A question for experts on the Big Bang theory

[SHaYap]

I was talking metaphorically

I know ... so was I ...

~

[White Crane Feather]

The observable universe is not all if it. We have measured the COBR, and with a little triangulation , the universe is at least 14 trillion light years in diameter as a lower limit. This is because it looks perfectly flat from where we are standing, and if there is any curvature it will show up unless its so big we can't see it at which point we get a lower limit.

Noe scientists make any claims that stars and galaxies do not exist far beyond potentially infinite beyond our observable horizons. Understanding inflation, we do not have have a singularity of energy and matter, it was just more compact infinite space. The moment Of the BB is not a beginning. It's just the place where our understanding of physics stops. In no way shape or form does it constitute a "beginning". It is ultimate arrogance to assume there was nothing there just because it exists in a form that we cannot understand yet. The universe expands everywhere and weveryehere just might be infinite. Even when space was extremely dense 13.7 billion years ago, it still may have been infinite... Just dense. It coukd have even been infinatly more dense before that, or it may be bouncing.

[spacecowboy342]

Yeah, I kind of think what we perceive as the result of the BB could be like a bubble in a pre-existing infinity of space. Language seems to break down some times when discussing these things. Stephen Hawking was quoted as saying that asking what came before the big bang was like asking what is north of the north pole, as what we perceive as time began there as well, but I don;t think that rules out the idea that something existed "before" that

[Sir Smoke aLot]

The entire universe could be infinite as you say but the observable universe is the only part science can study and this is the part that the BB theory proposes a beginning for.

True. That is the reason i dont find this theory viable tbh. I can not accept such theory becouse to be able to even think of that we would need to have more knowledge about universe and at alot larger scale then visible universe today. Even one unknown thing that we will discover in future, some minor infulence from out space can and will change our view on creation, or big bang.

Can we say that one mountain is made of granite only becouse a few feet cave under that mountain is made of granite? While we havent even seen the mountain from all sides.

Could it be that one granite space rock crash at that place and its only reason we see granite traces there today? While the rest of mountain is actually made of diamond. Its possible why not, everything is possible when there is alot of unknown stuff. There are like million possible theory's, we have accepted the bb theory and over years people try to proove it even more and work around it.

Anyways, this is too much text for a simple sentences that i write in first post. Future will show, i just believe that u cant make theory's about observable universe creation if u dont know where u are or how big is your surrounding.

[White Crane Feather]

Yeah, I kind of think what we perceive as the result of the BB could be like a bubble in a pre-existing infinity of space. Language seems to break down some times when discussing these things. Stephen Hawking was quoted as saying that asking what came before the big bang was like asking what is north of the north pole, as what we perceive as time began there as well, but I don;t think that rules out the idea that something existed "before" that

Because Steven said it? I don't think so. I do not like how time is treated in in that way. We measure "time" as movement and change. Just because we don't understanding what is happening to movement, momentum, etc dosnt mean that there is no change. I repeat its simply because we don't understand the physics of combining the large and small. Not understanding does not equate to not existing. I understand perfectly why there is no north of the North Pole. It's an analogy that I think is Wholly misleading. There certainly is a north of the North Pole, we just call it going south. In the case of the universe it would constitute a bounce.

If change did not exist then how in the hell did it change to start. It makes no sense. I propose that this notion of there being no "time" is silly. Time is simply the march of change not some strange ticking force. Of course there was a before even if we cannot catalogue it under our understanding of physics. This is a problem with many empirically minded people out there to suggest that that something doesn't exist simply because we cannot understand it or measure it.

[spacecowboy342]

Because Steven said it? I don't think so. I do not like how time is treated in in that way. We measure "time" as movement and change. Just because we don't understanding what is happening to movement, momentum, etc dosnt mean that there is no change. I repeat its simply because we don't understand the physics of combining the large and small. Not understanding does not equate to not existing. I understand perfectly why there is no north of the North Pole. It's an analogy that I think is Wholly misleading. There certainly is a north of the North Pole, we just call it going south. In the case of the universe it would constitute a bounce.

If change did not exist then how in the hell did it change to start. It makes no sense. I propose that this notion of there being no "time" is silly. Time is simply the march of change not some strange ticking force. Of course there was a before even if we cannot catalogue it under our understanding of physics. This is a problem with many empirically minded people out there to suggest that that something doesn't exist simply because we cannot understand it or measure it.

