Big Bang map uni-directional?

ta152h0 · Post by **ta152h0** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:37 pm

Orin,
it is called relativity. What you see ain't what it is, remembering there is no location for the Big Bang. You can't go out in the backyard, grab a ice cold one, and point to a spot where the big one happened. Humans are incapable of thinking far from classical Newtonian physics .

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:45 pm

However, BBT being true then there was a "spot" where "bang" began. It is just highly unlikely it can be located.

As for the unexplained massive formation galaxies -maybe the interaction those galaxies have had with others is minimal. Thus, allowing for the massive formation. Opposed to most other galaxies where gravitational interaction was more common.

orin stepanek · Post by **orin stepanek** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:34 pm

We don't know BBT to be true. We don't know it's not. It is the most excepted theory. I not an expert; I just don't think it happened that way. It's hard to change an accepted mindset; but there are other possibilities. Look at the way stars are born; out of dust. At one time everything may have been all dust. Where did the dust come from? Who knows but, where did the big bang get it's fuel? Who knows. Maybe the multiple bang idea; or the bubble theory is right. We will never know for sure; and there will always be theories. Maybe they are all to be considered.
Orin

ta152h0 · Post by **ta152h0** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:00 am

You are making a very bold statement that stars are born out of dust. they are not. Planets are born out of the substance loosely named dust. I don't think the human race possesses the knowledge to predict where stars are born. There is something out there that collects hydrogen around a gravitational point and starts a nuke.

harry · Post by **harry** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:11 am

Hello All

Orin I think you are partly right or should I say in line with what I think.

The Big Bang is a theory that has had its day.

Dust did not come from somewhere, its always being here in one form or another. Recycling from dust to dust as so to speak.

This mindset of the BBT has put alot of money in the wrong direction.

There are many cosmologists who are on track with other theories by looking at the reality and the actual images presented in the last two decades and the recent deep field images.

I have noted these links before here they are again.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bang.html

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:33 am

Martin wrote:However, BBT being true then there was a "spot" where "bang" began. It is just highly unlikely it can be located.

As ta152h0 hinted at in the post previous, the Big Bang was not supposed to have had a center; it happened in all of space. Or rather, it was an expansion of space, not an expansion of matter within space. On large scales, all objects in the universe are receding from each other, analogous to (I hate this overused comparison) all the spots on a balloon moving away from each other as the balloon is inflated. Two-dimensional inhabitants on the balloon's surface would observe universal expansion without a center, as we do.

harry · Post by **harry** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 7:51 am

Hello

It will take a very long time for people to understand that the Big Bang is just s a theory and not an actual event. Same with the expansion of the universe.

If there was not a Big Bang,,,,,,,,,what was there before and after.

I think

The Universe is endless and contains galaxies throughout. I cannot prove this and therfore will be open ended.

If it does contain galaxies throught and there is no start to time than you would expect the universe to behave in some random chaotic way.

The universe would not be able to expand or contract for it is "ALL".

The parts within the universe would consistently recycle, expanding and contracting, colliding and collapsing and showing to us the images that would take place.

Therfore the images that we study will have the answers to the never ending story.

Man has the knowledge and the ability to find the missing puzzel pieces and hopefully put the story together in time.

We are at the door step.

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:16 pm

Pete, you poor misguided soul -what universe do you live in?

Of course it’s an expansion of matter and energy. When you think about the BB, think about an observable super heated bubble of matter and energy exploding and expanding outwardly. Now ask yourself what is this bubble (i.e. observable universe) contained in -it's called the TOTAL universe. The bubble itself is not the TOTAL universe. Does that help you visualize what you are missing?

Harry, there are reasons why the BB is so widely accepted among the scientific community. While the substance of your uncertainties may be well thought, I believe that in the end we will only be able to “add” further insight to the BB –not take away from it. Likewise, I believe any effort to debunk it will ultimately serve to support it.

