Thread: The Big Question

The Big Question?

The BB is generally presumed to be an exploding universe because of the redshufts of the galaxies that appear to be receding from our central location.

But the BB'ers say it is NOT an explosion but just an 'expansion of space' (EoS).

So this brings up the question of:
What is the Driving Force that is causing this expansion?
I believe in the physics hypothesis of Cause and Effect. So the EoS is an effect.
Then what is the cause of this effect?

That is the Big Question?

Any solutions?

NS

The interesting thing here is that the universe is 'expanding' - relative to what? if there is nothing outside then is it? or is it an illusion?

Suppose you have a balloon of a fixed size, and you were inside it and shrinking, then the balloon would appear to be expanding, so maybe the universe is evaporating, and linearly changing it's laws as it goes...

Sounds of the twilight zone heard in the background.....

It would also explain my bank balance....

Dark energy is the driving force. And as to how to explain the expansion, imagine a balloon with several coins glued onto it while deflated (it's a big balloon). Then, blow it up. Your breath is the 'dark energy,' expanding the universe, driving the pennies away from each other. But at the same time, the pennies are the same size, not expanding with the balloon.

An observer on one penny would think that everything was rushing away from it, but another observer on another penny would think the same thing. It's not an explosion with a central point that everything is rushing away from, it's an expansion of the parts of the universe where there isn't enough matter to hold it all together.

Originally Posted by Legendary

Dark energy is the driving force. And as to how to explain the expansion, imagine a balloon with several coins glued onto it while deflated (it's a big balloon). Then, blow it up. Your breath is the 'dark energy,' expanding the universe, driving the pennies away from each other. But at the same time, the pennies are the same size, not expanding with the balloon.

An observer on one penny would think that everything was rushing away from it, but another observer on another penny would think the same thing. It's not an explosion with a central point that everything is rushing away from, it's an expansion of the parts of the universe where there isn't enough matter to hold it all together.

Yes, we know all that, and that the universe is infinite but bounded, and travelling in a straight line brings you back to your starting point, except each second you delay starting, will mean a longer journey, but that's not the point.

My point is how do you know the universe IS expanding rather than matter shrinking, the effect would be the same, what test can you apply to difinitively eperate the possibilities?, - either or both can be seen as absurd, neither may be true, either might. If you, your tape measure and all else was shrinking at the same rate, each time you measured the size of the universe it would appear to have expanded, - it's a thought experiment only.

I wasn't responding to your thought. I was explaining it to Mike NS. It IS an interesting thought experiment though. I can't say there IS a way to tell the difference, unless you found a grand copy of the laws of physics.

The universe is a black hole with a radius of 89.1 billion lightyears. But it started out small, the remnant of a supernova, and gradually pulled in more and more matter. The universe grew.

Nothing can escape from a black hole, not even heat, the end-product of ordinary chemical and nuclear reactions. A black hole has gravity so powerful that it can smash together heat and matter and create lighter elements with higher potential energy and lower entropy (hydrogen & helium). As a black hole grows heat is converted back into potential energy, and the ultimate form of potential energy is gravitational potential energy. Orbiting objects with higher gravitational potential energy will orbit further apart. Matter inside a black hole will therefore expand to fill the spherical volume of the event horizon. As unbound clumps of matter collide they will once again begin the process of recombination, releasing heat and forming atoms and stars and heavier elements with lower potential energy. But as long as there is matter and heat to pull in from the outside the universe will continue to grow and larger clumps of matter will continue to move outward to fill that volume, until by chance or trajectory they collide.

http://www.geocities.com/jojo_joranu...Inflation.html

That is a very interesting concept, that matter maybe shrinking therefore giving us the illusion that space is expanding. I think that if we apply the multiverse theory and that the possibility of OUR universe being created through a black hole / collapsing star of a LARGER universe then theoretically we would be trapped within the confines of the black hole's singularity (or just outside the boundry - possibly) therefore with gravity being the constant I believe that indeed Matter WOULD be shrinking, therefore giving us the illusion that space is infact expanding. The big question is; IF matter is shrinking as opposed to the universe expanding WOULD we still experience the doppler effect (as we do) ?

Further more if matter is indeed shrinking as proposed then it would be the by-product of the crushing forces of the gravity of the black hole that we are stuck inside AND as gravity (like magnetism) is inversley proportional. That is; the closer a chunk of matter gets to another chunk of matter; the stronger the force of gravity gets....That could explain why the universe appears to be expanding at an ever faster rate and that the expansion appears to be accelerating because in fact matter is shrinking at an ever faster rate due to the properties of gravity.

Whether the universe is expanding or matter is shrinking gives us a bit of a problem either way in that sooner or later the space between the subatomic particles within the nucleus of atoms will in proportion to the size of the particles become to distant and therefore what will happen is that the strong nuclear force will no longer be able to bond quarks sufficiently to give us the stable protons and neutrons we have now.

Maybe shrinking matter happens due to radiation ? This to me seems logical as atoms appear to be throwing off energy all the time; maybe this aids gravity ? Maybe it creates gravity ?

It is my belief that gravity is not a force in its own right but a result of a combination of a few different forces.

I was not suggesting matter shrinking as being us in a 'tight spot' but more atoms decaying, the energy being given off as gravity, - I'll give the red shift some thought....

As the atoms reduce in size the strong bond keeps them together, all the same age, all the same state, this could go on forever. If the universe IS a 'black hole' in the greater scheme of things, it may be not of the same type as BH's in our universe, the laws governing it could be even further beyond our comprehension.

Originally Posted by Legendary

Dark energy is the driving force. And as to how to explain the expansion, imagine a balloon with several coins glued onto it while deflated (it's a big balloon). Then, blow it up. Your breath is the 'dark energy,' expanding the universe, driving the pennies away from each other. But at the same time, the pennies are the same size, not expanding with the balloon.

An observer on one penny would think that everything was rushing away from it, but another observer on another penny would think the same thing. It's not an explosion with a central point that everything is rushing away from, it's an expansion of the parts of the universe where there isn't enough matter to hold it all together.

Your solution here would seem to be an answer but 'dark energy' is just another observation to save the BB and Einsteins cosmological constant (lambda).

I do not give any credit to the SN1a's as a reliable distance candle that was used in determining this DE discovery.
These SN's are based on the white dwarf stars exploding after accumulating mass to a 1.44 solar mass level.
White Dwarf stars come in a variation of mass sizes and temperature variations. The temperature variations can be from about 3000K to over 100,000 K.
So the quantity of accumulated hydrogen mass from an accompanying star can vary as well as the trigger temperature for these explosions.
So the 1.44 solar mass that triggers the explosion can only be an average point for the variations of explosions.
Another thing to consider is that there in not much hydrogen gas observed to consider as one of the causes of mass involved in these explosions.

NS

maybe gravity is repulsive at extremely long ranges?

Or maybe ANOTHER big bang has happened within the "centre" of our universe and its expansion is pushing us away; just we cant detect it because other than the EoS, no light or matter can travel to us from it for us to observe it BECAUSE of the EoS.

