1. If you compare the big bang theory with EinsteinĀ“s General relativity you will stumble upon a very weird paradox.

Situation number 1:
If you turn the cloks backwards in time, the inflation of the universe would slow down (because the inflation is speeding up and therefore it would slow down if we turn time backwards). If you were inside this deflating ball you would only notice slowing rate of deflation and it would never reach "zero point" or the beginning of the universe.

Situation number 2:
But if you would be outside the deflating ball and you would look at a clock that is posissioned inside the ball you would see the clock speed up very quickly as the density of the universe increases. The clock would then reach infinite speed at the same insident as the inflation reaches zero point.

The paradox is this: In situation number 1 the inflation does not reach zero point but it does reach zero point in situation number 2. But the weird thing and the reason itĀ“s a paradox is that both situations 1. and 2. can be right.

For some reason people in the mainstream physics seem to ignore this paradox, what about you??

Sjonthor F. Olsen
Iceland

2.

3. Your paradox does't make sense to me. There is no "outside the deflating ball". All of space is inside.

4. How we can be sure about it Mitchelmckain?

They say that universe is shaped like a globe and expanding,
they say we are the inside of this "ball"...

But what if we are infact "outer core" of this ball and
our universe will "stretch" when the ball expands:.

let me demonstrate this with some drawings.

would it be like this?

5. There is nothing outside the 'ball'. The Universe is stretching as it expands. To contemplate what is outside the Universe is equivalent to asking what colour is apathy.

6. [/quote]Your paradox does't make sense to me.
Well, pardoxes usually donĀ“t make any sense.

There is no "outside the deflating ball". All of space is inside.[quote]
Of course you canĀ“t be outside the deflating ball (the universe as we know it) nor can you turn time backwards.
This is a theoretical question, with that I mean you take an abstract outlook on something and use it to emphisie or to proove a point.

The question is about this paradox not the situation. How can we describe the beginning of the universe when time never starts.

7. Oops, sorry about that. The quotations got messed up.

8. Your paradox does't make sense to me.
Well, pardoxes usually donĀ“t make any sense.

There is no "outside the deflating ball". All of space is inside.
Of course you canĀ“t be outside the deflating ball (the universe as we know it) nor can you turn time backwards.
This is a theoretical question, with that I mean you take an abstract outlook on something and use it to emphisie or to proove a point.

The question is about this paradox not the situation. How can we describe the beginning of the universe when time never starts.

9. Sorry, I though too philosofically.

10. I don't understand the paradox. First of all, isn't turning back time a paradox in itself? Isn't going out of the universe is another paradox in itself also?

Secondly,
If you were inside this deflating ball you would only notice slowing rate of deflation and it would never reach "zero point" or the beginning of the universe.
According to your theory of the universe, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate (probably at the speed of light). Since we are in the universe we don't actually notice this change. If the universe is expanding but not gaining mass (mass cannot be created nor destroyed), then everything inside the universe is expanding as well. Since everything is expanding we wouldn't notice it. So if you reverse time, the universe gets smaller. If the universe gets smaller then everything in the universe gets smaller. Since everything is getting smaller, we wouldn't notice the deflation of the ball (going back in time).

Well, if the universe is expanding, but not gaining mass it is assumed that there is nothing outside the universe. So for your second situation the universe would be gaining mass if a being from outside the universe entered the universe.

Sorry ahead of time if I don't make sense.

Edit: Oops, while I was typing this one post you guys posted a few more posts.

Well to your new question, I don't believe in the big bang theory... sorry

11. In actuality, trying to use general or special relativity in explaining ANYTHING related to the "Big Bang" is entirely useless. You pose an interesting, if not confusing conundrum, however, as I said, you simply cannot explain the Big Bang with general relativity.

General relativity deals exclusively with large objects (more specificaly, massive objects) and quantum physics deals with small ones.

At the big bang point, all the matter in the universe was contained within a nugget no bigger than the period at the end of this phrase.

So, we have a tiny particle, quantum physics, and an inconceivably huge mass, general relativity.

Since the two theories, one of classical ond one of modern physics, are entirely incompatible, we simply cannot mathematicaly calculate anything related to the big bang. (black holes too)

I cannot offer an answer to your question, I do not quite understand it, but perhaps it will comfort you to know that your mind is mulling over something unexplained by even the most brilliant of physicists!

12. Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
There is no "outside the deflating ball". All of space is inside.
you may be right, but here is an interesting theory. i found it in the march 2004 issure of popular science. there is another universe out there. it is always less than an inch from us. this has an extra demension. think of it this way: if you put a bowl of soup out too long, it developes a thin membrane on the top. it is 2D. the soup under it is 3D. we live in a 3D world (or 4D, counting time), with a 4D world above, below, beside, and whatever other demension it has. but no 3D object can go there. it is missing the 4th demension. only gravity can go there. this is what makes time go. the 4D gravity. and of course, the 4D universe has another 5D universe just out of reach, and so on.

13. But that other Universe is not 'outside'. The additional dimensions demands novel terminology to describe the dimensional relationships between those Universes: offside, abside, aside? But not outside.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement