hollow disk of space

[michel123456]

Let's consider a system of 3 axis, X,Y,Z, determining a 3D graphic.

let's put X,Y as the representation of reduced regular space in 2D.

let's put Z as the axis of Time.

Intentionaly, the Z axis will be represented horizontal.

It becomes something like fig.1

fig.1

 

the ellipse represents a circle as viewed from an angle.

 

Let's plot on this diagram all stars and galaxies that we observe at a certain distance from us, let's say a distance of 1 billion Light Years.

In order to do this, we first have to put ourselves. Let's put ourself upon Earth at present time, on the right side of the arrow of time.

It becomes something like fig.2

 

fig.2

 

Not considering expansion of space, for sake of clarity, we have:

The radius of the circle represents distance 1 billion Light Years.The red arrow of time represents a duration of 1 billion Year.

The dots on the circle represent the stars & galaxies that are 1 billion Light Year from us, as observed from Earth, 1 billion years ago.

 

There are no dots on the inner surface of the circle. The disk is hollow.

Edited December 14, 2010 by michel123456

[TonyMcC]

I can't see what you are getting at. You could have chosen any distance, so the distances you have not chosen could make other rings. You could perhaps include our moon, about 240,000 miles. I must assume I am missing something as you seem to be only saying space exists between bodies.

[michel123456]

I can't see what you are getting at. You could have chosen any distance, so the distances you have not chosen could make other rings. You could perhaps include our moon, about 240,000 miles.

Yes.

 

I must assume I am missing something

Of course, I have not finished.

 

as you seem to be only saying space exists between bodies.

Not exactly.

 

Lets summarize:

"the distances you have not chosen could make other rings"

Yes.

At each distance corresponds another ring. Each of this ring must be placed on the corresponding instant upon the red arrow of Time.

And, what is important, each of this ring is hollow.

Something like fig.3

 

fig.3

 

I hope there will be no misunderstanding:

In this diagram, because space has been reduced to 2 dimensions, a common 3D sphere is represented as a 2D disk.

 

The first disk is a graphic representation of a real sphere around us at a distance of 1 billion Light years.

 

Forgetting for a moment this kind of graphic, if we had, in real 3D space, to plot the stars and galaxies that are 1 billion Light Years from us, and only those, we would obtain a sphere. And this sphere would be hollow. That is because we have deliberately chosen to "erase" all other stars & galaxies that are not at this specific distance. So the "hollow" thing is nothing weird, it is only a choice.

But what happen in real 3D space is that the distance to stars & galaxies represent space, of course, but also time.

 

So, if we want to represent both time & space, we have to "unfold" time from space and represent things differently.

 

Returning to the diagram.

Each "hollow sphere" is represented as a "hollow disk".

And there is nothing weird to that. It is just another way of representing things.

Edited December 15, 2010 by michel123456

[Spyman]

Each of this ring must be placed on the corresponding instant upon the red arrow of Time.

Just a small note: The corresponding instant must be placed farther away than the center of the ring to match the distance to the observer, since the distance to the center is closer than the distance to the rim of the disc.

[steevey]

Let's consider a system of 3 axis, X,Y,Z, determining a 3D graphic.

let's put X,Y as the representation of reduced regular space in 2D.

let's put Z as the axis of Time.

Intentionaly, the Z axis will be represented horizontal.

It becomes something like fig.1

fig.1

 

the ellipse represents a circle as viewed from an angle.

 

Let's plot on this diagram all stars and galaxies that we observe at a certain distance from us, let's say a distance of 1 billion Light Years.

In order to do this, we first have to put ourselves. Let's put ourself upon Earth at present time, on the right side of the arrow of time.

It becomes something like fig.2

 

fig.2

 

Not considering expansion of space, for sake of clarity, we have:

The radius of the circle represents distance 1 billion Light Years.The red arrow of time represents a duration of 1 billion Year.

The dots on the circle represent the stars & galaxies that are 1 billion Light Year from us, as observed from Earth, 1 billion years ago.

 

There are no dots on the inner surface of the circle. The disk is hollow.