I find that viewing the fractals of the Mendelbrot and Julian sets helps to imagine the multiverse theory. As the moon waxes and the wanes, as the ocean tides ebb and the flow, as the magnetic forces pulsate and implode, we can view EoS (expansion) as a spiraling "Butterfly effect".

erm...... o---k.

::: tumbleweed :::

My own philosophical conception of forces calls for various forces
that alternate between attraction and repulsion that are not symetrical (acting at different ranges) and that start and end with repulsion.

If you only have attraction at the smalest scale, nothing tangible can form, you need repulsion at the most smallest of scale for strutures to form(since otherwise intangible and absorbing everything).

But if you only have repulsion basic element(energy) can exist but scatters and cannot form structure either.

so you need both attraction and repulsion

If you have a symetrical pattern of attraction and repulsion, you tend to have a crystaline universe, structures exist but are too stable and inert to produce anything complex.

So you need an asymetrical pattern of repulsion and attraction that alternate and act at various ranges, starting with repulsion at the smalest scale and ending with repulsion at the largest scale(otherwise the universe would colapse by gravity).

Originally Posted by icewendigo

My own philosophical conception of forces calls for various forces
that alternate between attraction and repulsion that are not symetrical (acting at different ranges) and that start and end with repulsion.

If you only have attraction at the smalest scale, nothing tangible can form, you need repulsion at the most smallest of scale for strutures to form(since otherwise intangible and absorbing everything).

But if you only have repulsion basic element(energy) can exist but scatters and cannot form structure either.

so you need both attraction and repulsion

If you have a symetrical pattern of attraction and repulsion, you tend to have a crystaline universe, structures exist but are too stable and inert to produce anything complex.

So you need an asymetrical pattern of repulsion and attraction that alternate and act at various ranges, starting with repulsion at the smalest scale and ending with repulsion at the largest scale(otherwise the universe would colapse by gravity).

Matter is structured to NOT collapse.
In the ground state of the hydrogen atom that was presumed to collapse by using Newtonian math is erroneous.
The interaction between the electrons magnetic field and the protons spin magnetic field do oppose each other to assist the electrons orbital momentum to keep the HA from collapsing.

In the galaxy clusters containing an added boost to the gravity with the Zwicky dark matter, there is also no collapse in spite of the tremendous boost to gravity because the orbital momentum of the orbiting bodies increases to resist a collapse.
So in both cases, there is a resistence to the collapse of matter in both the gases and the major structures.

NS

I know that photons have no mass but do they require a certain amount of space in order to exist ? The reason why im asking us because im wondering whether the production of photons could have something to do with the continuation of universal inflation ?

Originally Posted by leohopkins

I know that photons have no mass but do they require a certain amount of space in order to exist ? The reason why im asking us because im wondering whether the production of photons could have something to do with the continuation of universal inflation ?

My opinion is that photons do NOT have any influence in this false interpretation of an expanding universe.

Space is not affected by the photons because they use the EM fields to move through space. These fields exist because the components of matter contain the forces both within and outside the particles.

There is no real evidence to support the 'expansion of space'. Although the Doppler redshift observations are the source of this space expansion, Doppler was refuted and replaced with the subjective idea of an expanding universe.

NS

I see what you are saying, but I always always under the impression that light or photons could be held in fields, as far as im aware you can get and the majority of photons ARE not held in fields, but free to travel the universe in one dimension only.

Originally Posted by leohopkins

I see what you are saying, but I always always under the impression that light or photons could be held in fields, as far as im aware you can get and the majority of photons ARE not held in fields, but free to travel the universe in one dimension only.

Well yes, photons do travel through the fields as a single line pulse.
But my idea of a photon is that they are expanding to infinite lenths and subsequently to oblivion.
These photons are than replaced by 'new' photons from the new star formations.

What you are saying here is that Einsteins 'curvature of space' with cause the light from a flashlight to travel through space and hit you in the back of the head as a continuing radiation without end.
I refute this idea as well as Einsteins CoS.
I support a SSU as I have explained in a separate post.
I also posted an article on 'Creation of Photons' that you might be interested in.

NS

So youre still around mike? hahaha
Still refuse to belive in a proven theory created by a man far superior to you?

Back to topic

There is no real evidence to support the 'expansion of space'. Although the Doppler redshift observations are the source of this space expansion, Doppler was refuted and replaced with the subjective idea of an expanding universe

The doppler effect is evidence enough and has been proven correct by other methods of measuring distances aswell in space.

What is the Driving Force that is causing this expansion?

The current theory that fits to describe this phenomena is the higgs field wich also explains what mass acctually is. Calculations shows that if the higgs field is correct that the field is extremly repulsive at the begining of big bang. But this goes to 1 PT after bigbang. at 0 PT we cant know.

Originally Posted by Mike NS

The Big Question?
What is the Driving Force that is causing this expansion?
NS

It's free rolling, My question is "What is there that can/will stop it?"

But I guess I'm not alone there, everyone wants to know that one!

Nothing will.

I dont believe in a big crunch for one second.

Hey imagine if our universe is actually contained in an electron inside a larger universe and our electrons are actually........

Originally Posted by leohopkins

Nothing will.

That statement is invalid since no proof is being provided to support it. If its your idea you should state "I think/belive"

But measurements of the matter/energy density and dark energy toghater with the pictures of the microwave background radiation shows that the space is naturally flat without the present of matter. This in turn means that the big crunch and big rip is not how our universe will end but rather big chill will be the end of our universe. But this might chance as the constants are more preciesly measured

Originally Posted by Zelos

So youre still around mike? hahaha
Still refuse to belive in a proven theory created by a man far superior to you?

Back to topic

There is no real evidence to support the 'expansion of space'. Although the Doppler redshift observations are the source of this space expansion, Doppler was refuted and replaced with the subjective idea of an expanding universe

The doppler effect is evidence enough and has been proven correct by other methods of measuring distances aswell in space.

What is the Driving Force that is causing this expansion?

The current theory that fits to describe this phenomena is the higgs field wich also explains what mass acctually is. Calculations shows that if the higgs field is correct that the field is extremly repulsive at the begining of big bang. But this goes to 1 PT after bigbang. at 0 PT we cant know.

Doppler was refuted and replaced by the BB'ers EoS. So this is real science that is replaced by subjective opinion.

Higgs field particles are just speculation. They have NOT been proven to exist.

NS

Doppler was refuted and replaced by the BB'ers EoS. So this is real science that is replaced by subjective opinion.

this thing aint subjective its a objective way of measuring the distance

Higgs field particles are just speculation. They have NOT been proven to exist.

Did i ever claim that is how it is and that it has been proven? that is not the case you asked for a explination and i gave you the one that i know of that fits the phenomena in question best and for this case its the higgs field. It remains to be proven or not.

Originally Posted by Hopkins

Nothing will.

I dint believe in a big crunch for one second.

Hey imagine if our universe is actually contained in an electron inside a larger universe and our electrons are actually........

in my opinion, the idea you suggest is possible and in both directions. if all we know in all things were reduced proportionately to fit into the speck of dust, then we could be that speck of dust to another existence. we then could be a speck of dust floating around in that proportionately larger universe or even part of an item.

there is no argument to discount the possibility, but then there is no way to argue the possibility.

