is an online forum and unless you make yourself VERY clear then it is unlikely that anyone will be able to guess what you want.

If your interested you can pick up a book on Relativity at any local bookstore or online that should explain some of this and why it's like that. I like the following, though it is an introduction, so if your looking for something more advanced then it isn't for you. Here: Introducing Relativity: A Graphic Guide

 

[zeffur7]

Zeffur, here's how I see this. You came here wanting to know something and you got an answer that made no sense to you. So you tried to visualize it by explaining it the way you did. However to us that view is incorrect so we pointed it out. Here's where I see the problem started. Instead of simply asking why it didn't make sense you continually tried to tell us that your view was the only one that made sense because things "had to be that way". Do you not see the problem with this and how it could have been avoided by just asking how it worked?

The "had to be that way" was referring to my visualization methodology as it being able to be used to plot the world lines of the visible objects in our observable universe back to the origin (i.e. location of the singularity) of where all those objects came from before they are where they are (relatively speaking) now. That origin, mapped within the framework of the volume of our observable universe as a relative reference, is a good approximation of where it all came from since the expansion of space began. If those visible objects are moving away from each other due to the expansion of space then clearly they would be moving towards each other to a point of coalescence, if we created a model & reversed the expansion rate of the universe.

The problem to me seems to be that neither you nor Davo789 seemed to originally understand what I was trying to explain. Then as I refined my explanation, YOU essentially stated what I explained "is wrong" -- without explaining WHY you thought it was wrong. Which essentially means you either didn't/don't know how to explain why it is wrong or that you are merely trying to get me to "just accept" what others claim is true--without the details of why they have reached the conclusions that they have reached. Clearly neither was acceptable to me. To Davo789's credit, he at least had the good sense to state plainly "...this really is a very complicated theory which people have spent the best part of a century trying to figure out. And maybe they are wrong, and perhaps there are one or two holes in the theory, but these holes are so subtle that only the people who are working at the forefront of this theory really understand them." Kudos to him for being wise enough to get to what you still don't seem to want to acknowledge.

Furthermore, you still didn't seem to comprehend what I was stating even after I provided a url to you to show you that someone from NASA had created an image that was similar to what I had described to you. It then looked like you tried the 'I'm frustrated tact' which was like "You just have to accept what we tell you IS true. It doesn't really matter that it is illogical...hey Quantum Mechanics is illogical too, just roll with it like the rest of us." ;)
Once again, not acceptable to me.

If you['re] interested you can pick up a book on Relativity at any local bookstore or online that should explain some of this and why it's like that. I like the following, though it is an introduction, so if your looking for something more advanced then it isn't for you. Here: Introducing Relativity: A Graphic Guide

Thanks for the suggestion, but it isn't something of interest to me at this time.

Once again, thanks for your contributions to this thread.

To anyone who is currently reading (or who may come across) this thread, here is a url to a goldmine of information: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

Peace to all.