Big Bang Hypothesis

[HydrogenBond]

Newton had mass creating gravity. Einstein has gravity bending space-time, but still had mass first. Somewhere along the line, the effect called space-time became the cause of mass moving, and not the effect stemming from the expansion of the mass.

 

If you look at a star, its mass/gravity will not only contract local space-time, but the gravity induced pressures within the core will result in fusion. The mass/gravity will create two effects, only one is GR, the other is connected to pressure, work and possible phase changes. If we increase the mass of a star, space-time will contract more. However, the frequency of fusion will increase, even with time slowing. The reason is the two effects of mass/gravity are connected but do different things at the same time.

 

Although the universe appears to be expanding, the individual galaxies are contracting. The mass within the galaxies are doing their two for one effect, contracting local space-time around itself, while also increasing interaction frequency such as fusion in stars and other forms of emissions. More and more stars means an acceleration of both effects.

 

I have a theory that gravity has a practical distance for its attractive effect, even though the math says the gravity effect is all the way to infinity. The practical distance would be where the impact of gravity becomes smaller than other things that can overcome that low level of gravity. Hot air in a ballon, can exceed the practical limit of the earth's gravity. Gravity is still acting, but has little practical impact, so the balloon goes up. As it goes up, the gravity induced pressure in the atmosphere lowers and the balloon now expands. It went up due to density and pressure, which are connected to the second effect of mass/gravity.

 

I believe that galaxies make use of this practical limit, their hot air exceeds the practical limit of gravity from other galaxies. Galaxies move apart from each other based on the galaxies being the central point, that is contracting space-time locally using the two for one mass effect. With more and more stars forming and the two for one mass/gravity effect accelerating in the universe, the net impact is gravity increasing within only a practical limit. When the galaxies eventually cool, the practical limit of gravity will stretch. It will be like the hot air balloon getting cooler, until the even weaker gravity high up in the atmosphere is able to act. Then we get a contraction.

[modest]

Scientist describe the big bang theory as the universe starting out a mere speck of near infinite density. A very poetic statement but not very scientific.

 

The analogies that you hear regarding the big bang and your understanding of the theory may not be scientific, but the theory is.

 

Within an infintie scale everyting is realtive. Exactly what are they saying? At some point within an infinite scale, a neutron star is no more dense than bubble wrap. It's all matter of relative perspective.

 

Your description is not an accurate interpretation of the big bang theory.

 

They describe a universe that started off smaller than the head of a pin, and expanded to it's present size and it is still expanding. Within an infinite scale of size, it is still smaller than the head of a pin. It's all a matter of relative perspective.

 

Distances increase by a scale factor over time.

 

Scientist say that outside of the speck, nothing existed. No space, no time, no mass, no distance, just pure and absolute nothing.

 

No, that is not what scientists say. The theory has no "outside of the speck". Saying "there is no outside of the speck" and "nothing exists outside the speck" are two very different things.

 

It would stand to reason that if nothing existed on the other side of the speck then, than nothing exists on the other side of the speck that we are today. If nothing exists on the other side, than one might say that math and statistical probability also cannot exist, because that would be something.

 

I would suggest reading some introductory material on the theory. Stephen Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time' is a good read.

 

~modest

[modest]

Newton had mass creating gravity. Einstein has gravity bending space-time, but still had mass first. Somewhere along the line, the effect called space-time became the cause of mass moving, and not the effect stemming from the expansion of the mass.

 

mass curves spacetime and spacetime tells mass how to move.

 

If you look at a star, its mass/gravity will not only contract local space-time, but the gravity induced pressures within the core will result in fusion. The mass/gravity will create two effects, only one is GR, the other is connected to pressure, work and possible phase changes.

 

You are mistaken. General relativity has a radiation pressure term.

 

If we increase the mass of a star, space-time will contract more.

 

Is there any source you can find that would explain the "contraction of space-time"?

 

~modest

[36grit]

Well, I've done some more research and as it turns out Modest is right. It appears that there is no outside of this universe. Where I said, "nothing times nothing is nothing". Physicist say that the super spec was infinite then and that it is infinite now. Infinite times infinite equals infinite. This would mean that infinite distance is relative to it's point in time.

