+Noteverythingisaconspiracy Posted May 23, 2014 #26 Share Posted May 23, 2014 (edited) Okay, I think I got it. I was imagining a firecracker exploding inside the cake, causing the cake to be scattered away from the the firecracker. But there is no firecracker; the expansion itself is the "explosion", or "Big Bang". So, in a sense, the "Big Bang" has never actually ended. We will exist in a continual Big Bang as long as enough energy exists for the universe to continue to expand. Am I on the right track? That is not a bad analogy at all ! In fact it looks like the rate of expansion is actually increasing, so don't expect it to stop expanding soon. Made me think of a quote from my favorite book: Douglas Adams: Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy “Space is big. Really big. You just won’t believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist’s, but that’s just peanuts to space.” Edited May 23, 2014 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted May 23, 2014 #27 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Thank you, Stellar. I'm picturing the balloon, but I'm having a hard time grasping the idea that there's no center. Unless: the idea of a "Big Bang" is merely a phrase coined by physicists to help less-knowledgable people (such as myself) understand the concept by using a familiar word-picture. My concept is probably wrong, but I was assuming that all of the matter (mass) of the universe was originally condensed into an almost infinitesimally small unit that "exploded", and sent particles outward from a centerpoint of that unit. It's because of that concept that I envision a center that is now hollow, or (at most) contains a few remnants left behind as the energy dissipated. Obviously, I only recently became interested in this stuff. Thank you for the input. Think about my balloon example. The surface (the membrane of the balloon) is the universe. Where is the centre of that membrane? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likely Guy Posted May 23, 2014 #28 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Think about my balloon example. The surface (the membrane of the balloon) is the universe. Where is the centre of that membrane? So, if there's no matter there, it doesn't matter, because wilthout matter there's no 'physical' centre to the Universe? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preacherman76 Posted May 24, 2014 #29 Share Posted May 24, 2014 I am also of the understanding the the expanding universe is not doing so at a constant rate, even after inflation was over. Personaly I think they feel like they need to come up with answers that are impossible to answer. We have no idea if the universe is expanding, contracting, whatever. Youd have to see the end of it, and observe it growing. If its expanding, whats it expanding into? Whats outside the universe? What if there were not just one big bang, but a trillion big bangs going on all at once? Over a area impossible to calculate. Personaly I think anyone who claims to even have the slightest clue about any of this is full of crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likely Guy Posted May 24, 2014 #30 Share Posted May 24, 2014 Personaly I think they feel like they need to come up with answers that are impossible to answer. ...Personaly I think anyone who claims to even have the slightest clue about any of this is full of crap. Spoken like a true non-believer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Noteverythingisaconspiracy Posted May 24, 2014 #31 Share Posted May 24, 2014 Personaly I think they feel like they need to come up with answers that are impossible to answer. We have no idea if the universe is expanding, contracting, whatever. Youd have to see the end of it, and observe it growing. If its expanding, whats it expanding into? Whats outside the universe? What if there were not just one big bang, but a trillion big bangs going on all at once? Over a area impossible to calculate. Personaly I think anyone who claims to even have the slightest clue about any of this is full of crap. We have observations that shows that the universe is expanding, it is not just something that astronomers are making up. How do you explain redshift ? How do you explain the microwave background radiation ? Those are observable phenomenon that supports the Big Bang theory. Are you not the least bit curious of how it all came to be ? Saying that some of the brightest people in the world are full of bullcrap is quite a statement. You must have an insight into these things, because if you don't, dismissing decades of science just because you don't understand it, makes you look rather foolish. So please elaborate on why you think its bullcrap ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted May 24, 2014 Author #32 Share Posted May 24, 2014 (edited) Personaly I think they feel like they need to come up with answers that are impossible to answer. We have no idea if the universe is expanding, contracting, whatever. Youd have to see the end of it, and observe it growing. If its expanding, whats it expanding into? Whats outside the universe? What if there were not just one big bang, but a trillion big bangs going on all at once? Over a area impossible to calculate. Personaly I think anyone who claims to even have the slightest clue about any of this is full of crap. The first step (to try) to get an idea about the universe is to say goodbye to the questions you asked (bolded) as these cannot be answered as the questions themselfs are based on a hypothetical model of the universe. We cannot test and validate this model as there is no reality (ours) independant point of view to do so. The universe created itself, so us, and observes itself by us, but limited by the borders of reality the universe provide by its own existence. So it is impossible to investigate if there is an "outside" or not and we have to accept, by math, that there is a 50% change that there is no "outside" so the universe is expanding into nothing, like it is originated from nothing. Recapitulatory, the questions you asked are useless and a more usefull question would be: is there an outside the universe is expanding into? And I have to say here, based on your crap comparison, its not just poor to try to blame ppl who claim to or do understand more about a specific issue than you do, it`s also some kind of nazi fashion argumentation as well. Edited May 24, 2014 by toast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplybill Posted May 24, 2014 #33 Share Posted May 24, 2014 (edited) In fact it looks like the rate of expansion is actually increasing, so don't expect it to stop expanding soon. My question is: if the universe is expanding in all directions at a constant rate, from