Originally Posted by Zelos

Doppler was refuted and replaced by the BB'ers EoS. So this is real science that is replaced by subjective opinion.

this thing aint subjective its a objective way of measuring the distance

Doppler is real science because it deals with relative motions. It's implications also IMPLY that we are in the center of the universe.
This is 'virtually' an impossibility and a repeat of the geocentric theory. So Doppler had to be replaced.

So the implications were accepted and Doppler was replaced by the 'expansion of space' to eliminate the geocentric implications.
If that isn't subjective, than I do not know what the word means.
The EoS is an invention to eliminate the geocentric implications.

The baloon analogy is false because it is 2 dimensional.
The BB is portrayed as an evolving universe and has time as one component.
So when you trace the BB backward in time, it is a 'dead end' at zero time. So this zero time and point is the center of a 3 dimensional BB.

You cannot eliminate a center for a 3 dimensional space.
The 3 coordinates x, y and z start at one point.

NS

Doppler is real science because it deals with relative motions. It's implications also IMPLY that we are in the center of the universe.
This is 'virtually' an impossibility and a repeat of the geocentric theory. So Doppler had to be replaced.

Nope, it implies only that it SEEMS as we are the center of the universe but unlike you as it seems scientists are smart enough to realise this is not the case and every point will have the same appearens

The baloon analogy is false because it is 2 dimensional.
The BB is portrayed as an evolving universe and has time as one component.
So when you trace the BB backward in time, it is a 'dead end' at zero time. So this zero time and point is the center of a 3 dimensional BB.

yeah all analogies are wrong they are just more or less wrong

if you cant even realise the universe is a 4 dimensional spacetime continuum how can you expect us to take you serius in anyway?

You cannot eliminate a center for a 3 dimensional space.
The 3 coordinates x, y and z start at one point.

you gotta have a point as 0 allways but its only a question of defintion

[quote="Zelos"]

Nope, it implies only that it SEEMS as we are the center of the universe but unlike you as it seems scientists are smart enough to realise this is not the case and every point will have the same appearens

You are using the 2D analogy again. I refuted that.

u cant even realise the universe is a 4 dimensional spacetime continuum how can you expect us to take you serius in anyway?

Spacerime is an invention of Einsteins just like his mass/energy formula.
I refuted his M/E formula with the fission bomb and logic.
His 'curvature of space' that supposedly bends starlight passing the Sun is actually bent by the gravity of the Sun. If gravity can 'redshift' the light, it can then also bend it.

NS

Mike NS -
Don't you get tired of handwaving away, based on ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, science which has ample evidence behind it? What makes YOU so superior that you can just arbitrarily decide which science is good, and which is bad?
Maybe you should restrain your posts to topics that you create because you might confuse people who are interested in real scientific viewpoints with your made-up points of view.

You are using the 2D analogy again. I refuted that.

nope im not refering to the 2D analogy again but 4D FACTS.

Spacerime is an invention of Einsteins just like his mass/energy formula.

yepp, he, unlike you, had something that took up 20% of the energy in his body
but its a discovery not a invention. a physical fact of the universe

I refuted his M/E formula with the fission bomb and logic.

nope you refuse it cause you use emotions, your idea isnt based on logic. The fission bomb is based upon einsteins formula and its the formula wich has made everything to exist, given earth light etc. You should thank that formula that you are even here

Mike realise it E=MC² is true it has been proven over and over again with nuclear reactions but especially with antimatter

His 'curvature of space' that supposedly bends starlight passing the Sun is actually bent by the gravity of the Sun. If gravity can 'redshift' the light, it can then also bend it.

nice work sherlook seeing and realising the obvius things

Don't you get tired of handwaving away, based on ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, science which has ample evidence behind it? What makes YOU so superior that you can just arbitrarily decide which science is good, and which is bad?

mike is a commonly know KNS. He is a Know-Nothing-Smart person. They think they know things without acctually knowing anything. I have even come with a formula that fits this kind of phenomena.
y=k/x
y is the amount of knowledge you think you know
k is the amount of knowledge that exist in the universe
and x is the amount of knowledge you acctually know
his x must be either 0 or extremly close since he think he know more than people who have done much more work and studied much more and is/was more intelligent than he ever can/will be.

he wished to be special and be smart but as he have proven over and over again among people who acctually know something that it isnt the case.

According to the big bang theory, the universe emerged from an extremely dense and hot state (singularity). Because the universe has a mass we can also presum that it has a mass, and there fore, gravity. according to particle theory all things when hot will rise to some extent e.g air, convection in liquids etc. therefore the universe is expanding due to the heat or the extreme preassure that was there in the beginning.

The universe is therefore expanding due to the imbalance between it's internal preassure and the gravity it produces. When the preassure is counterbalanced the universe will stop expanding and when that happens gravity will becom the stronger force and everything should collapse back into the singularity (the big crunch)

what you say is to suggest the process could have and should have happened a number of times.

when this came up during the original arguments the idea was dropped, expansion then un-ending or for eternity. these are the same people that now say in time you will see no stars in the night sky, if we last long enough. BBT must contain "creation" to maintain popularity.

contrary to BB is a steady state which simply means "always been". which is supported by a good many just as versed as some high level moderators. by the way, expansion is also questioned but not required in SS and is in BBT.

Well my theory always has been that our universe is actually inside a black-hole in a "larger" universe and that black holes in this universe contain "smaller" universes. When a star collapses upon itself all of the energy must go somewhere. I believe that a collapse happens and then "bang" a big-bang happens inside it and a new universe is born. I believe this process always has happened and will always continue to happen. It would appear to me to be the only thing that is infinate.

Of course when, in our universe thanks to proton decay the last particle evaporates into nothingness, in the larger universe which supported the blackhole which was our universe, an observer there would witness a black-hole evaporation. Time in our universe is a LOT different to the larger universe and indeed smaller universes within ours; as is everything else including the laws of physics; however gravity is the constant.

but explain why our universe isnt losing energy/matter like blackholes then

erm......I think if you do the sums you will find that 99% of our universe is missing. Also, I believe that as the universe is mostly flat but the boundry is a curved spehere, high energy photons escape our universe but can only do so at the polar regions.

Originally Posted by leohopkins

erm......I think if you do the sums you will find that 99% of our universe is missing. Also, I believe that as the universe is mostly flat but the boundry is a curved spehere, high energy photons escape our universe but can only do so at the polar regions.

It's more like 80% +/- 10% I'm not sure about your photon remarks, what is your source for this extraordinary claim?

Originally Posted by Mike NS

The Big Question?


What is the Driving Force that is causing this expansion?


NS

I look outside not within and think of our Universe as part of a larger dynamical system which somehow reached a critical point. We see evidence of critical points all around us and I suggest they offer a glimpse into the birth of the Universe. At a critical point, a system is unstable and quickly "adjusts" to a new, often qualitatively different state. That adjustment we observe as change: slowly push a vase off a table. Nothing much happens until a critical point is reached at the edge. A slight tug and the system (vase, table, me) undergoes an abrupt and qualitative change as the vase trajects to the floor and smashes.