 

 

I see what your getting at, and personally it doesn't make sense to me either if the Earth is close to the center. For everyone else, I think what he's trying to say is how can their be galaxies near us if the initial universe expanded and is now like x billion years away from us? Well, the answer is, not all the gas went outward. The universe wasn't and still isn't a hallow disk, it was a filled sphere. While the edge was expanding and making the universe bigger in volume, there was still other gas which wasn't being flung completely outward at the same speed. Not only that, but the universe was a lot more dense and energetic, so gas was running into itself a lot with high energy, and some clumps of matter formed and attracted other clumps to form stars, which further effected where the expanding gas goes and used it up as it formed other stars from its supernova.

 

The universe can actually be represented as a cone getting bigger, using the variables x, y, z, and t.

 

 

Edited December 15, 2010 by steevey

[Spyman]

I see what your getting at, and personally it doesn't make sense to me either if the Earth is close to the center. For everyone else, I think what he's trying to say is how can their be galaxies near us if the initial universe expanded and is now like x billion years away from us? Well, the answer is, not all the gas went outward. The universe wasn't and still isn't a hallow disk, it was a filled sphere. While the edge was expanding and making the universe bigger in volume, there was still other gas which wasn't being flung completely outward at the same speed. Not only that, but the universe was a lot more dense and energetic, so gas was running into itself a lot with high energy, and some clumps of matter formed and attracted other clumps to form stars, which further effected where the expanding gas goes and used it up as it formed other stars from its supernova.

 

The universe can actually be represented as a cone getting bigger, using the variables x, y, z, and t.

Are you speculating wildly or speaking without knowledge of scientific consensus?

 

Either way you are wrong, the Big Bang theory is NOT about an explosion in space.

[IM Egdall]

Are you speculating wildly or speaking without knowledge of scientific consensus?

 

Either way you are wrong, the Big Bang theory is NOT about an explosion in space.

 

Correct. The big bang theory is an explosion of space itself. Where in the unverse did the big bang happen? Here, there, and everywhere. Think of blowing up a balloon. In this analogy, the balloon's surface represents the universe. Where is the center of that surface? There is no center. There is no single location on the balloon's surface which the balloon is expanding from. No matter where you are on that balloon's surface, you see the surface around you expanding. Similarly, there is no center of the universe. No matter where you are in the universe, you see intergalactic space around you expanding. Hope this helps.

Edited December 15, 2010 by I ME

[michel123456]

This was not intended to dicuss the Big Bang. It is only a diagram showing what we are looking at.

 

I had previously some arguments when trying to explain that a light cone is empty. I suppose my wording is to blame. When I say a light cone is empty, I mean that each disk of the light cone is hollow, as explained above.

 

Now, the weird things begin.

 

Let's go back to the second diagram

 

to be continued.

 

After some thinking, I think it is better not to continue.

For sake of clarity.

Edited December 15, 2010 by michel123456

[steevey]

Are you speculating wildly or speaking without knowledge of scientific consensus?

 

Either way you are wrong, the Big Bang theory is NOT about an explosion in space.

 

Neither and I never said the big bang was an "explosion". I'm trying to see if that's what he's actually saying, because the whole point of him posting this topic is to see what people think to determine if he's right about his idea or not.

 

In a balloon, the volume increases, but the only solid part that expands is the very outer layer, since there isn't any balloon material inside of itself, just air. However, this is a false analogy to space, since obviously the universe isn't a hollow disk or sphere. In order for the balloon analogy to work, the material that makes up the balloon would also have to extend all the way to the very center of the balloon, which would also expand. If that happened however, at any point in time, there would still be material near the center, which from this particular analogy is also why you can notice that from any single point in the balloon, the rest of the balloon seems to be expanding from that point too.

 

I can make a cone growing through time with this equation

 

x^2+y^2+z^2+t^2

Edited December 16, 2010 by steevey

[Spyman]

Neither and I never said the big bang was an "explosion". I'm trying to see if that's what he's actually saying, because the whole point of him posting this topic is to see what people think to determine if he's right about his idea or not.

