Agent thinks there is an "approximate site" of the BB in our space

[Realitycheck]

If we and all of our uniqueness just happen to be located at the approximate site of the big bang, then the universe would be expanding outward from all directions from here, and 12 billion light years in all directions would mean nothing.

[Klaynos]

The site of the big bang is here.

 

 

 

It's also everywhere else....

[YT2095]

ok, so take how big the Universe is NOW, and shrink it back 12 Billion LY, how big was it then?

[Martin]

Agent, you stuck this onto another thread where it is not on topic. So I have created a separate thread for you to talk about this idea of yours.

 

It's already been explained to you that in our space there is no approximate site of the BB, but you have not registered this apparently.

 

Please feel free to expand on your idea, which is an Alternative Theory type of cosmology, in which space was pre-existing and the BB was an explosion which occurred somewhere in it, an explosion outwards into preexisting space, from some point, some approximate location.

 

If you can learn conventional cosmology and realize that this personal view is not the usual one, which may involve listening to what other people say (if they try to be helpful) then this thread could be OK to keep in Astronomy.

 

If you keep on insisting that there is an "approximate location" then I suspect it may eventually go to Pseudoscience.

 

Please read the Lineweaver Sci Am article. Misconceptions of the Big Bang. There is a link to a Princeton.edu site that has the article online PDF

for the astronomy students

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=384716#post384716

You will also find links to the article at the SciAm site.

 

enjoy

[Realitycheck]

You do agree that the universe has 3 dimensions, right? I wouldn't want to get astronomy mixed up with mathematics. I can accept that the universe is an all-encompassing object that is not filling up a larger space, but my argument in the other thread was applicable, as YT pointed out.

 

Which really takes us back to my previous argument. What was here before the universe grew into this space? Does that not count as space, or does it just not fit in with the generally accepted definition of space today?

 

By the way, I think that this is an excellent depiction of summarizing a 4-dimensional universe into a 2 dimensional picture.

[Realitycheck]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

[Martin]

By the way, I think that this is an excellent depiction of summarizing a 4-dimensional universe into a 2 dimensional picture.

 

I do too. A lot of people like that picture.

 

I can accept that the universe is an all-encompassing object that is not filling up a larger space,..

 

Good.

 

but my argument in the other thread was applicable,..

 

What argument is that? Please state it clearly and concisely here.

 

Which really takes us back to my previous argument.

 

What are you trying to argue? It seems to me you are asking a QUESTION about which I know of a lot of recent research including some interesting computer modeling at Penn State.

 

What was here before the universe grew into this space?

 

If that is your QUESTION then why don't you simply ask. Experts in quantum gravity (quantum spacetime models) have come up with some very interesting hypotheses in the past couple of years. A fair amount of recent stuff has been published. So far there are no proven answers but there is a lot of interesting work. Why not find out about it?

 

Are you prepared to read? Do you want links? Do you want watered down paraphrases? If you are prepared to stop your own premature theorizing for a while and learn about current research, please let me know.

[Realitycheck]

Well, my argument supporting BB theory was a bit premature. My previous argument about the presence of undefined space really requires a complete, all-encompassing answer regarding the nature of anything and everything to be adequately addressed, something that nobody can really do.

 

From the way I see it now, the universe is still roughly spherical, with a hollowed out inside where everything came from, though matter and celestia could still conceivably reside there. It is the only depiction that is logical, with the exception of densities affecting the rate of expansion in various directions. There is nothing really to argue. This is my "universe-view".

 

If you want to give me some links to articles which attempt to disprove my view, then that is fine.

[Martin]

Well, my argument supporting BB theory was a bit premature. My previous argument about the presence of undefined space really requires a complete, all-encompassing answer regarding the nature of anything and everything to be adequately addressed, something that nobody can really do.

 

From the way I see it now, the universe is still roughly spherical, with a hollowed out inside where everything came from, though matter and celestia could still conceivably reside there. It is the only depiction that is logical, with the exception of densities affecting the rate of expansion in various directions. There is nothing really to argue. This is my "universe-view".

 

If you want to give me some links to articles which attempt to disprove my view, then that is fine.

 

You are not making sense. Your picture of the cosmos seems to be exceedingly idiosyncratic. It will be more appropriate in the pseudoscience forum.

[Royston]

I can accept that the universe is an all-encompassing object that is not filling up a larger space

 

What was here before the universe grew into this space?