which point in the universe is it expanding from? It seems reasonable to me that the Big Bang created the "first location" in the universe, because previous to the Big Bang, "location" wouldn't have existed. In other words, the Big Bang was the first event, as well as the first location in what would become an expanding Universe. So would it be safe for me to say that the entire Universe itself is the original location as well as the center, though on an "expanded" scale? In other words, until the universe stops expanding, the concept of "center" has no relevance; when the universe stops expanding, then it becomes a measurable entity, and "center" becomes a geographical reality. (?) Edited May 24, 2014 by simplybill 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preacherman76 Posted May 24, 2014 #34 Share Posted May 24, 2014 We have observations that shows that the universe is expanding, it is not just something that astronomers are making up. We have observed that objects are moving. That doesnt mean that the space is expanding. How do you explain redshift ? How do you explain the microwave background radiation ? Those are observable phenomenon that supports the Big Bang theory. Well regardless of whether or not the big bang happened, that doesnt mean its the full story of our existance. Maybe thats didnt happen at all. Or maybe there were a trillon big bangs happening. Are you not the least bit curious of how it all came to be ? Sure I am. The whole subject amazes me. I just dont believe there is really anyway to know what they claim to. Saying that some of the brightest people in the world are full of bullcrap is quite a statement. Saying they have a understanding of our place in the universe, without having anyway to know whats beyond what we have been able to see is quite a statement. You must have an insight into these things, because if you don't, dismissing decades of science just because you don't understand it, makes you look rather foolish. So please elaborate on why you think its bullcrap ? Its crap, cause its just impossible to know. We can only see so far into the great unknown. Till we can see whats beyond that, how could we possibly know where our position is in its entirerty. We cant even conceive there being a end to the universe, cause a pure state of nothing isnt possible. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Border Collie Posted May 24, 2014 #35 Share Posted May 24, 2014 We were a lot happier when the world was flat and everything revolved around us. That worked, they should have left it alone. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilly Posted May 25, 2014 #36 Share Posted May 25, 2014 We were a lot happier when the world was flat and everything revolved around us. That worked, they should have left it alone. I dunno...ignorance isn't always bliss. Back when people believed in such stuff they also would burn people as witches, had no idea about the causes of disease, thought curses and black magic were at the root of all sorts disasters. No, living in "A Demon Haunted World" (kudos to Carl Sagan) wasn't better. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted May 25, 2014 #37 Share Posted May 25, 2014 So would it be safe for me to say that the entire Universe itself is the original location as well as the center, though on an "expanded" scale? I guess you could say that, because all points in the universe, according to the current theory, are just as equally the "centre". It would cause a bit of confusion and you'd have to explain what you mean every time you said it though, probably. In other words, until the universe stops expanding, the concept of "center" has no relevance; when the universe stops expanding, then it becomes a measurable entity, and "center" becomes a geographical reality. (?) Even if the universe stops expanding, there's no relevance to the word "centre". Where is the centre of the surface of the Earth? Where is the centre of the surface of a balloon? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted May 25, 2014 #38 Share Posted May 25, 2014 We have observed that objects are moving. That doesnt mean that the space is expanding. I feel that you have no idea what "we" have actually observed, nor the implications behind those observations. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ServusDei.inFieri Posted June 5, 2014 #39 Share Posted June 5, 2014 There's an update concerning this upcoming movie, The Principle, over on the producer's blog and on a radio show called Mic'd Up: Requiem for a Media Hoax http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.ca/2014/05/youtube-link-now-up-principle-under.html Youtube link of full interview: The Principle website: http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taniwha Posted June 8, 2014 #40 Share Posted June 8, 2014 I guess you could say that, because all points in the universe, according to the current theory, are just as equally the "centre". It would cause a bit of confusion and you'd have to explain what you mean every time you said it though, probably. Even if the universe stops expanding, there's no relevance to the word "centre". Where is the centre of the surface of the Earth? Where is the centre of the surface of a balloon? Unless the universe is curved to such a degree that the beginning of it meets the end of it, a spheroid analogy makes no sense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter B Posted June 10, 2014 #41 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Unless the universe is curved to such a degree that the beginning of it meets the end of it, a spheroid analogy makes no sense. It's an analogy - to help explain why a particular concept has no meaning, we use another concept which can be shown to have no meaning. And it has the advantage of being broadly similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithisco Posted June 26, 2014 #42 Share Posted June 26, 2014 The balloon analogy just doesn't hold water. For it to be accurate then ALL matter riding on the surface of an eternally expanding surface would be moving away from ALL other matter. Unfortunately this is not what is observed. I say this because some massive objects are actually moving towards each other (the Andromeda and Milk Way Galaxies are actually doing this, some other Galaxies have collided already) A different analogy needs to be found, one that can graphically represent the reality. For myself, I cannot think of one except possibly a burst balloon filmed in ultra slow motion, to see parts of the fabric ripping and moving towards other parts of the fabric - whilst the more coherent structure continues to move outward - for a time, before totally deflating. Just my take on a difficult problem.