 

In a balloon, the volume increases, but the only solid part that expands is the very outer layer, since there isn't any balloon material inside of itself, just air. However, this is a false analogy to space, since obviously the universe isn't a hollow disk or sphere. In order for the balloon analogy to work, the material that makes up the balloon would also have to extend all the way to the very center of the balloon, which would also expand. If that happened however, at any point in time, there would still be material near the center, which from this particular analogy is also why you can notice that from any single point in the balloon, the rest of the balloon seems to be expanding from that point too.

 

I can make a cone growing through time with this equation

 

x^2+y^2+z^2+t^2

While you did not specifically use the word "explosion" it is obvious from your old post #6 and your recent post #9 that you are describing the expansion of Universe as if objects are moving outward through space from a center location similar to an explosion, which is not consistent with the Big Bang theory.

 

I suggest you to read the following links and learn more:

 

Big Bang theory

 

Misconceptions about the Big Bang

 

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial

Edited December 16, 2010 by Spyman

[steevey]

While you did not specifically use the word "explosion" it is obvious from your old post #6 and your recent post #9 that you are describing the expansion of Universe as if objects are moving outward through space from a center location similar to an explosion, which is not consistent with the Big Bang theory.

 

I suggest you to read the following links and learn more:

 

Big Bang theory

 

Misconceptions about the Big Bang

 

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial

 

While it may not have been an explosion, at one point in time, it's been determined that the universe was a single point of existence before the big bang, where all the forces were united. Because if I do use the equation (x^2+y^2+z^2+t^2) (probably with some modifications since the universe has been expanding differently throughout time), I can get to 0 with all the coordinates, even before a Planck time and Planck distance.

 

 

 

[Spyman]

While it may not have been an explosion, at one point in time, it's been determined that the universe was a single point of existence before the big bang, where all the forces were united. Because if I do use the equation (x^2+y^2+z^2+t^2) (probably with some modifications since the universe has been expanding differently throughout time), I can get to 0 with all the coordinates, even before a Planck time and Planck distance.

Then you won't have any problems with supporting evidence in favour of your claim, so please, go ahead and post a link to a reputable source with evidence of scientific consensus determining the Universe to be a singularity before the Big Bang.

 

You might be able to mathematically model a Universe backwards in time all the way to a singularity, but without observational evidence that is nothing more than speculation.

 

Did you even bother to read the links I provided?

 

Here are a few excerpts from the first:

 

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. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly not earlier than the Planck epoch

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

 

Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, 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 since that instant.

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

 

The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points.

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

 

 

[EDIT]

Since you seem to have some trouble with distinguishing between the Big Bang theory and the Big Bang event you should also read through this link:

 

A tale of two big bangs

Whenever you hear or read about cosmology, there is one distinction you should have in the back of your mind - otherwise, matters might get a bit confusing: The term "big bang" has two slightly different meanings, and the answer to questions like "Did the big bang really happen" depends crucially on which of the two big bangs you are talking about.

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/big_bangs

Edited December 17, 2010 by Spyman

[steevey]

Then you won't have any problems with supporting evidence in favour of your claim, so please, go ahead and post a link to a reputable source with evidence of scientific consensus determining the Universe to be a singularity before the Big Bang.

 

You might be able to mathematically model a Universe backwards in time all the way to a singularity, but without observational evidence that is nothing more than speculation.

 

Did you even bother to read the links I provided?

 

Here are a few excerpts from the first:

 

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. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly not earlier than the Planck epoch

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

 

Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, 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 since that instant.

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

 

The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points.

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

 

 

[EDIT]

Since you seem to have some trouble with distinguishing between the Big Bang theory and the Big Bang event you should also read through this link:

 

A tale of two big bangs

Whenever you hear or read about cosmology, there is one distinction you should have in the back of your mind - otherwise, matters might get a bit confusing: The term "big bang" has two slightly different meanings, and the answer to questions like "Did the big bang really happen" depends crucially on which of the two big bangs you are talking about.

http://www.einstein-...ights/big_bangs

 

http://www.albalagh...._universe.shtml

 

I don't know why your getting all theoretical on me because any theory you have or link you have to how the universe began or what it was like that that time is just speculation too.