I think of the entire history of our Universe as the trajectory the pre-existence is undergoing in response to the breech through the critical point we call the Big Bang as this larger dynamical system heads towards some final stable state. In this perspective, expansion is a consequence of unstable dynamics inherent with critical points.

Originally Posted by leohopkins

erm......I think if you do the sums you will find that 99% of our universe is missing. Also, I believe that as the universe is mostly flat but the boundry is a curved spehere, high energy photons escape our universe but can only do so at the polar regions.

youre refering to dark energy and dark matter that isnt missing. its just a funny way of saying it XD
but that energy/matter or our real energy/matter should decreasing if we were in a black hole

Because the black-hole is spinning and it will twist the gravitational field somewhat; this has a vortex effect on space-time. Which is why incidentally when you take the plug out of the path tub, gravity obviously pulls it down and it creates a spinning vortex. However we are talking about a gravitational field within the universe which is spinning, an almost centrifugal force is created; photons that reach the edge of the universe will bounce back off this spinning force (or SHOULD) at least at obscure angles. Others that make it to the poles become concentrated twists of energy, that outside the black hole radiate at its poles. The black-hole is slowly evaporating.

and on what do you base that?

Originally Posted by Zelos

and on what do you base that?

It's called smoking the wrong kind of shit!

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Originally Posted by Legendary

Dark energy is the driving force. And as to how to explain the expansion, imagine a balloon with several coins glued onto it while deflated (it's a big balloon). Then, blow it up. Your breath is the 'dark energy,' expanding the universe, driving the pennies away from each other. But at the same time, the pennies are the same size, not expanding with the balloon.

An observer on one penny would think that everything was rushing away from it, but another observer on another penny would think the same thing. It's not an explosion with a central point that everything is rushing away from, it's an expansion of the parts of the universe where there isn't enough matter to hold it all together.

Yes, we know all that, and that the universe is infinite but bounded, and travelling in a straight line brings you back to your starting point, except each second you delay starting, will mean a longer journey, but that's not the point.

My point is how do you know the universe IS expanding rather than matter shrinking, the effect would be the same, what test can you apply to difinitively eperate the possibilities?, - either or both can be seen as absurd, neither may be true, either might. If you, your tape measure and all else was shrinking at the same rate, each time you measured the size of the universe it would appear to have expanded, - it's a thought experiment only.

I've never heard this idea before. It's a really interesting hypothesis (it is testable), but I think it's flawed. The universe is expanding only in those areas devoid of matter ("normal" matter and dark matter) -- material bodies like ourselves and the planets are not being pulled apart by the expansive force of dark energy (b/c it's easily overcome by the the sum of gravity, EM, and nuclear forces). We (material bodies) are the steady frame of reference against which we make measurements of the expanding universe. That seems sensible enough to me.

Taken from the other side, that matter is shrinking and the size of the universe as a whole is constant, you would predict that bodies of different size would be shrinking at different rates (the sum of the four forces holding matter together is a different value for every body of different size and chemical composition; e.g. you would expect a crystal to be shrinking at a faster rate than a gaseous cloud, at identical and constant environmental conditions, with your additional constant "matter shrinking" force added to the others). This is not what we observe.

Also, your matter shrinking force would have to work to shrink empty space as well, to maintain the relative distance between things, atoms, neutrons and protons, or else everything in the universe would be condensing and getting packed tighter together over time. This is a paradox (within your hypothesis) - not only matter would be shrinking but the universe as well (unless the matter shrinking force only worked to shrink empty space within matter but not outside it, i.e. between macroscopic bodies). That doesn't make sense. It also doesn't fit in with observation.

There are other experiments you could do with radiant energy -- two bodies of the same size and composition should radiate the same amount of energy. According to your hypothesis, the one later in time would radiate less energy.

Imagining an expanding volume (vacuum) with bodies of constant size is much easier than imagining a constant volume with bodies of decreasing size. It's intuitive and it fits observation.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Originally Posted by Zelos

and on what do you base that?

It's called smoking the wrong kind of shit!

that i know im just trying to make them think even thou it seems like a impossible task

If matter was shrinking, we would not be experiencing the redshift of galaxies as we do, furthermore, if it is shrinking then there must have been a time when we were erm....infinately big, or something along those lines.

In reality though, "size" as it were is not absolute. It is based purely on perception. Okay....To an ant for instance, the Earth would appear to be the size that we would percieve neptune to be if we were standing on neptune.

And the only thing that I have been smoking is the piece of paper in my science text book which suggests that the universe is all there is and that it was created from nothing.

Originally Posted by zetaman

Originally Posted by Mike NS

The Big Question?


What is the Driving Force that is causing this expansion?


NS

I look outside not within and think of our Universe as part of a larger dynamical system which somehow reached a critical point. We see evidence of critical points all around us and I suggest they offer a glimpse into the birth of the Universe. At a critical point, a system is unstable and quickly "adjusts" to a new, often qualitatively different state. That adjustment we observe as change: slowly push a vase off a table. Nothing much happens until a critical point is reached at the edge. A slight tug and the system (vase, table, me) undergoes an abrupt and qualitative change as the vase trajects to the floor and smashes.

I think of the entire history of our Universe as the trajectory the pre-existence is undergoing in response to the breech through the critical point we call the Big Bang as this larger dynamical system heads towards some final stable state. In this perspective, expansion is a consequence of unstable dynamics inherent with critical points.

Interesting theory.

I personally think of the big bang resulting from a collision. Imagine two cars speeding towards each other... bizzang! It is really hard to guess what could have colided on this magnitude, but I agree with those working in string theory and M theory. I think we are in a very close relationship with our parallel universe: the unseen world. I think it was something from this world that caused the bb. Then again, who knows.

who knows and lets see if you can live up to your name

I have head a lot of people talking about "Parrallel universes" - Do they REALLY know what this implies ?

if you figured it out you can be damn sure the scientists have already figured it out atleast 5 times

NS Comment

While scanning the last two pages of this post, I got a few laughs. Ha ha.

There is no consensus on how the BB started.

So far, it appears that Planck time of 10^-44 seconds is the farthest back one can go. From that point back in time, there are no solutions for the origin.
Scientists frown on the idea of the 'creation theory' but that is the only solution I can see since time reduces to zero and that tells me that the BB is a 'creation out of nothing' theory because 'zero' time means exactly that..

So, the BB has no credibility.

NS

Originally Posted by Mike NS

NS Comment

While scanning the last two pages of this post, I got a few laughs. Ha ha.

There is no consensus on how the BB started.

So far, it appears that Planck time of 10^-44 seconds is the farthest back one can go. From that point back in time, there are no solutions for the origin.
Scientists frown on the idea of the 'creation theory' but that is the only solution I can see since time reduces to zero and that tells me that the BB is a 'creation out of nothing' theory because 'zero' time means exactly that..

So, the BB has no credibility.