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taun Posted June 26, 2014 #43 Share Posted June 26, 2014 The balloon analogy just doesn't hold water. For it to be accurate then ALL matter riding on the surface of an eternally expanding surface would be moving away from ALL other matter. Unfortunately this is not what is observed. I say this because some massive objects are actually moving towards each other (the Andromeda and Milk Way Galaxies are actually doing this, some other Galaxies have collided already) A different analogy needs to be found, one that can graphically represent the reality. For myself, I cannot think of one except possibly a burst balloon filmed in ultra slow motion, to see parts of the fabric ripping and moving towards other parts of the fabric - whilst the more coherent structure continues to move outward - for a time, before totally deflating. Just my take on a difficult problem.... It could work if you think of dots placed on a balloon with a marker... Each dot does not represent a galaxy, but a region of space.. a cluster of galaxies so to speak... The clusters are moving away from each other, the regions are moving away from each other, but items within the region may (or may not) be moving toward each other... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taun Posted June 26, 2014 #44 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Taun (and others) - I'm being serious, and not challenging anyone. If you're aware of a textbook that has the answer to my question, then I'll order it from Amazon. I love this kind of stuff. I understand the Big Bang and all, and that the universe is expanding. My question is: if the universe is expanding in all directions at a constant rate, from which point in the universe is it expanding from? It seems reasonable to me that the Big Bang created the "first location" in the universe, because previous to the Big Bang, "location" wouldn't have existed. In other words, the Big Bang was the first event, as well as the first location in what would become an expanding Universe. Therefore, it seems reasonable to me that physicists should be able to discover that original location, or "center", by reverse-engineering the mathematics that were used to calculate the expansion, and then calculating the expansion back to the original location. Forgive me if my question is unsufferably naive. Edited to add: I'll look this over, but I'd still like to hear some other opinions: http://en.wikipedia....of_the_Universe It would seem that it could be "reverse engineered" to a starting point doesn't it... And who knows, perhaps it could be, with some really high level math, and some factors that we may not be aware of yet... As to some source material or a book... I'm afraid my poor understanding of cosmology is limited to what I've seen on the idiot box (TV), and read in articles and here at UM, by converseing with people like Waspie... My favorite "view" of the cosmos (All universes combined - so to speak), is very probably 100% wrong, but until that's pointed out to me, I'll stick with it: I imagine several "Membranes" ('brane theory) made of Quantuum flux... I envision these membranes lying in great planes monstrously huge... They lay more or less like bed sheets on an old fashioned clothes line... These 'branes are normally seperated from each other by some distance or some as yet unknown "insulator", and they 'hang there' quite happily flapping in the quantuum breeze... (sorry just a mental image I get)... Occasionally two or more of these 'branes might briefly come in contact with each other - like sheets might in a breeze... Or a 'brane might hit itself... At the point of contact, energy is created/released/whatever at that "spot" and that energy is the "Big Bang" for that locality on the 'Brane (I suppose if this were accurate it would indicate two or more "Big Bangs" simultaneously one on each 'brane - but [shrug] who knows)... In my mental image I see the "baby universes" clinging to the 'brane and growing upon it, like ivy on a wall... Like I said, I am most likely 100% off, and probably a knowledgeable person reading this would be shaking their head and saying "What a maroon!"... But that is how I see "The Big Picture"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrooma Posted June 26, 2014 #45 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Where is the centre of the surface of the Earth? Where is the centre of the surface of a balloon? Unless the universe is curved to such a degree that the beginning of it meets the end of it, a spheroid analogy makes no sense. . i have to agree with Taniwha here- a 2D analogy doesn't make much sense in a 3(spacial)D world.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Noteverythingisaconspiracy Posted June 26, 2014 #46 Share Posted June 26, 2014 The balloon analogy just doesn't hold water. For it to be accurate then ALL matter riding on the surface of an eternally expanding surface would be moving away from ALL other matter. Unfortunately this is not what is observed. I say this because some massive objects are actually moving towards each other (the Andromeda and Milk Way Galaxies are actually doing this, some other Galaxies have collided already) A different analogy needs to be found, one that can graphically represent the reality. For myself, I cannot think of one except possibly a burst balloon filmed in ultra slow motion, to see parts of the fabric ripping and moving towards other parts of the fabric - whilst the more coherent structure continues to move outward - for a time, before totally deflating. Just my take on a difficult problem.... It is a very difficult thing to grasp. The way that makes sense to me, is to imagine that the universe isn't expanding from a single point, but instead that every point in the universe is moving away from everything else. So no matter where you are in the universe, you will observe that the rest of the universe seems to be moving away from you. Gravity is what is holding matter together on the "small scale", like galaxies, but on the larger scale everything is moving apart from everything else. In essence the universe isn't expanding to fill any space, it is creating space as it expanding. I don't know if that makes sense ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preacherman76 Posted June 27, 2014 #47 Share Posted June 27, 2014 [/background][/size][/font][/color] I feel that you have no idea what "we" have actually observed, nor the implications behind those observations. You can feel whatever you want Stellar. Its a fact that we have no idea how large our universe is. Where it ends, or whats on the other side of it. That is FACT. Anyone who tells you different is either a lier, or a fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now