 

As the article states, the universe can be mathematically traced back to a single point of zero volume and infinite density. Subsequently at that same point in time, all the forces, the Strong Force, Weak Force, Gravitational Force, and Electro-magnetic force could only be united through that explanation.

Edited December 18, 2010 by steevey

[michel123456]

aïe aïe aïe !

[Spyman]

http://www.albalagh...._universe.shtml

 

I don't know why your getting all theoretical on me because any theory you have or link you have to how the universe began or what it was like that that time is just speculation too.

 

As the article states, the universe can be mathematically traced back to a single point of zero volume and infinite density. Subsequently at that same point in time, all the forces, the Strong Force, Weak Force, Gravitational Force, and Electro-magnetic force could only be united through that explanation.

First of all, I am not going to accept a religious newspaper article as evidence of the scientific consensus, if anything it's proof of your ignorance.

(The article seems to be trying to unite the Qur'an with a Big Bang creation of the Universe.)

 

Secondly, my point was and still is that the very early Universe are still unknown and thus you can't claim that speculations of those parts are determined as scientific facts, my links was intended to show that it is speculation and thats all.

 

Thirdly, the Big Bang theory is the most comprehensive and accurate explanation supported by scientific evidence and observations as of today and that is quite a bit more than unsupported speculations.

 

 

As I said already back in post #6, you either don't have sufficient understanding of the Big Bang theory to be able to accurately describe it and you are happily filling up the gaps in your knowledge with imagination or you are contesting scientific consensus and spouting speculations as if they are determined facts.

 

Anyone reading through this thread can see that what you are saying are NOT consistent with the Big Bang theory as described in Wikipedia, which is clear evidence of you either not understanding the theory or by intention are spouting misleading information or are constesting scientific consensus.

 

 

At first I actually thought you only were misinformed and that supporting you with knowledge would help, but now it doesn't seem like you want to learn, you stubbornly cling to your delusional version in faith and refuse to admitt that you are wrong.

 

 

Tell me steevey, is there any point at all in continuing to argue with you and try to help with actual scientific information or is it only a waste of my time?

[steevey]

First of all, I am not going to accept a religious newspaper article as evidence of the scientific consensus, if anything it's proof of your ignorance.

(The article seems to be trying to unite the Qur'an with a Big Bang creation of the Universe.)

 

So just because someone is religious means they can't contribute to science? During the time periods of the crusades, Muslims were the ones who greatly increased our understanding of math, astronomy, anatomy, geometry, (etc) because Muslims don't see science as being a violation their faith. And before the Muslims, it was the Greeks in Romans who were polytheist throughout most of history who also came up with many inventions, a lot of which were from Archimedes which either are still used or were recently used with breakthroughs of simple machines. Even in the Christian culture, new inventions were being developed, so just because the person has faith in something in no way impairs their ability for scientific understanding. Do you want another link that states the same thing but isn't religious? Here you go: http://skyserver.sds...basic/universe/ (second paragraph under "The Expanding Universe") I know real astronomers in the Washburn observatory who uses the big telescope to look at the universe, who have religion, but the religion DOESN'T interfere with their work in any way. If you were at least in High-school you should have at least known a bare minimum that not every single thing was invented by atheist Americans in the 20th and 21st century. Even the concept of zero was invented by a Hindu in India.

 

 

Secondly, my point was and still is that the very early Universe are still unknown and thus you can't claim that speculations of those parts are determined as scientific facts, my links was intended to show that it is speculation and thats all.

Did you even read what I said? I never said we know how the universe began or anything like that, I said that scientists have determined is must have originated from a single point. Space is moving expanding so all the galaxies are moving away from each other which the exception of some interactions caused by gravity. All the information such as how hot the universe was after the big bang and the concentrations of matter are either inference or based on the cosmic background radiation, which can't tell us everything.

 

Thirdly, the Big Bang theory is the most comprehensive and accurate explanation supported by scientific evidence and observations as of today and that is quite a bit more than unsupported speculations.

 

This contradicts with what you said in the previous quotation.