NS

once again who cares what you think?
youre just a regular nobody.

if you look throu other threads you´ll see that even thou there is something now there is equally much now energy that it were before big bang

PS: your ideas and thoughts are the one with no credibility, they are never founded on any facts

Originally Posted by leohopkins

I have head a lot of people talking about "Parrallel universes" - Do they REALLY know what this implies ?

most i have heard relates to some dimension or realm that may exist, either with us or at some other location. kind of like looking in the mirror, all you see is in reverse. everything you are and can see in the mirror to some may be the parallel unit. originally and long ago some figured if another earth existed and was always on the other side of the sun, then this could be us, but in reverse.

personally i doubt most of this, but am open to a subconsciouses mind connection to a dimension we don't understand. we all dream and dreams can effect much of our lives. yet there is nothing material to our 3 or 4d to explain.

Zelos; every BBT i have read, indicates no accepted reason for the cause.
only that this singularity was there and reacted to some unknown event.
i would really like to know how long this thing was there, where it came from and at least a guess on cause...

please do not quote any one. what is your opinion based on what you know. it should be very good, as you appear to speak for all of mankind, with regards to credibility.

only that this singularity was there and reacted to some unknown event.

yeah, thats about it for now

i would really like to know how long this thing was there, where it came from and at least a guess on cause...

it might have come to be then instantenusly exploded into big bang

just brainstorming now

as for those questions we dont know them. a question remains only unanswered to be answered with time

Originally Posted by Mike NS

NS Comment
There is no consensus on how the BB started.

So far, it appears that Planck time of 10^-44 seconds is the farthest back one can go. From that point back in time, there are no solutions for the origin.
Scientists frown on the idea of the 'creation theory' but that is the only solution I can see since time reduces to zero and that tells me that the BB is a 'creation out of nothing' theory because 'zero' time means exactly that..

So, the BB has no credibility.

NS

Why should there be a consensus on the "start" of something that causality does not even apply to? There was no time "before" the Big Bang so speaking of a "cause" of the Big Bang doesn't make sense.

You are right! We have no friggin idea. But we can make some pretty logical guesses.



And about our parallel universe, I can't prove that it exists, perhaps someone out there can. But I strongly FEEL that there is an unseen world existing in a very close relationship with the seen world. From a religious standpoint, this is where our spirits exist.

and thats where the name of you became a lie

there is no such thing as a spirit, a spirit as people call is just your mind.

as for parallel universe, they might or might no exist i think its nothing more than fun speculations until some evidence come forward that indicates their existens

There are people who don't think they have a spirit or soul, which is pretty damn sad.

Originally Posted by The One Who Knows

There are people who don't think they have a spirit or soul, which is pretty damn sad.

sad or not its how it is

Originally Posted by zelos

PS: your ideas and thoughts are the one with no credibility, they are never founded on any facts

Well, that is your opinion.
If you think the Laws of Coservation of Matter and Energy are not facts than you need to learn a little physics.
You can also include the M-M interferometry experiments and Halton Arp's Redshift Anomaly as not being facts is nonsense.
I have also cited some NASA observations (dark matter solution) in my posts.

You definitely need to learn physics.

NS

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Why should there be a consensus on the "start" of something that causality does not even apply to? There was no time "before" the Big Bang so speaking of a "cause" of the Big Bang doesn't make sense.

Physics is 'Cause and Effect', in my opinion.

You do not need a 'cause' when creating 'fiction'.

NS

Originally Posted by Mike NS

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Why should there be a consensus on the "start" of something that causality does not even apply to? There was no time "before" the Big Bang so speaking of a "cause" of the Big Bang doesn't make sense.

Physics is 'Cause and Effect', in my opinion.

You do not need a 'cause' when creating 'fiction'.

NS

Yes, events in the universe are cause and effect. But again, what gives you the right to demand the same of the universe itself? Fallacy of composition.

Originally Posted by Mike NS

Originally Posted by zelos

PS: your ideas and thoughts are the one with no credibility, they are never founded on any facts

Well, that is your opinion.
If you think the Laws of Coservation of Matter and Energy are not facts than you need to learn a little physics.
You can also include the M-M interferometry experiments and Halton Arp's Redshift Anomaly as not being facts is nonsense.
I have also cited some NASA observations (dark matter solution) in my posts.

You definitely need to learn physics.

NS

I know more about physics than you will in 50 years.
As for the conservation of matter/energy it is conserved according to calculations but our laws are only valid in normal cases.
You know that matter/energy is created/destroyed all the time according to quantum mechanic so the rule is broken all the time. HAHA you tell me to learn physics and yet you dont even know about quantum phenomena.
dE*dT ~ h/pi

before you tell me to learn physics try it yourself i read physics all the time and think. unlike you who just read and think and stop reading just cause it fits you.

Physics is 'Cause and Effect', in my opinion.

You do not need a 'cause' when creating 'fiction'.

NS

something happen for no cause, such as particle creation out of nothing

Not to get off topic, but Zelos, there are some things that you have to look inside to understand. It is great to think, but sometimes you have to feel. If you wish to continue this convo please PM me.

Originally Posted by The One Who Knows

Not to get off topic, but Zelos, there are some things that you have to look inside to understand. It is great to think, but sometimes you have to feel. If you wish to continue this convo please PM me.

youre talking jibberish. Physics is all about thinking and logic.
Feel is for emotions and other such stuff

Sorry guys but I agree with zelos on this one.

If "feeling" were incorporated into physics we'd have particles called the pinkfluffyon and the imsotiredandigotnoideawhatthisisbutitdoesnthalfloo kpretty, eon.

Originally Posted by leohopkins

Sorry guys but I agree with zelos on this one.

If "feeling" were incorporated into physics we'd have particles called the pinkfluffyon and the imsotiredandigotnoideawhatthisisbutitdoesnthalfloo kpretty, eon.

oh yes, score for the smart guys

lol I was replying to you saying that humans are soulless and spiritless but forget about it that's not what this thread is about

Well, since the laws of physics are finally to be interpreted individually, there IS some sort of feeling. Maybe you can call it intuition.
I mean, feelings are a part of thinking, which end up in logic.
Maybe we DENY something important in our interpretations?

But well, back 2 topic:

Who says that it is even a force which drives the universe to expand?
And if there is a force, what is the COUNTERforce to it?

Isn't it so that Actio = Reactio ?

Originally Posted by The One Who Knows

lol I was replying to you saying that humans are soulless and spiritless but forget about it that's not what this thread is about

this sure aint it.

Originally Posted by mastermind

Well, since the laws of physics are finally to be interpreted individually, there IS some sort of feeling. Maybe you can call it intuition.
I mean, feelings are a part of thinking, which end up in logic.
Maybe we DENY something important in our interpretations?

But well, back 2 topic:

Who says that it is even a force which drives the universe to expand?
And if there is a force, what is the COUNTERforce to it?

Isn't it so that Actio = Reactio ?

the force is rather that it once happened and have kept on ever since.

but the thing is qith the dark energy is that it effects space rather than mass

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Originally Posted by Mike NS

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Why should there be a consensus on the "start" of something that causality does not even apply to? There was no time "before" the Big Bang so speaking of a "cause" of the Big Bang doesn't make sense.

Physics is 'Cause and Effect', in my opinion.

You do not need a 'cause' when creating 'fiction'.

NS

Yes, events in the universe are cause and effect. But again, what gives you the right to demand the same of the universe itself? Fallacy of composition.

Because I consider the universe to be a physical realm, than I expect to see reasons for all the various questions the BB creates.

And there are many with NO answers.

NS

Zelos

Quantum theory originated by Plancks explanation that light is NOT a continuous wave but a pulse.

Since then, a lot of mathematical offshoots have creates all kind of puzzles with it.
The only kind of QM I am interested in is the 'photons'.

So, superbrain, what is your solution for the age of the BB?
Another, what is the 'dark matter'?
Another, explain how the photons are created since Planck transformed light to pulses?

NS

The only kind of QM I am interested in is the 'photons'.

maybe thats why youre allways wrong cause you miss alot of the pieces in this grand puzzle?

So, superbrain, what is your solution for the age of the BB?
Another, what is the 'dark matter'?
Another, explain how the photons are created since Planck transformed light to pulses?

age of the universe is estimated from observations in the microwave background raditation to be approzimently 13,7 billion years wich fits the BB theory like a hand do in a glove.

darkmatter is currently unknown but is tried to be explained, questions exist to be answered in time

photons are created? it often involves acceleration of a electrical charge but in QM it has to do with lowering of energy and since energy mostly cant be created nor destroyed the lost energy most go somewhere wich is the photon but in like atoms its caused be decelleration of electrons since they have a mean speed in the QM world

the force is rather that it once happened and have kept on ever since.

So...what would have been the counterforce of that force?

as i said this "force" acts on space rather than matter as ive understood it so it isnt the same as newton would think "a equal opposite reaction" since those forces invovles matter

@Zelos:

Allright now.
I didn't know that Newton's law only involves matter.
So I couldn't infer that.

Originally Posted by mastermind

@Zelos:

Allright now.
I didn't know that Newton's law only involves matter.
So I couldn't infer that.

well its kinda obvius since the defintion is
F=ma
1 newton = 1 kg m/s²

the expansion is rather the expansion of space wich in that case dont involve matter, matter just happen to be there and is therefor effected. atleast thats how ive understood it

Yeah didn't consider this.

Originally Posted by Zelos

Originally Posted by NS

So, superbrain, what is your solution for the age of the BB?
Another, what is the 'dark matter'?
Another, explain how the photons are created since Planck transformed light to pulses?

age of the universe is estimated from observations in the microwave background raditation to be approzimently 13,7 billion years wich fits the BB theory like a hand do in a glove.

darkmatter is currently unknown but is tried to be explained, questions exist to be answered in time

photons are created? it often involves acceleration of a electrical charge but in QM it has to do with lowering of energy and since energy mostly cant be created nor destroyed the lost energy most go somewhere wich is the photon but in like atoms its caused be decelleration of electrons since they have a mean speed in the QM world

I made a mistake in that first question where I used 'age' istead of 'size'?

What? No answer for the dark matter?

Your last question does not explain 'how' the 'photon' is created.

Bohr gave a better explanation than your QM's. Math is just a language, not a picture.

NS

I made a mistake in that first question where I used 'age' istead of 'size'?

13,7 billion light years in radius then

What? No answer for the dark matter?

there is currently no answer or anything that points toward any kind of answer so no answer can be given

Your last question does not explain 'how' the 'photon' is created.

the decrease of energy involving electricly charged particles, happy now?

Bohr gave a better explanation than your QM's. Math is just a language, not a picture.

1: im not a expert on QM but relative to you i am a genius in it
2: thats why math is so much better, nature cant be explained with pictures. if you atempt explaining it with pictures there is no wonder why youre so uneducated since youre going in a futile way. Nature cant be explained with pictures, thats something i and all physicists already know and something you have to accept

NASA re-evaluated its earlier COBE results and added a few LY to their estimated KNOWN universe size. its now said to be about 14.4 bly in all direction or about 29 BLY across. its my understanding few think what is seen in light, are the outer limits.

dark matter as thought, comes from unknown energy that exist, but from no seen means. that is mass that we visually do not see.

in a discussion with us common folks a mental picture from word description is vital. many such pictures have led to mathematical equivalents and few math equations have led to discoveries. additionally the young folks that may become the next generation of scientist need motivation, which math will later be learned. just my opinion...

Originally Posted by Zelos

13,7 billion light years in radius then

Ha ha. This is a dumb solution. Where is your math?
The BBU is NOT expanding at the 'velocity of light and it does not have a center.

currently no answer or anything that points toward any kind of answer so no answer can be given

Ha ha.

the decrease of energy involving electricly charged particles, happy now?

All you say here is the effect on energy. You do not explain the cause or the 'why' of this decrease of energy? And do not tell me the photon is the cause

1: im not a expert on QM but relative to you i am a genius in it
2: thats why math is so much better, nature cant be explained with pictures. if you atempt explaining it with pictures there is no wonder why youre so uneducated since youre going in a futile way. Nature cant be explained with pictures, thats something i and all physicists already know and something you have to accept

Math is nothing but a language.
You know the 'old saying', 'a picture is worth a thousand words'.

That is why research and experiments are used because they are like pictures.
Also, all observations by all the instruments of current technology are also 'pictures'.

NS

Ha ha. This is a dumb solution. Where is your math?
The BBU is NOT expanding at the 'velocity of light and it does not have a center.

no math observations, no it doesnt have a center but at 13,7 billioin lightyear the expansion of space is faster than the speed of light so anything beyond it would not be seen and everything we do see is younger than 13,7 billion years abd the microwavebackground radiation is confirming the 13,7 billion lightyear

Ha ha.

i agree its fun watching your answer and get a laugh

All you say here is the effect on energy. You do not explain the cause or the 'why' of this decrease of energy? And do not tell me the photon is the cause

i wont say the photon is the cause since the result cant be the cause aslongest we dont deal with timetravel.

you asked how it was created and you got the asnwer.

the decrease of energy happens spontanusly where ever its possible since by getting lower energy the universe gets more entropy and becomes more stable. as for the quantum jumps of the electron its just that it change its quantum numbers to a lower energy how the electron do that is unknown as far as i know. and why except the "will" of going to more stable positions, there is none its not like it got a free will or anything

Math is nothing but a language.
You know the 'old saying', 'a picture is worth a thousand words'.

yeah i know it but thats in the common world and in the extreme world it would be "a picture tells a billion lies"
and yes math is a language, the language of the universe

That is why research and experiments are used because they are like pictures.
Also, all observations by all the instruments of current technology are also 'pictures'.

its cause its easier for humans to understand the values if they are formed as a picture but the picture can be just values and such and not how it acctually is.

Zelos

We are here now at the SUPPOSED present age. You cannot look forward but only BACKWARD in time.