 

Can you see that these are two contradictory statements. You can't derive a position for the big bang, when there is no coordinate system to place it. Even for arguments sake you did create a coordinate system for the universe to be in (which would contradict your first statement) what would that coordinate system be in, and the one after that, ad infinitum ?

[Realitycheck]

Can you see that these are two contradictory statements. You can't derive a position for the big bang, when there is no coordinate system to place it. Even for arguments sake you did create a coordinate system for the universe to be in (which would contradict your first statement) what would that coordinate system be in, and the one after that, ad infinitum ?

I simply switched back to my previous view in mid-post. It was more logical. Even if we consider the universe to be an object, it all had to start somewhere, some "singularity", and from here the mapping would begin.

[Klaynos]

I simply switched back to my previous view in mid-post. It was more logical. Even if we consider the universe to be an object, it all had to start somewhere, some "singularity", and from here the mapping would begin.

 

It did start somewhere.... Everywhere...

[YT2095]

It did start somewhere.... Everywhere...

 

but if it`s been Expanding for the last 13+ GY it must have been much Smaller, correct?

[Klaynos]

well it was a singularity... that's quite small...

[Royston]

Even if we consider the universe to be an object, it all had to start somewhere, some "singularity", and from here the mapping would begin.

 

You've missed my point, and you've already said it yourself, the universe isn't expanding into anything, therefore there is no outer system to say the big bang started at any particular point...you can't create a set of coordinates when there is no point for the position of the universe to be relative against. Does that make more sense ?

[YT2095]

not necessarily!

 

it could have been Quite "big" esp as you say it went off "Everywhere".

 

now what do you mean by that exactly?

a) it exploded and spread everywhere (the idea I adhere to)?

b) something else?

 

I`m trying to pin you down here as I don`t like Vagueries, "quite small" isn`t an answer, and also, if it Was a small singilarity as you say, then it DID have a center!

 

you can`t have your cake And eat it, and hiding behind Vagueness is no help.

[Klaynos]

not necessarily!

 

it could have been Quite "big" esp as you say it went off "Everywhere".

 

No a singularity is by definition small... infinitesimally small.

 

now what do you mean by that exactly?

a) it exploded and spread everywhere (the idea I adhere to)?

b) something else?

 

I`m trying to pin you down here as I don`t like Vagueries, "quite small" isn`t an answer, and also, if it Was a small singilarity as you say, then it DID have a center!

 

Quite small was sarcasm, because a singularity is so small it's unphysical... which is a problem with BB theory.

 

By everywhere I mean it happened everywhere and that everywhere is what is expanding...

 

THIS IS NOT A GOOD EXPLANATION AT ALL

I screw up a sheet of rubber into a ball, I drop it, the rubber expands back into a sheet, the whole thing is still what was there when it was a ball, despite the fact only the centre of the sheet is where the ball was... This doesn't quite work for the universe because it implies a centre from which stuff is expanding... English is not a well suited language to explain this in....

[YT2095]

maybe I just have different beliefs about all this, Personally I think we`re ALL just a Huge CP violation.

 

and at some Time when time was Zero, there was Matter popping in an out of existence all the while, until sufficient gathered and then WALLOP BB!

then it was too late, the "error" can`t be corrected, and we`re here

[Klaynos]

BB isn't about belief What was before the bb there are currently alot of ideas and little evidence than any one of them is correct but people are working on that...

 

Most theories, and the traditional answer: There was no time before the big bang for matter to pop in and out of the vacuum all the time... infact there was not vacuum..

[YT2095]

I think Baryogenesis is approaching the most truth.

 

and lets face it, say all you want about "beliefs" but when it comes to the BB and it`s origins, that`s all ANY of you have anyway!

 

deny it, I dare ya

[Klaynos]

There is significant evidence for BB...

[YT2095]

There is significant evidence for BB...

 

I couldn`t agree more!

 

and since that was never in question during this thread, why post it?

[Klaynos]

I think Baryogenesis is approaching the most truth.

 

and lets face it, say all you want about "beliefs" but when it comes to the BB and it`s origins, that`s all ANY of you have anyway!

 

deny it, I dare ya

 

You clearly state that all we have "when it comes to the BB" is beliefs....

 

THAT is why...

[YT2095]

how many ideas for the causation and resultant of the known universe?

 

I assure there are MANY, I differ from yours, That`s all that was stated.

 

I DO believe we are a result of a CP violation.

[Klaynos]

You stated that all we had for BB was belief.