Physman Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 This may be somewhat difficult to explain so try to think it through. What if the universe did not expand outwards creating new matter beyond us (outwards of the big bang epicenter), but new matter was 'produced' in the center of the universe (hypothetical center) and pushed all exsisting matter outwards. This would make it difficult for us to recognize an expanding universe, because everything would be traveling at a relative velocity to us. when I say that I mean the exsisting universe as a whole moving relative to us, although seperate bodies may move freely through the expaning universe. I hope this was understandable.
Klaynos Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 The expansion doesn't create new matter. Space expands with the same amount of stuff in it....
Physman Posted July 25, 2009 Author Posted July 25, 2009 as a I said before this message may be somewhat hard to get across, I am only suggesting that the universe expands by adding empty space, as most of it is. Although that this extra space is 'pushing out' the universe from the center, rather than randomly be created as it expands.
Klaynos Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 So how would this differ observationally? I think what you're describing doesn't differ much from what is currently thought to be true that there is some energy (dark energy) that is increasing the expansion, this is acting inside the universe. Even slightly more classical expansion the original energy that is the reason for the expansion had it's origins within the universe.
Physman Posted July 25, 2009 Author Posted July 25, 2009 ok first, I am describing dark energy in a respect but I am trying to say that that maybe the epicenter of the big bang is still causing more empty space to form which would force the Universe around it (3D) outwards. When I say differ observationaly, I measn that if this were to be correct us, and everrything around us would be forced outwards at the same rate. Not onething faster than another, although the celestial bodies do move freely, I think it is possible that they are moving outwards into 'further' space, and we do not realize it because we are moving at a mutualy relative speed. I hope this clears things up, THis was a hard topic to comunicate. Thanks for the input.
Klaynos Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 There is no epicentre, or to put it another way everywhere is the epicentre, the big bang happened everywhere at the same time. We observe galaxies moving away from us, all of the ones that are not local to us, ALL move away from us independent of in which direction we look.
Physman Posted July 25, 2009 Author Posted July 25, 2009 yes, I AGREE, but to an observer at the big bang even though this is not possible, he could not see everything at the same time he would need to wait until the light reached him.
Klaynos Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 I'm not sure what you're trying to imply from that?
Physman Posted July 25, 2009 Author Posted July 25, 2009 look, I completely agree with you, Throughout the entire conversation I have only, only been trying to imply that what if all energy was created at a theoretical center of the universe that is all I have meant to say.
J.C.MacSwell Posted July 26, 2009 Posted July 26, 2009 This may be somewhat difficult to explain so try to think it through.What if the universe did not expand outwards creating new matter beyond us (outwards of the big bang epicenter), but new matter was 'produced' in the center of the universe (hypothetical center) and pushed all exsisting matter outwards. This would make it difficult for us to recognize an expanding universe, because everything would be traveling at a relative velocity to us. when I say that I mean the exsisting universe as a whole moving relative to us, although seperate bodies may move freely through the expaning universe. I hope this was understandable. It would look significantly different the way you describe, if the expansion was all happening in the same region or point, regardless of where, and regardless of whether you considered that point or region the "center".
Physman Posted July 26, 2009 Author Posted July 26, 2009 ok, when you think about the center this way it may help-. If you have a sphere it can be as large as you want it to be and the center of it will never change, as how This theory is concieved
Klaynos Posted July 26, 2009 Posted July 26, 2009 ok, when you think about the center this way it may help-. If you have a sphere it can be as large as you want it to be and the center of it will never change, as how This theory is concieved But that is not what the universe is like. If the universe was JUST the surface of the sphere, that is closer. It also wouldn't alter the fact that adding space at one point would not look like what we see.
Physman Posted July 26, 2009 Author Posted July 26, 2009 I do not believe the universe has a given shape but, if you were to hypothetical think of the submicroscopic point were the big bang occured it is reasonable to call this the origin or 'center'.
Klaynos Posted July 26, 2009 Posted July 26, 2009 That origin or centre is everywhere, the big bang happened everywhere. As for shape, IIRC it is still under investigation, but it has one... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe
Physman Posted July 27, 2009 Author Posted July 27, 2009 the basis behind the big bang theory is that all the matter in the universe was compresed into one submicroscopic location, I am merely trying to imagine this location (hypotheticaly speaking).
Klaynos Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 I can tell you it's location: Everywhere. It really is as simple, or confusing, as that.
StringJunky Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 Physman: Check out the 'What was there?' thread that is currently running. Klaynos and others have covered this problem of the universes location at the singularity/Big Bang and other things quite well. I don't know how to provide a link to it.
Klaynos Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 If you take the thread id (follows the t in the address bar), and put it inside [ thread=42499 ] tags [ /thread ] like this it will create a link to it.
Physman Posted July 27, 2009 Author Posted July 27, 2009 Well thank you for clearing the image up, I believe this maybe correct, but I believe the universe must have some kind of origin, and I know that the origin is everywhere after what we have disused, although this raises the question of the limits and beginnings of infinity...
Royston Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 Well thank you for clearing the image up, I believe this maybe correct, but I believe the universe must have some kind of origin, Of course it has an origin, but when people (at least the people I've spoken to) think about the birth of the Universe, they think of an expanding dot within some black space (usually black). Nothing is a hard thing to wrap your brain around. and I know that the origin is everywhere after what we have disused, although this raises the question of the limits and beginnings of infinity... This is still under much debate, i.e if the Universe is truly finite or infinite, I guess there's many ways of looking at it, once we get a general shape of the Universe, those questions will start to be whittled down. If you want some links, just ask.
Physman Posted July 28, 2009 Author Posted July 28, 2009 I think that nothing has to be something to be comprehended, because as soon as you think of it it becomes something... Just another of the incredible mystery's of our universe...
Klaynos Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 I think that nothing has to be something to be comprehended, because as soon as you think of it it becomes something...Just another of the incredible mystery's of our universe... Just another one of those things that our brains can't think of. The universe has no requirement to fit inside our ability to think.
ajb Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 This reminds me of the the number zero. It took a while for people to understand the idea of zero and accept it as a number.
Physman Posted August 4, 2009 Author Posted August 4, 2009 Klaynos has the right idea, the universe is not designed to fit our comrehensable limitations.
Klaynos Posted August 4, 2009 Posted August 4, 2009 Klaynos has the right idea, the universe is not designed to fit our comrehensable limitations. Which frankly sucks! Why can't the universe be easily understandable damnit!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now