The current Hubble Constant is a mere 75 kms/mpc/s.
So when we look back in time, we see a UNIFORM flat space expansion as the BB'ers say.
So where do you gat this light speed expansion from?
The inflationary period pertains to a very small size of the BB at its beginning.


According to the definition of the HC, it sounds illogical because it portrays 'chunks' (mpc's) of space NOT expanding but only BETWEEN these chunks that constitute the HC's. This is wierd.
Just another example of the BBU false logic of this science.

The rest of your post is also twisted logic that does not make sense.

My post on the 'Creation of Photons' on a back page explained how photons are created. And that is in plain English with no puzzling language.

NS

We are here now at the SUPPOSED present age. You cannot look forward but only BACKWARD in time

not according to your definition of time as "movement" since then past and future isnt different in anyway

The current Hubble Constant is a mere 75 kms/mpc/s.
So when we look back in time, we see a UNIFORM flat space expansion as the BB'ers say.
So where do you gat this light speed expansion from?
The inflationary period pertains to a very small size of the BB at its beginning.

just look at the constants units and you´ll see why if youre bright enough

According to the definition of the HC, it sounds illogical because it portrays 'chunks' (mpc's) of space NOT expanding but only BETWEEN these chunks that constitute the HC's. This is wierd.
Just another example of the BBU false logic of this science.

you dont understand the constant and think you got a shot at this? of course the space at everypoint expand, just do some simply calculations with that constant and see how much space of 1mm will expand per year.
BIG RIP

My post on the 'Creation of Photons' on a back page explained how photons are created. And that is in plain English with no puzzling language.

only english? no math? invalid theory, only idea of no scientific value then

Zelos

The Hubble constant is:.....72 kms/mpc/s.

That means that the mpc's are expanding at 72 kms/s.
So, the way I interpret this is that the BB is expanding at 72 kms/s between or within the mpc's.
If the mpc's are expanding at that rate, than the expansion rate of the
BB is:

HC / mpc

72 kms divided by 3^19 kms.

This reduces the overall rate of expansion for the BB to 2.4^-18 kms per second.

This is ludicrous.

NS

The Hubble constant is:.....72 kms/mpc/s.

That means that the mpc's are expanding at 72 kms/s.

nope it means for every mpc away from earth space is expanding with a rate of 72km/s
so at 1 mpc expansion is 72km/s
at 2 mpc its 144 km/s and so on. now count can it reach C?


Deleted

Originally Posted by Zelos

The Hubble constant is:.....72 kms/mpc/s.

That means that the mpc's are expanding at 72 kms/s.

nope it means for every mpc away from earth space is expanding with a rate of 72km/s
so at 1 mpc expansion is 72km/s
at 2 mpc its 144 km/s and so on. now count can it reach C?

Deleted

This additive effect of the BB is Ludicrous.
Example:

Since space is expanding at 72 kms per second, I did the following math:

C/HC=4000 seconds. So after probing space deeper than 4000 seconds, we would not see any stars since they would be receding at light speed or greater.

This is another example of the ludicrous BB concept.

Of course, if you add the mpc's to the expansion, then it adds up to 13^9 years. BUT:
HC/mpc/s = 72000/3^22 x 4^17 = 1.

That 1 stands for the BBU?

If adding the MPC's to the expansion rate, then your expansion per second is{
3^22 x 4^17 = 1^40 = 1^24 light years.

Wow, this is a grossly inflated universe. No wonder they use a ballon as an analogy.

NS

This additive effect of the BB is Ludicrous.
Example:

Since space is expanding at 72 kms per second, I did the following math:

C/HC=4000 seconds. So after probing space deeper than 4000 seconds, we would not see any stars since they would be receding at light speed or greater.

This is another example of the ludicrous BB concept.

no it means that you dont understand what the units mean.

divided the soler system diameter with the distance of a mpc then take it times the constant and you´ll see how much space is expanding in our solersystem. its so small you wont notice it

btw C/HC with those units assuming you put C=300000km/s would give you that its roughly 4000 MEGAPARSEC distance wich space expand at the speed of light, some simple transforamtion and you get 13,6 billion light years, wich is the radius of our universe. exacly according to observations and theories from other ways.

so simple even a kid can do it. You dont understand the units or meaning or anything. no wonder you complain about the stuff :S

Originally Posted by zelos

no it means that you dont understand what the units mean.

divided the soler system diameter with the distance of a mpc then take it times the constant and you´ll see how much space is expanding in our solersystem. its so small you wont notice it

btw C/HC with those units assuming you put C=300000km/s would give you that its roughly 4000 MEGAPARSEC distance wich space expand at the speed of light, some simple transforamtion and you get 13,6 billion light years, wich is the radius of our universe. exacly according to observations and theories from other ways.

so simple even a kid can do it. You dont understand the units or meaning or anything. no wonder you complain about the stuff :S

You, DO NOT understand the meanings of the components.

HC stands for Hubble Constant, not the mpc. Period.
Since the HC is given in seconds, it also represents seconds when used.

What has the solar system got to do with the universe?
It is just a 'small time' player in the universe.

The important component here is the M87 recessional velocity and its redshift of .004. This gives it a RV of 1200 kms/s. This central galaxy in the Virgo Cluster is used to establish the HC, IMO, plus Cephied Variables as distance candles.

The BB'ers say you cannot calculate the size of the BB and I gave the reasons why above.
So the size of the BB is still a question mark.

NS

You, DO NOT understand the meanings of the components.

oh yeah i do

HC stands for Hubble Constant, not the mpc. Period.
Since the HC is given in seconds, it also represents seconds when used.

yes it is hubble constant with the units (km/s) PER MEGAPARSEC

if you know unit analyse you know dividing C with it will result with the unit MEGAPARSEC

What has the solar system got to do with the universe?
It is just a 'small time' player in the universe.

yeah 1/3 of its lifetime

The important component here is the M87 recessional velocity and its redshift of .004. This gives it a RV of 1200 kms/s. This central galaxy in the Virgo Cluster is used to establish the HC, IMO, plus Cephied Variables as distance candles.

they dont trust a single object they take several objects to measure it since if you take 1 you get a enourmus error and such measurments of a single object isnt trustworthy while if you measure many objects the error is alot smaller and more trustworthy

The BB'ers say you cannot calculate the size of the BB and I gave the reasons why above.
So the size of the BB is still a question mark.

BB didnt have a size logicly

The original question was I think "What drives the expansion of the universe"

Well Mike I think I have found it, just for you. If you release a puff of gas into a vacuum then it rapidly disperses to fill that vacuum, why not consider the BB as a puff of gas where each atom is a galaxy, it's just racing to fill eternity - no? never mind then, just a thought...

Originally Posted by Megabrain

The original question was I think "What drives the expansion of the universe"

Well Mike I think I have found it, just for you. If you release a puff of gas into a vacuum then it rapidly disperses to fill that vacuum, why not consider the BB as a puff of gas where each atom is a galaxy, it's just racing to fill eternity - no? never mind then, just a thought...