Qev · Post by **Qev** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:23 pm

Martin wrote:Pete, you poor misguided soul -what universe do you live in?

Of course it’s an expansion of matter and energy. When you think about the BB, think about an observable super heated bubble of matter and energy exploding and expanding outwardly. Now ask yourself what is this bubble (i.e. observable universe) contained in -it's called the TOTAL universe. The bubble itself is not the TOTAL universe. Does that help you visualize what you are missing?

Actually, the 'bubble' is the total universe, according the inflationary Big Bang model. It is not an explosion of matter and energy into a pre-existing empty space (like a bomb going off), but rather it's an expansion of spacetime itself, carrying matter and energy along with it. There's no 'outwardly' direction, there's nothing 'containing' it, because what is expanding is the sum total of everything, including all of space itself.

The 'bubble' of the observable universe is simply all of the universe that we can currently observe, due to the limitations of the speed of light. If Earth were somehow magically transported to the very edge of this bubble, we would simply see exactly the same thing: a bubble of expanding space around us. It's an isotropic expansion.

Now, we cannot know for certain what is beyond the observable universe, since we can't observe it. The physics of reality itself might radically change beyond that 'wall of unobservability'. But we have as yet no reason to believe that it should.

ta152h0 · Post by **ta152h0** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:34 pm

this universe is so vast, no matter how much shit I know, I am still gonna die an intellectual pauper. Pass the ice cold one, please.

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 7:49 pm

Qev, Come on.

Your explination falls short of reality. If you think about it you will see your error. Your misleading others to think there is nothing beyond what we can observe. The bubble is an expansion of matter and energy contained within THE TOTAL UNIVERSE. It sounds like your in agreement but your not making the connection and your tripping over your own words.

Think bubble>>>>>Total universe>>>>>>>bubble>>>>>>Total Universe======not the same!!!

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:19 pm

Martin wrote:Of course it’s an expansion of matter and energy. When you think about the BB, think about an observable super heated bubble of matter and energy exploding and expanding outwardly. Now ask yourself what is this bubble (i.e. observable universe) contained in -it's called the TOTAL universe. The bubble itself is not the TOTAL universe.

This point of view really misses the point of Big Bang theory, which is summed up in the Big Bang Wikipedia article under "Theoretical Underpinnings":

Wikipedia contributors wrote:the Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe; what is expanding is spacetime itself. It is this expansion that causes the physical distance between any two fixed points in our universe to increase.

Basically, space expanded (and is still doing so), pulling matter along with it.

Martin wrote:Qev, Come on.

Your explination falls short of reality. If you think about it you will see your error. Your misleading others to think there is nothing beyond what we can observe. The bubble is an expansion of matter and energy contained within THE TOTAL UNIVERSE. It sounds like your in agreement but your not making the connection and your tripping over your own words.

Think bubble>>>>>Total universe>>>>>>>bubble>>>>>>Total Universe======not the same!!!

As Qev wrote, the "bubble" is in fact the entire observable universe, according to BBT. Your addition of this "total universe" adds an extra layer of complexity to the universal model without resolving any of the questions: if the Big Bang was just an explosion of matter and energy into the pre-existing "total universe", what lies outside this total universe?

Qev · Post by **Qev** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:07 pm

Martin wrote:Qev, Come on.

Your explination falls short of reality. If you think about it you will see your error. Your misleading others to think there is nothing beyond what we can observe. The bubble is an expansion of matter and energy contained within THE TOTAL UNIVERSE. It sounds like your in agreement but your not making the connection and your tripping over your own words.

Think bubble>>>>>Total universe>>>>>>>bubble>>>>>>Total Universe======not the same!!!

Of course they're not the same thing. You'll note that I referred to this as the observable universe, which is that part of the universe that we are currently capable of observing. The 'local bubble', as you refer to it, isn't a bubble at all; it's simply the sphere defined by the maximum distance we are currently capable of seeing into the distant (and past) universe. According to the BBT, local spacetime isn't expanding into the surrounding universe; ALL of the universe is expanding, everywhere, equally.