Yeah but according to Einstein space and time aren't 2 separate things but one thing called space-time. If before the BB space was compressed into 0 dimensions it would seem to follow that time was as well. Still I don't think that rules out your idea that it could be a periodic bounce between expansion and compression or that there could have been nothing before that or that there couldn't be many other areas of space-time, perhaps even an infinite number

[White Crane Feather]

Yeah but according to Einstein space and time aren't 2 separate things but one thing called space-time. If before the BB space was compressed into 0 dimensions it would seem to follow that time was as well. Still I don't think that rules out your idea that it could be a periodic bounce between expansion and compression or that there could have been nothing before that or that there couldn't be many other areas of space-time, perhaps even an infinite number

Yes you see. You are using time properly. Proper time vs space time. Time and space are intrinsically linked because we measure time ( quite arbitrarily) by how much time it takes to traverse space. "Time" is simply energy through space. If I take the hypothetic light click and squish the sides together so that the click cannot tick any more, all in really doing is stopping that particular tick. The ticking of the clock has nothing to do with the existence of the clock or the other kinds of ticks that can be happening around it before or after it, people say that there is no time before simply because there is no way to measure it once things pass our threshold of understanding. This is not because things did not exist..., this is because we lak the understanding how to measure such things as time. In a sense they are right. Time as defined by space and light may not have existed using those definitions, but proper time surely did. It's not a problem of existence it's a problem of definition.

[spacecowboy342]

Yes you see. You are using time properly. Proper time vs space time. Time and space are intrinsically linked because we measure time ( quite arbitrarily) by how much time it takes to traverse space. "Time" is simply energy through space. If I take the hypothetic light click and squish the sides together so that the click cannot tick any more, all in really doing is stopping that particular tick. The ticking of the clock has nothing to do with the existence of the clock or the other kinds of ticks that can be happening around it before or after it, people say that there is no time before simply because there is no way to measure it once things pass our threshold of understanding. This is not because things did not exist..., this is because we lak the understanding how to measure such things as time. In a sense they are right. Time as defined by space and light may not have existed using those definitions, but proper time surely did. It's not a problem of existence it's a problem of definition.

Yeah. I think I agree with that. There may be as many theories about the nature of time as about the origins of the universe. It's a little like how the definition of nothing has changed. Once it was assumed if you removed all the stars and galaxies and atoms from the universe nothing would be left. Now it seems that "nothing" actually contains the bulk of what exists in the universe. It makes it hard to discuss things as language seems to break down.

[Zargoza]

But if our universe existed in side of a black hole wouldn't that explain the constant expansion as matter and light are pulled into the event horizon?

[spacecowboy342]

But if our universe existed in side of a black hole wouldn't that explain the constant expansion as matter and light are pulled into the event horizon?

I have wondered about this too, but Sepulchrave assured me we would be able to tell as their would be directionality to expansion

[Ogbin]

God spoke and BANG! it happend...

[White Crane Feather]

God spoke and BANG! it happend...

Or you ( and i ) observed... Then there is a tangled hierarchy matrix. No bang. A bang assumes a perspective? don't be an ass. It's the first three letters in assumption.

[SHaYap]

But if our universe existed in side of a black hole wouldn't that explain the constant expansion as matter and light are pulled into the event horizon?

I have wondered about this too, but Sepulchrave assured me we would be able to tell as their would be directionality to expansion

How about this ?

The constant of light is the threshold before it takes on the characteristics of Dark ENergy ... ? Anything over that constant means Dark Energy ...

Means Black Holes aren't localities but states of Dark Energy taken on a higher level of its quantum state ?

~

[spacecowboy342]

How about this ?

The constant of light is the threshold before it takes on the characteristics of Dark ENergy ... ? Anything over that constant means Dark Energy ...

Means Black Holes aren't localities but states of Dark Energy taken on a higher level of its quantum state ?

~

I'm going to have to chew on that a while. I have heard a theory which suggests there might be a curled up 4th spatial dimension that we can't perceive and that dark matter might be photons trapped in this 4th dimension at the time of the BB and travelling at high energy in tiny circles they manifest themselves in our perception as mass. Not sure how valid this idea might be.

[White Crane Feather]

Or you ( and i ) observed... Then there is a tangled hierarchy matrix. No bang. A bang assumes a perspective? don't be an ass. It's the first three letters in assumption.

Snip

Edited November 30, 2013 by White Crane Feather

[White Crane Feather]

God spoke and BANG! it happend...

Sorry about that I reread my previous response to you, and it did not at all sound the way I intended it. When I called you ass I was referring to making assumptions, I did not mean it just to be a prick, though looking at it I'm not sure how else anyone would take it. My apologies. I meant it like don't be Someone just making assumptions.