Does this mean that an infinite number is not an abstract and that somebody somewhere actually has to add that one two it? If we calculate the length, width, and depth of the universe and then multiply it times itself would the universe double in size relative to the infinite calculation percieved by a living conciencness? :o

pehaps dark matter is the gravity of our own thoughts and actions

[modest]

Does this mean that an infinite number is not an abstract and that somebody somewhere actually has to add that one two it?

 

Infinity is really not a number, and there is no "infinite number". Infinity is a concept. You could say that all numbers are smaller than infinity, but you still shouldn't think of infinity as a number.

 

If we calculate the length, width, and depth of the universe and then multiply it times itself would the universe double in size relative to the infinite calculation...

 

According to the big bang theory, the universe is either infinite in size or finite in size. If it is infinite in size they call it "open". If it is finite in size they call it "closed".

 

Even in a finite and closed universe there is no such thing as 'outside the universe'. There is no way to intuitively understand why this is. It takes some understanding of math and geometry. A closed universe is said to be "finite without bound" which means there is no boundary where one can say "on this side is the universe and on that side is outside the universe". You might look up the "balloon analogy" to get an idea of this.

 

 

In a universe with infinite size the only way to describe the total size is to say that it is 'infinite'. It was infinite yesterday and it will be infinite tomorrow. It has been infinite in size going all the way back to the singularity. Describing the infinite size of the universe is therefore not a good way to describe expansion.

 

The best you can do is to mark off some portion of the universe (such as a sphere with a 48 billion lightyear radius that we call the 'visible universe') and explain that it is expanding. The sphere was smaller yesterday and it will be larger tomorrow. All of the spheres you mark off in the infinite universe will be expanding in the same way—and there are an infinite number of such spheres.

 

In an infinite universe then, the total size is infinite yesterday, today, and tomorrow. But, everything on a cosmological scale in the universe gets further away from everything else from yesterday, to today, to tomorrow.

 

~modest

[modest]

Also, I think it might help to say... Whenever you hear scientists say that the universe was very small when it was young, like "the universe used to be the size of a softball" or "it used to be the size of an atom" what they are talking about is the size of the visible universe, not the size of the whole universe. This is indicated on the wiki page for observable universe

 

Both popular and professional research articles in cosmology often use the term "universe" to mean "observable universe". This can be justified on the grounds that we can never know anything by direct experimentation about any part of the universe that is causally disconnected from us, although many credible theories require a total universe much larger than the observable universe. ...the whole universe could be much larger, even infinite)

 

~modest

[LaurieAG]

Hi Modest,

 

In a universe with infinite size the only way to describe the total size is to say that it is 'infinite'. It was infinite yesterday and it will be infinite tomorrow. It has been infinite in size going all the way back to the singularity. Describing the infinite size of the universe is therefore not a good way to describe expansion.

 

Thats one of the problems with distant observations and the restrictions placed on obtaining these observations i.e. clear view without distortion. If we could make distant observations from all directions (as the CMB suggests) then surely we are not capturing any points that may have been infinite then but are relatively finite now considering the massive size of the theoretical expansion.

 

I for one would like to see Irwin Hubbles experimental reservations (that he held to his death) about an expanding universe revisited so that there can be a valid comparison between his work (from non expanding universe base) and the BB experiments (from an expanding BB universe base).

 

It just seems to me that Irwin Hubbles experimental observations were made on a static universal mapping that is quite contrary to a mapping that could be used for BB theory where the same physical constraints and mappings do not apply. If close to BB galaxies can only be found in one location it might be proposed that the origination point of the BB has been discovered (and distortions mapped accordingly) otherwise we can only assume that we are fortunate to exist in a priveleged frame of reference very close to the central point of the BB itself (or the universal BB didn't happen).

[modest]

There is no such thing as "the center of the big bang". Big bang theory has nothing of that sort.

 

~modest

[LaurieAG]

Hi Modest,

 

There is no such thing as "the center of the big bang". Big bang theory has nothing of that sort.~modest

 

Its not surprising and my point exactly, if we can see close to BB galaxies from all quadrants then, with any consistent universal expansion model that applied to all objects equally at the same time, the implication is that we would have to be between these points at the 'beginning'.

[modest]

Here's an faq talking about it:

 

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html

 

The cosmological principle insists that our location in the universe is not special. From any point in the universe, observations would be isotropic. If galaxies look roughly the same in all directions (receding from us isotropically) then this does not imply that we are at the center of the universe. The balloon analogy would again be useful in describing why this is.

