8 replies to this topic

[Pyridium]

I am working on a theory that the big bang was the result of a collision of 2 black holes.

If our universe was created from a point smaller then an electron, and the first visible light produced from star creation occured 300 thousand years after the bang, it appears that the matter produced from the bang was spit out in all directions and looks like a round baloon expanding outward with the galaxies riding on the surface of the baloon.  Something in the baloon is forcing the baloon to expand at an increasing speed.  Everything is moving from the point of event and away from each other.  If we continue to constantly expand for infinity, we will eventually approach the speed of light and all atoms will lose coesion, fall apart into clumps of subatomic particles.  

Is the "current" universe round?

[Taun]

The way I understand it, to our 3-D perception the universe would be somewhat spherical (radiating outwards from a single point in all directions more-or-less evenly)...

But since massive objects 'warp' space/time, if we could see it in multi-dimensions (more than 3 that is) it would be 'bent' in (at least) one 'direction'...

That 'direction' would be the warpage - or folding that the universes mass created...

I could very easily be wrong - but that is how I understand it...

[JayMark]

Very interesting topic. I will seek further informations of that and come back.

[sepulchrave]

The idea that the universe is ``round'' (in all dimensions; mathematically the 3+1D universe is a surface on a 5D sphere) is philosophically and mathematically beautiful.

However my understanding is that cosmological observations suggest that the large-scale curvature of the universe is almost flat (see the wiki).

[Taun]

sepulchrave, on 06 April 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

The idea that the universe is ``round'' (in all dimensions; mathematically the 3+1D universe is a surface on a 5D sphere) is philosophically and mathematically beautiful.

However my understanding is that cosmological observations suggest that the large-scale curvature of the universe is almost flat (see the wiki).

That is one of the reasons I feel the universe is 'spherical'... if the Universe were truely 'flat', we would live in a 2D universe - which obviously we don't...  So, then the Universe would have to be a 'rectangular cube' in shape... aproaching infinitly 'long' and 'wide' but with a finite (but still huge) 'height' (thinking three dimensionally of course)...

This would mean that the Universe 'came into being' however that happened and has expanded vastly more in some directions than others...

A spherical Universe, could still seem infinite to our perception but would be roughly the same 'length' in all directions..., and would be in keeping with the observed 'red shift' of the other galaxies...

Every representation of the various theories of the shape of the Universe I've seen show structures (galaxies, etc) on the 'skin' or outside of the area... As if the Universe was somehow on the surface plain and not deep into the structure... They explain it as 'balloon like', while I picture it as more of a 'water balloon type' - expanding skin, but with substance inside...

Anyway - that is why I have problems visualizing the 'flat' Universe... (I am a visual person and understand things much better visually than 'mathmatically' - probably why I'm not a scientist...)

[StarMountainKid]

The universe could have several shapes, but be so large that our local measurements always turn out to be flat.

[space11498]

All astronomical information comes from our past light cone - a sphere of light of decreasing radius created at big bang and sweeping through space, and focusing on us right now. Everything outside that is unknown. The light cone has finite extent since the universe existed for finite time after the big bang.

We have no idea what is outside of our light cone, so questions like weather the universe is finite and what shape it has cannot be answered based on the current observational data. The simplest is to assume it is infinite and flat which we currently do.

From physics forum

Edited by space11498, 07 April 2012 - 08:17 AM.

[Pyridium]

Our galaxy is one in 100 billion, our known universe.  I can imagine the cosmos as trillions of universes all with varying lengths of age.  

We are now 14.5 billion years since the birth of our universe.  If there was another big bang 100 billion years ago right next to us and we are 101 billion light years from the light of that universe, would we see the first visible light from this newly found universe in about a billion years?

I believe all big bangs occur when 2 "cosmos" sized black holes collide.  The angle and penetration of each collision is different and gives different shapes of birth from each collision.

The one thing that always remains true is that each big bang produces a vast amount of hydrogen atoms from which stars and planets are created.  There are many earths in our universe and in all others.  Combine the same elements under tempurature and pressure and bingo, life.

[dlonewolf85]

Pyridium, on 08 April 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

Our galaxy is one in 100 billion, our known universe.  I can imagine the cosmos as trillions of universes all with varying lengths of age.  

We are now 14.5 billion years since the birth of our universe.  If there was another big bang 100 billion years ago right next to us and we are 101 billion light years from the light of that universe, would we see the first visible light from this newly found universe in about a billion years?

I believe all big bangs occur when 2 "cosmos" sized black holes collide.  The angle and penetration of each collision is different and gives different shapes of birth from each collision.

The one thing that always remains true is that each big bang produces a vast amount of hydrogen atoms from which stars and planets are created.  There are many earths in our universe and in all others.  Combine the same elements under tempurature and pressure and bingo, life.

Indeed, any life in a universe and along with the entire process of creation itself is that simple to explain.     
Isn't the Big Bang still just a theory? I believe it has never been established that the big bang is in fact the cause of the 'birth of our universe'. It could easily be just a part of the whole reaction and not really be the actual cause. I mean, there is no way we can prove it, right? We don't know for a fact, what existed or what happened before the big bang occurred. And we can't really say for sure if there are other universes out there, let alone the possibility of having other big bangs in our so called multiverse. And since these are all based on assumptions, there is no way we can say that another universe, if it exists, was also created as the result of a big bang. Also, how can it be stated that a big bang always produces a vast amount of hydrogen? The laws of physics, the nature and the properties, as well as matter and the elements existing in another universe could be entirely different than ours, right? Is it not possible that two big bangs can be entirely different, each having different reactions as well as producing entirely different elements as end-result? There are different kinds of explosions, why not different kinds of big bangs then? And why do we assume here that a universe is created as the result of a single big bang and not a series of multiple cosmic explosions and implosions of varying magnitudes?
What are your thoughts on that?