Thread: What if...

Big bang theory again.

What if... Everything absorbed by black holes returns matter to the centre of the universe. Big bang, universe expands, worlds are created, dark holes eventually absorbs all the energy of the universe back in. When filled (universe empty) another big bang occurs. Sry just had the this thought and couldnt resist if this could be possible.

This post doesn't belong in the physics sub-forum, but maybe the Alternate theories, but I would recommend the Trash sub-forum.

Originally Posted by Raziell

Big bang theory again.

What if... Everything absorbed by black holes returns matter to the centre of the universe. Big bang, universe expands, worlds are created, dark holes eventually absorbs all the energy of the universe back in. When filled (universe empty) another big bang occurs. Sry just had the this thought and couldnt resist if this could be possible.

Is there a center in the observable universe?
I am not certain about the fact that the geometry and the expansion of the universe allow such a point to exist.

And how come you have 746 post don't tell me most are of this sort!

Is there a center in the observable universe?

yes, and it is where i happen to be sitting. of course that is true for all locations. either on earth or not.

One arguement that is often advanced about there not being a centre of the universe is that the universe is not expanding out from a centre, but that all parts of it are moving away from each other. No matter where you were in the universe, it would still appear to be expanding. However, it isn't clear to me that this is sufficient to demonstrate that the universe doesn't have a centre. It would be quite feasible for all parts to be moving apart, so that there is no centre of expansion, but for the universe to have a geometric centre.

A simple analogy would be a block of metal which is undergoing thermal expansion. Any point within the block would be moving away from any other point, but the block could still have a geometric centre. It seems that some other arguement has to be provided to rule out a geometric centre.

Originally Posted by JonG

One arguement that is often advanced about there not being a centre of the universe is that the universe is not expanding out from a centre, but that all parts of it are moving away from each other. No matter where you were in the universe, it would still appear to be expanding. However, it isn't clear to me that this is sufficient to demonstrate that the universe doesn't have a centre. It would be quite feasible for all parts to be moving apart, so that there is no centre of expansion, but for the universe to have a geometric centre.

A simple analogy would be a block of metal which is undergoing thermal expansion. Any point within the block would be moving away from any other point, but the block could still have a geometric centre. It seems that some other arguement has to be provided to rule out a geometric centre.

The only argument that is already in place(just for you to know it) is that the universe is isotropic and homogeneous. And hence every point is expanding with same acceleration away from anyother point, with the farthest point receding away faster....the universe cannot be said to have a centre because of this fact;"the universe is not expanding with respect to anypoint single point(centre) but with respect to every given point(which is everywhere)#

You do agree that everywhere is nowhere right?

Originally Posted by merumario

And hence every point is expanding with same acceleration away from anyother point, with the farthest point receding away faster....the universe cannot be said to have a centre because of this fact;

I don't agree that the expansion arguement shows that the universe doesn't have a geometric centre. It merely suggests that there is no centre of expansion - no special point which all other points are receding from.

Another analogy that is often given is that the geometry of the universe is similar to the geometry of a spherical surface. Such a surface is finite in size but it has no boundaries and no centre. This would be true no matter whether the suface is expanding or not. However, it is quite difficult to extrapolate from the two dimensional analogy to the case of the actual universe - one can't visualise what such a universe would be be like - at least, I can't

Originally Posted by JonG

However, it is quite difficult to extrapolate from the two dimensional analogy to the case of the actual universe - one can't visualise what such a universe would be be like - a least, I can't

Which is why we use mathematics.

Originally Posted by JonG

Originally Posted by merumario

And hence every point is expanding with same acceleration away from anyother point, with the farthest point receding away faster....the universe cannot be said to have a centre because of this fact;

I don't agree that the expansion arguement shows that the universe doesn't have a geometric centre. It merely suggests that there is no centre of expansion - no special point which all other points are receding from.

Another analogy that is often given is that the geometry of the universe is similar to the geometry of a spherical surface. Such a surface is finite in size but it has no boundaries and no centre. This would be true no matter whether the suface is expanding or not. However, it is quite difficult to extrapolate from the two dimensional analogy to the case of the actual universe - one can't visualise what such a universe would be be like - at least, I can't

Just as strange stated....math becomes our eyes#

I have no clue when it comes to math and physics. Probably trash can material yeah Sorry for wasting your time.

Originally Posted by merumario

And how come you have 746 post don't tell me most are of this sort!

Dont worry, I rarely post in anything related to math for a reason

Originally Posted by Raziell

I have no clue when it comes to math and physics. Probably trash can material yeah Sorry for wasting your time.

Originally Posted by merumario

And how come you have 746 post don't tell me most are of this sort!

Dont worry, I rarely post in anything related to math for a reason

Helpful#

Originally Posted by Raziell

I have no clue when it comes to math and physics. Probably trash can material yeah Sorry for wasting your time.

In my opinion, this thread does not belong in the Trash Can.
You have stated that it was merely a thought, rather than a scientific theory or a paradigm shift (as is often claimed by those who end up in that particular sub-forum).

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Raziell

I have no clue when it comes to math and physics. Probably trash can material yeah Sorry for wasting your time.

In my opinion, this thread does not belong in the Trash Can.
You have stated that it was merely a thought, rather than a scientific theory or a paradigm shift (as is often claimed by those who end up in that particular sub-forum).

Are you saying that how someone presents an idea determines if it goes to trash or not? And not the content of the thread?

Originally Posted by merumario

Are you saying that how someone presents an idea determines if it goes to trash or not? And not the content of the thread?

It can do. Exactly the same idea could be introduced in a spectrum of approaches from "this doesn't sound right to me" to "can you tell me what is wrong with this" to "I just had this silly idea" to "I have proved all scientists are wrong". The last is far more likely to end up in Trash than the first!

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Raziell

I have no clue when it comes to math and physics. Probably trash can material yeah Sorry for wasting your time.

In my opinion, this thread does not belong in the Trash Can.
You have stated that it was merely a thought, rather than a scientific theory or a paradigm shift (as is often claimed by those who end up in that particular sub-forum).

Are you saying that how someone presents an idea determines if it goes to trash or not? And not the content of the thread?

No, I do not say that.
As member Strange pointed out, the lay-out (or presentation) of an idea can be an indication that it belongs into the Trash Can.

For example:
"I think I have found a contradiction in General Relativity. Could someone help me with finding my error? I present my math below..."

"General Relativity is wrong! All those scientists keep repeating the same lies over and over again so they can get money from the government!!!1!1!
I have found an error in the theory and YOU WILL BE FORCED TO AGREE WITH ME!"

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Raziell

I have no clue when it comes to math and physics. Probably trash can material yeah Sorry for wasting your time.

In my opinion, this thread does not belong in the Trash Can.
You have stated that it was merely a thought, rather than a scientific theory or a paradigm shift (as is often claimed by those who end up in that particular sub-forum).

Are you saying that how someone presents an idea determines if it goes to trash or not? And not the content of the thread?

No, I do not say that.
As member Strange pointed out, the lay-out (or presentation) of an idea can be an indication that it belongs into the Trash Can.

For example:
"I think I have found a contradiction in General Relativity. Could someone help me with finding my error? I present my math below..."

"General Relativity is wrong! All those scientists keep repeating the same lies over and over again so they can get money from the government!!!1!1!
I have found an error in the theory and YOU WILL BE FORCED TO AGREE WITH ME!"

That certainly belongs to trash#