According to our current understanding of physics, we see no reason why other parts of the universe, even parts too far away from us to be observed, should be behaving any differently than our local region of spacetime.

ta152h0 · Post by **ta152h0** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:15 pm

there is the " Observable Universe " thru the lens of newtonian physics and there is the non-observable universe thru the lens of quantum physics...........and they co-exist

astroton · Post by **astroton** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:21 am

Qev

Quantum particle behavior is interesting phenomena. Physical laws stand on very limited observations (A snapshot in a life of universe). Years gone by, the gravity may well be defined differently. Big Bang, if it really did happen, may turn out to be only a small bang in a very large picture, obscured today behind our limited understanding and our belief that we know it all.

Till then we need to keep an open mind.

Ta

Pass the ice cold one.

Qev · Post by **Qev** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:09 am

astroton wrote:Qev

Quantum particle behavior is interesting phenomena. Physical laws stand on very limited observations (A snapshot in a life of universe). Years gone by, the gravity may well be defined differently. Big Bang, if it really did happen, may turn out to be only a small bang in a very large picture, obscured today behind our limited understanding and our belief that we know it all.

It's a possibility that beyond the regions we observe, different physics might hold sway, and that there could be different regions undergoing different rates of expansion, and so forth. These are often referred to as 'domains', IIRC. But to the limits of our current knowledge, we have no evidence of such things. So I'll never say that it's impossible that there may be 'multiple' big bangs, the existence of such isn't required by our current theories.

harry · Post by **harry** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:55 am

Hello All

The observable universe is actually about 9 huge bubbles of super clusters of galaxies.

The question is this.
This cluster of super clusters: Is there more in the group that we cannot see.? Do clusters form in a similar way far far away.

In ten years or so the hubble will be repalced by a very large telescope.
I cannot wait for the info.

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:35 pm

Ok let’s rewind and replay an order of knowledge….

1st we thought the entire world was solely composed of the land we inhabited.

2nd we thought that the Earth was flat.

3rd we thought that the Earth was at the center of the universe.

4th we thought that our galaxy was the total universe.

5th we think that the total universe is solely composed of our observable universe.

6th we think that we are at the center of the observable universe.

What can one learn from this….Knowledge is relative!

ta152h0 · Post by **ta152h0** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:43 pm

<<<6th we think that we are at the center of the observable universe. >>>

simple geometry, we are observing from a point, everything radiates from our eyeballs. word engineering can do strange things to thinking Pass the ice cold one around again.

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:28 pm

ta152h0 wrote:everything radiates from our eyeballs

Well, sorry, Mr. Summers, but my eyes can't do that.

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 1:30 am

Hello All

Martin your right knowledge is relative.

Sometimes what we think entraps us and stops us from looking beyond.

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 2:29 am

Harry - I agree and there are a variety of examples in DAPOD.

Pete - Its been a couple days since I laughed like that -Thanks!

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:40 am

Hello All

At the start of this thread some questioned the recycling process of the universe.

One questiion was where did the matter come from to start it off.

In my opinion and in the opinion of many cosmologists today is that it has always being here in one form or another.

With that same logic, life in the universe has always being here. Life having the abilty to start and evolve under the right conditions. What evidence have we got. Planet earth.

Now if you think along the lines of the BBT than it came from nothing 14 billion years ago in some magical way having an explosive power from nothing to expanded faster than the speed of light to spread everything out into nothing.

Nothing gets nothing
Something gets something.

ta152h0 · Post by **ta152h0** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:25 pm

Hi Pete
that is funny

harry · Post by **harry** » Fri May 05, 2006 11:09 am

Hello All

Can someone give me strong evidence for the Big Bang and strong evidence that the whole universe is exapnding

Starship Asterisk*

Big Bang map uni-directional?

far away mature galaxies

dust

this expansion thing

observable universe

of course we are

Re: of course we are

Hi Pete