Locating the position of the BIg Bang

[alext87]

Surely as a explosion occur the lighter parts travel away from the centre at greatest velocity. Therefore after a given time are further away from the centre of the explosion. Therefore surely we can locate the position of the Big Bang by measure where most of the mass is and therefore this is the position of the Big Bang. How come we are not therefore able to say where the Big Bang occurred?

[Phi for All]

Given that the universe has been expanding for billions of years, would the center necessarily be where it started out?

[Martin]

Surely as a explosion occur the lighter parts travel away from the centre at greatest velocity. Therefore after a given time are further away from the centre of the explosion. Therefore surely we can locate the position of the Big Bang by measure where most of the mass is and therefore this is the position of the Big Bang. How come we are not therefore able to say where the Big Bang occurred?

 

Here is a page with 4 or 5 links to get you up to speed on this:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=142965&postcount=65

 

this post has links to parts of a Scientific American article of March 2005 by Lineweaver and Davis.

 

it has simple language and plenty of pictures

 

best if you look at it first and then reconsider your question

[Nicholas]

You talk about the center of the Big Bang?

If you found that you could ask where that was.

 

Where was the cosmic egg?

[ydoaPs]

hmmm, ur at the center of the big bang. it's like a balloon with dots drawn on it. blow it up and it expands, but there is no center of expansion. our universe is similer to the 2 dimensional surface of the balloon. eg, no center.

[Nicholas]

What about that moment before anything existed?

Where did the Big Bang take place?

 

I say in a spaceless place!

 

That the answer to: Where is the universe at?

[ydoaPs]

big bang wasn't the beginning. a spaceless place is a contradiction of terms. if the universe needs an arena, then why doesn't the universes arena need an arena? it goes on like that forever. simply put, space doesn't need a place to be.

[Nicholas]

There was nothing before the universe.

It only requires God.

[ydoaPs]

how so?

[luc]

There was nothing before the universe.

It only requires God.

 

 

You are blatantly wrong. The Universe existed before the Big Bang, and doesn't require any fantasy of yours, called it God or The Clutchbone

[Mart]

For how long did The Universe exist before the Big Bang? A rough value will do.

[luc]

It has existed always. It just experiences a cycle of Big Bangs/Big Crunchs

[Severian]

It has existed always. It just experiences a cycle of Big Bangs/Big Crunchs

 

Do you have any evidence for this, or is this just pointless unscientific speculation dressed up as fact?

[Severian]

Surely as a explosion occur the lighter parts travel away from the centre at greatest velocity. Therefore after a given time are further away from the centre of the explosion. Therefore surely we can locate the position of the Big Bang by measure where most of the mass is and therefore this is the position of the Big Bang. How come we are not therefore able to say where the Big Bang occurred?

 

The problem is that there was no centre (as has been discussed many times on these forums in the past). Everything is moving away from everything else at the same speed, so there is not prefered spot. (There is however a prefered frame, caused by the CMBR, but that is a different issue.)

[J.C.MacSwell]

For how long did The Universe exist before the Big Bang? A rough value will do.

 

3.1415926 billion years.

 

If it was forever, we would not have gotten to the big bang stage yet.

 

[luc]

Do you have any evidence for this, or is this just pointless unscientific speculation dressed up as fact?

 

 

You should agree with me that GR, and consequently Standard Big Bang Theory, gives an incomplete picture of the Universe, because it fails miserably at the initial singularity. A group of scientists is working in a quantum gravity theory called "Loop Quantum Gravity", that cures the disease of the singularity, and permits that the universe has not a beginning. I'm not a scientist at all, so It would be difficult that I could convince you about the virtues of this theory, but the paper that i think more accurately shares my point of view about the universe is this

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0406042

"Oscillatory Universes in Loop Quantum Cosmology and initial conditions for inflation"

 

Notice that in this oscillatory theory, our Universe is supposed to be closed (positive curvature). So you could say: whoaa, it's very clear that our universe is flat, but then you should consider the value measured by WMAP for the Omega of the Universe: 1.02(+-0.02), so the margin of error leaves room for the possibility of a flat Universe, but the main cipher, 1.02, corresponds to a closed Universe. So you wanted evidence, ok, I have none, but I find this theory very attractive

[Nicholas]

The universe hasn't existed always.

It's a one time thing.

 

Want evidence?

How about the accelerating expansion?

If there is no crunch ahead there can be nothing

behind.

 

Or is that to hard for you guys?

[DRU]

The universe hasn't existed always.

It's a one time thing.

 

Want evidence?

How about the accelerating expansion?

If there is no crunch ahead there can be nothing

behind.

 

Or is that to hard for you guys?

the universe will expand for a while, then contract into an extremely dense mass, then another big bang will occur....etc.

[Severian]

You should agree with me that GR' date=' and consequently Standard Big Bang Theory, gives an incomplete picture of the Universe, because it fails miserably at the initial singularity.

[/quote']

 

This is true of any theory. LQG does not give a complete description of the universe either.

 

 

So you wanted evidence, ok, I have none, but I find this theory very attractive

 

Thought not. I personally don't find an oscillating universe very appealing.

[Nicholas]

the universe will expand for a while, then contract into an extremely dense mass, then another big bang will occur....etc.

 

Wrong. Its expansion is accelerating. You can't get contraction

out of that!!!

[EL]

Given that the universe has been expanding for billions of years, would the center necessarily be where it started out?

 

Yes, absolutely.

Where else?

[EL]

The definition of ridiculous:

ADJECTIVE: Deserving or inspiring ridicule; absurd, preposterous, or silly.

A hype of thesis is characterised by incoherence and inconsistency.

Trying to be as concise as I can post:

One mother and two children.

**

The Black hole idea is founded on the idea that if a quantity of mass that condensed into one place was big enough such that its gravitational force demands an escape velocity greater than {c}, not even light can escape and consequently all forms of matter and energy.

**

The Big bang idea is founded on the idea that the red shift implies that the universal matter is moving "outwards" without having a clue about outwards relative to what, yet nonetheless, the theorists allow themselves to speculate that such apparent expansion of the matter of the universe implies that it was all at one and the same "POINT" (A singularity). This should obviously say that all the matter of the universe should logically exceed the puny quantity required for a black hole to prevent light from escaping.

**

Now put the two theories together and you have the Ultimate Magnanimous Extreme Super-black-hole at the singularity of the big-bang, YET for some bizarre reason it explodes and matter as much as light escapes from the unimaginable gravity of all matter.

**

If the above inconsistent and incoherent drivel of the relativists was not ridiculousness incarnated, then what else?

[danny8522003]

So what's your theory on the beginning of the universe then EL?