 

~modest

[LaurieAG]

Hi Modest,

 

The cosmological principle insists that our location in the universe is not special. From any point in the universe, observations would be isotropic. If galaxies look roughly the same in all directions (receding from us isotropically) then this does not imply that we are at the center of the universe. The balloon analogy would again be useful in describing why this is.

 

If you put dots on the quadrants of a balloons surface and inflated it you would see exactly what I describe regardless of whether it was a visible limit or a boundary.

 

So we're not even going to look, that solves everything.

[modest]

If you put dots on the quadrants of a balloons surface and inflated it you would see exactly what I describe regardless of whether it was a visible limit or a boundary.

 

I don't see how. Every dot will recede from any observer with a velocity proportional to distance no matter where the observer is on the surface of the balloon. No dot can say it is at the center. They all see recession velocity proportional to distance.

 

The metric expansion of space is based on, among other things, the cosmological principle, which states that no observer (no matter where they are in the universe) will see things differently than any other observer. In the Robertson-Walker metric, for example, there is no center. It is homogeneous and isotropic. All observers see the same isotropic recession and none can claim, or observe, or determine any kind of 'center'. This is a basic cosmological principle on which all of modern standard cosmology is derived.

 

It seems like you're saying the opposite. I don't think that makes the opposite true.

 

~modest

[DevayanBir]

i think i understand something of wat u guys are discussing here

but i dont agree or i dont want to believe the fact that there is nothing outside this universe

i am sure u must have heard abt the M-theory which suggests the possibility of a multiverse i.e.our universe floating like a bubble with many other universes and the fact that gravity is not something specifically to our universe but is leaking from some other universe into our universe which explains why it is so weak compared to the other forces

Please ponder on this and reply

[modest]

Hello Devayan. Welcome to ScienceForums.

 

The theory has no "outside of the speck". Saying "there is no outside of the speck" and "nothing exists outside the speck" are two very different things.

 

i think i understand something of wat u guys are discussing here

but i dont agree or i dont want to believe the fact that there is nothing outside this universe

i am sure u must have heard abt the M-theory which suggests the possibility of a multiverse i.e.our universe floating like a bubble with many other universes and the fact that gravity is not something specifically to our universe but is leaking from some other universe into our universe which explains why it is so weak compared to the other forces

Please ponder on this and reply

 

Indeed, by "the theory has no 'outside of the speck'" I'm referring to the big bang theory or standard cosmology (particularly: a Friedmann universe). There are certainly other theories, like you say, in which "outside our universe" makes sense. In brane cosmology, like you say, the question of what exists outside our universe is reasonable.

 

~modest

[LaurieAG]

Hi Modest,

 

It seems like you're saying the opposite. I don't think that makes the opposite true.

 

Think of it this way: if we can observe, what we call now, close to BB galaxies at all quadrants then we have 2 options:-

 

(a) We are in a priveleged frame of reference at the center of a BB universe

( b ) We are at the center of our visible universe, that may or may not be a BB universe.

 

Until we actually look and see what the truth of the matter is most modern cosmology has an uncertain foundation.

[modest]

Ok, Laurie, can you tell me what "close to BB galaxies at all quadrants" means?

 

I would assume that "at all quadrants" means 'in every direction we look'. I'd further assume that "close to BB galaxies" means 'galaxies that are close enough to see which appear young and immature; which is to say, they appear to have recently emerged from the big bang'.

 

Is that more or less correct?

 

~modest

[LaurieAG]

Hi Modest,

 

Ok, Laurie, can you tell me what "close to BB galaxies at all quadrants" means?

 

I would assume that "at all quadrants" means 'in every direction we look'. I'd further assume that "close to BB galaxies" means 'galaxies that are close enough to see which appear young and immature; which is to say, they appear to have recently emerged from the big bang'.

 

Is that more or less correct?

 

Feel free to expand, I would hire you as a ghost writer anyday(B)

 

In geometric terms it is equivalent to determining where the location of the apex of a degenerate triangle is by comparing the lengths and angles of the lines that the apex makes with the points of a triangle on a surface that had undergone a transformation that pivoted from the apex point.

 

I maintain that the answer to this method is trivial unless there is a very good reason why light, that travels in a straight line unless it is distorted/blocked, which we capture by looking through holes in the veil of stars in the night sky, is supposed to come in from any other direction than that which it is observed to be coming in from.