 

 

As I said already back in post #6, you either don't have sufficient understanding of the Big Bang theory to be able to accurately describe it and you are happily filling up the gaps in your knowledge with imagination or you are contesting scientific consensus and spouting speculations as if they are determined facts.

 

Anyone reading through this thread can see that what you are saying are NOT consistent with the Big Bang theory as described in Wikipedia, which is clear evidence of you either not understanding the theory or by intention are spouting misleading information or are constesting scientific consensus.

 

 

At first I actually thought you only were misinformed and that supporting you with knowledge would help, but now it doesn't seem like you want to learn, you stubbornly cling to your delusional version in faith and refuse to admitt that you are wrong.

 

Tell me steevey, is there any point at all in continuing to argue with you and try to help with actual scientific information or is it only a waste of my time?

 

All you do is look up wikipedia articles and you suddenly think your a genius, stop wasting my time.

Edited December 20, 2010 by steevey

[Spyman]

So just because someone is religious means they can't contribute to science? During the time periods of the crusades, Muslims were the ones who greatly increased our understanding of math, astronomy, anatomy, geometry, (etc) because Muslims don't see science as being a violation their faith. And before the Muslims, it was the Greeks in Romans who were polytheist throughout most of history who also came up with many inventions, a lot of which were from Archimedes which either are still used or were recently used with breakthroughs of simple machines. Even in the Christian culture, new inventions were being developed, so just because the person has faith in something in no way impairs their ability for scientific understanding. Do you want another link that states the same thing but isn't religious? Here you go: http://skyserver.sds...basic/universe/ (second paragraph under "The Expanding Universe") I know real astronomers in the Washburn observatory who uses the big telescope to look at the universe, who have religion, but the religion DOESN'T interfere with their work in any way. If you were at least in High-school you should have at least known a bare minimum that not every single thing was invented by atheist Americans in the 20th and 21st century. Even the concept of zero was invented by a Hindu in India.

I never said someone religious can't contribute to science, I said a religious newspaper article is not evidence of scientific consensus.

 

 

This is what your link says:

 

If the universe is expanding, then at some time in the past, it must have started from a single point. Astronomers call this point "the big bang" - the universe began when it was compressed into a single point, very dense and very hot.

http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/proj/basic/universe/

 

IMHO, I think you are interpreting the text to literally, the point we get by extrapolating backwards in time is the Big Bang event but that doesn't mean that such a point really did exist. At best you can claim to have a scientific link speculating about the origin, that is still no evidence of either the beginning or of scientific consensus.

 

 

But HEY did you read what your link says on page five:

(If you click on the [NEXT] button four times.)

 

The Big Bang

The term big bang implies an explosion somewhere in space, with particles flying through space away from the explosion. If this were true, then with respect to the site of the explosion, the fastest-moving particles will have traveled farthest. If you plot the speed of the particles against the distance they have traveled, you will get a straight line. But this picture is NOT the concept behind the big bang. The explosion model is actually more complex than the big bang model - you need to say why there was an explosion at that point and not some other point; what distinguishes the galaxies at the edge as opposed to closer to the center, etc. In the big bang picture, all locations and galaxies are equivalent - everybody sees the same thing, and there is no center or edge.

http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/proj/basic/universe/

 

This is clearly NOT consistent with what you have said so far.

 

 

Did you even read what I said? I never said we know how the universe began or anything like that, I said that scientists have determined is must have originated from a single point. Space is moving expanding so all the galaxies are moving away from each other which the exception of some interactions caused by gravity. All the information such as how hot the universe was after the big bang and the concentrations of matter are either inference or based on the cosmic background radiation, which can't tell us everything.

AND I SAID: There is no scientific consensus determining that the Universe have orginated from a singularity and that the Big Bang theory don't contain any claims of such.

 

 

This contradicts with what you said in the previous quotation.

No it doesn't since the Big Bang theory doesn't speculate about how the Universe orginated or its earliest state.

 

 

All you do is look up wikipedia articles and you suddenly think your a genius...

The main purpose of my links was to show you and others that what I am saying is not my personal opinion and instead that it is the official scientific consensus.

 

 

...stop wasting my time.

Fine, as from this post you will be on my ignore list.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Spyman