Slehm Posted January 8, 2011 Posted January 8, 2011 Is it possible to identify the point in the universe where the big bang occurred, to identify a point inthe universe where everything is moving away, blasted outwards from the big bang. And if so, where is it?
insane_alien Posted January 8, 2011 Posted January 8, 2011 thats an easy one. everywhere. when the universe started it was all the same point.
Slehm Posted January 8, 2011 Author Posted January 8, 2011 Is there a point in the universe not expanding? Are you saying everywhere is the "center" of the universe, that there is no actual one point, that is smack in the center of the thing?
insane_alien Posted January 8, 2011 Posted January 8, 2011 Is there a point in the universe not expanding? nope. Are you saying everywhere is the "center" of the universe, that there is no actual one point, that is smack in the center of the thing? yep, thats what current observations suggest.
Slehm Posted January 8, 2011 Author Posted January 8, 2011 Do you think its because it cannot be determined where it is?, or because it would be moving around?or because normal math breaks down that we cannot define a center in a finite space (unless the universe is defined as infinite). In a normal explosion you would be able to afterwards define a center of the explosion. Why not with this explosion? I would assume some kind of center existed before big bang, and that perhaps now a center would be somewhere where there is nothing left because everything exploded away from there
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 8, 2011 Posted January 8, 2011 It wasn't really an explosion. It was an expansion. Space was smaller back then. It wasn't an explosion that started in one tiny point in space -- space itself was incredibly tiny, and the explosion encompassed all of space that existed.
Slehm Posted January 8, 2011 Author Posted January 8, 2011 (edited) so it must have been incredibly hot because of the pressure inside space. Do we have any guesses as to how long space had that size, and what caused it to start to expand? (just thinking maybe time is a meaningless concept in this context, so you could say it was there without time, outside time or forever? I mean did time exist back then in the way we understand it now?) Edited January 8, 2011 by Slehm
michel123456 Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 Is there a point in the universe not expanding? nope. I thought that gravitationaly bounded bodies were not expanding.
insane_alien Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 no, gravitationally bound bodies aren't expanding. but the space they occupy is still expanding. remember, its space itself thats undergoing expansion, not the objects contained within.
michel123456 Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 You mean space between objects that are not gravitationaly bound. IIRC , following the standard model, only space between galaxy clusters is expanding.
rigney Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 (edited) You mean space between objects that are not gravitationaly bound. IIRC , following the standard model, only space between galaxy clusters is expanding. I simply love the way you do it "Michael-half dozen" or so. It's amazing how we put our faith in the unknow, even when it is pontificated by others without a clue, and only in theory at best. I wonder if a GOD could fit in there? Edited January 9, 2011 by rigney
michel123456 Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 I never involve God. I don't understand why we have to go into this. I have a lot of questions but I never never never wait for a godlike answer.
rigney Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 (edited) I never involve God. I don't understand why we have to go into this. I have a lot of questions but I never never never wait for a godlike answer. Pardon me!. I sense that you are extremely sensitive to blase statements in any accord. There was nothing more defining in that elocution than saying, a "Santa Claus". Thor, Zeus or Ptolemy. Edited January 9, 2011 by rigney
cypress Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 nope. Can this be demonstrated with the certainty equal to the certainty of your response? If so, please do. since nope is unambiguous, please provide unequivocal evidence that cannot be any other way. You have made a bold claim, back it up with equally bold evidence. -1
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 Whole-universe inflation in the early universe is supported by cosmic microwave background measurements, which would show anomalies from inhomogeneities in inflation. 1
Mr Skeptic Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 Is it possible to identify the point in the universe where the big bang occurred, to identify a point inthe universe where everything is moving away, blasted outwards from the big bang. And if so, where is it? The center of the universe, the place that everything is expanding away from, is 15 billion years ago. Although perhaps its more accurate to say there is no center. Oh, and don't go with the universe being at one point. We don't know that and it doesn't even make sense, since a point is zero-dimensional. 2
rigney Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 (edited) The center of the universe, the place that everything is expanding away from, is 15 billion years ago. Although perhaps its more accurate to say there is no center. Oh, and don't go with the universe being at one point. We don't know that and it doesn't even make sense, since a point is zero-dimensional. How can a thing, the universe for instance; expand for "15 minutes or 15 billion" years and not start with some sort of center and dimension, regardless of its size? I simply can't imagine the origin of anything having neither. Edited January 9, 2011 by rigney 1
Mr Skeptic Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 How can a thing, the universe for instance; expand for "15 minutes or 15 billion" years and not start with some sort of center and dimension, regardless of its size? I simply can't imagine the origin of anything having neither. Take a rubber balloon, and draw points all over it. Then inflate it and the distance between the points increases. Which point on the balloon is the center of the expansion? None of them... the center of the expansion is not on the surface of the balloon but in the "center" of it, even though there never was any balloon at that point. Furthermore, if you use spherical coordinate system with longitude and latitude to specify a point on the balloon, the expansion would be along the radial component which could be considered the time dimension given continuous inflation. 1
michel123456 Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 Take a rubber balloon, and draw points all over it. Then inflate it and the distance between the points increases. Which point on the balloon is the center of the expansion? None of them... the center of the expansion is not on the surface of the balloon but in the "center" of it, even though there never was any balloon at that point. Furthermore, if you use spherical coordinate system with longitude and latitude to specify a point on the balloon, the expansion would be along the radial component which could be considered the time dimension given continuous inflation. IMHO the balloon analogy is not a good one. When the balloon inflates, the distance between the points increase, but the points itselfs increase as well. In the balloon analogy, everything increase. It is a scale-factor analogy that involves even the inside "structure" of the point. It is not a representation that matches what is stated in the standard model. A better analogy is the raisin-cake: the raisin itself is not influenced by the scale factor and represents correctly the gravitationaly bound object, i.e. the galaxy cluster. 1
StringJunky Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) Deleted Edited January 10, 2011 by StringJunky
michel123456 Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) Deleted deleted too. Edited January 10, 2011 by michel123456
cypress Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) Whole-universe inflation in the early universe is supported by cosmic microwave background measurements, which would show anomalies from inhomogeneities in inflation. My understanding is that microwave background measurements are not homogeneous rather there is a small degree of variation, please confirm the measurements are completely free of anomalies. What degree of variation unequivocally are inconsistent with other expansion models? References please. Edited January 11, 2011 by cypress -1
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 The question was about points in the universe that don't expand at all. There are inhomogeneities in the CMBR indicative of small random fluctuations in the early universe, but as far as I know they are indicated as corroborating whole-universe inflation theory quite well. Now, this says nothing of the universe's current state, since the CMBR is quite old. The current rate of expansion is determined by redshifts, and I don't know how comprehensive that data is.
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