No...If that were the case then you'd have a uniform scattering of matter thoughout the cosmos I guess. But we have galaxies held together by gravity. Do remember that as the galaxies have rushed away, they have left a vacuum behind. There is a possibility however that at the boundry of space-time, right at the edge of the known universe exists a TRUE vacuum where there is no vacuum energy and indeed the galaxies are rushing to fill this space with energy, but matter will never quite reach the outer boundry as the boundry too is receeding (due to the expansion of space) This could result in the expansion we see. It does not however explain why the expansion of space is accelerating.

If however the expansion of the universe follows a law, where by it doubles in size over a certain given period of time then it WOULD appear as if the universe is accelerating faster and faster because: 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 2048. etc, etc.

ONce again Leo, not only are you not reading what I said, but you failed to note the humour behind the remark - don't take it all so seriously!.

Leo; i am having trouble figuring who is serious and who is not, but;

BBT is based in general on its own laws, many of which cannot be explained. it does not infer so much a vacuum, but a nothing. something was someplace in this nothing and was stimulated to expanding. all that conform to this theory, say the means for this is unknown, period. expansion, explosion or any dispersement requires a place to go, a means to travel and should require something to be involved. since any matter or form of matter or imaginable make up of matter cannot travel C according to these same people, its said that space itself was dispersed, ahead of or simultaneous with whatever this thing was. space has no real meaning to BBT. its an imaginary entity in motion into an imaginary nothingness, with a cooling process created from the intense heat created from the expansion. one of many problems is there could be no heat, since this is energy created from matter, which could not exist. if nothingness is hot, then all modern science is in the trash. heat, a quality of mass which could not exist under BB. if nothingness, a vacuum or any imaginable form of this, should have an absolute zero temperature, if this condition could exist, then nothing could move with in this area or this thing in the midst of it.

try to follow this brief and incomplete scenario, add up the broken laws of nature, physics and science, you should understand why so many have trouble understanding the idea.

now all laws which infer a double in size, i know of require a splitting or duplication of itself. most today, do not think space is moving outward at above C speeds. some did at first, but only to explain how the universe got so big is such a short time. since the time of BB and what may be the universe are now considered interminable they have dropped the C+ rate, in most cases. the idea of seen or known universe as far outdone BBT since its gone from about 8 to 28 billion light years across, since the first thoughts on BB were derived. most think this figure will be increased substantially when a new modernized space telescope is sent into space in a few years.

please note, the above is a composite OPINION, based on some 20 or 30 various writings on BBT. i do not consider the theory valid, nor do my views on the universe require no expansion or some. its hard for me to think matter as we know it could, much less would stray away from other matter, but its of no importance. i do think the universe as we understand it, has a limited size possibly hundreds or even thousands of billion light years across. beyond this space exist and the true meaning of infinity is in play. i can see no reason why other universe should not exist beyond ours nor could i imagine a limit on these numbers. to me the universe potential is as the galaxy are to ours. many billions or trillions, each with its own make up and each with its own process for regeneration. similar but not necessarily alike but totally independent of others...

My opinion of the universe [for what it is worth] is simply that back when the universe was much much smaller the laws that govern it were so significantly different to what they are today, that is is beyond us to contemplate what caused the birth of our universe. Since we see decay all around us, and matter being converted to to energy then it seems logical that if the universe were infinitely old then all the matter would have already been converted. But there's some left, a lot in fact, so that means the universe had a begining, a definite start. The universe is expanding, the redshift of galaxies, the 'echo' etc seem to prove that beyond doubt.

So it had a start, whatever that start was, however that start happened I call it the big bang.

The real head spinner for me is that before the BB. T=0. Therefore if there was no time, there was no time for the BB or EoS to actually happen, so it shouldn't have happened.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

My opinion of the universe [for what it is worth] is simply that back when the universe was much much smaller the laws that govern it were so significantly different to what they are today, that is is beyond us to contemplate what caused the birth of our universe. Since we see decay all around us, and matter being converted to to energy then it seems logical that if the universe were infinitely old then all the matter would have already been converted. But there's some left, a lot in fact, so that means the universe had a beginning, a definite start. The universe is expanding, the redshift of galaxies, the 'echo' etc seem to prove that beyond doubt.

So it had a start, whatever that start was, however that start happened I call it the big bang.

thats a basic BBT concept. if it cant be explained pass over it till we get a better plan.

if you burn a piece of paper, the paper is gone. it has become ash, co2 and a few other things which can produce just as much energy as the paper did in burning or mass. the ash will no doubt become part of some plant and co2 possibly part of water and the cycle goes on.

in the universe no energy carries mass, so its said, so the lost energy whether it drifts outside the universe or acts on mass is only of value to change something, not add to mass. mass is not diminished by energy but changes forms which will in time be regenerated into new mass and create new energy. i don't question a lot of energy must be out there or going someplace, if mass has always been but then i also feel there is some unknowns it what constitutes mass or even energy. mass however or lets say a total number of atoms is probably the same today as 500 trillion years ago.

this was my argument on the age of the universe. the matter by which our solar system was formed, must have been something else before. the time required for those units (stars, planets etc.) to have lived and died to reform and become us, must have been eons above any concept of BBT time spans.

as to the value of your opinion, it happens to fall into the majority, which i choose to disagree with...which gives mine, less value.

Jackson,

I'm not just following the crowd on this one, I have thought about it, I have seen evidence of the redshift myself, things fit. I respect your right to differ, since there is no definitive answer on this one either of us may be wrong, I belive we are probably both wrong, Sad you and I won't be around long enough to find out so have a virtual pint on me in case you are!

Rgds, MB

Originally Posted by leohopkins

The real head spinner for me is that before the BB. T=0. Therefore if there was no time, there was no time for the BB or EoS to actually happen, so it shouldn't have happened.

guess your talking with Mega, but thats the essence of BBT. there needs to be a creation of everything. that something in the middle of something, was not a joke. its what many refer to BBT. many will go as far as to say the cause for the initial action, was divine intervention. accordingly this is some one who is said to looks like us (made in his image) sparked creation. time then is meaningless. likewise was of no importance since, since we and all are only part of some plan. science be gone...

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Jackson,

I'm not just following the crowd on this one, I have thought about it, I have seen evidence of the redshift myself, things fit. I respect your right to differ, since there is no definitive answer on this one either of us may be wrong, I belive we are probably both wrong, Sad you and I won't be around long enough to find out so have a virtual pint on me in case you are!

Rgds, MB

Mega, i have also seen the redshifts, as offered on the web. i have read the analysis of 50 people, generally agreeing with the original and have no doubts most are sincere. i have also read the analysis of many who have disagreed with the accepted, which i feel are just as sincere.

i have asked this question many times. there is an accumulated speed of our travel as a planet or spot in the universe and anything observed should also be moving at very high speeds. this total gets pretty close to a cause for the red or blue observations made by instruments. the idea that closer things and proportionately further things move one direction or the other at increasing rates, places distortion as a front runner in much of the understanding or in my opinion misunderstandings.

i said you views are in the majority, whether formed from you own mind or from writings of others your in that crowd. I'd much rather be in that bunch than mine, however in this case i cannot.