Big Bang Hypothesis

[modest]

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 that had undergone a transformation that pivoted from the apex point.

 

That doesn't answer my question. What is at the apex of the triangle? What does "close to BB galaxies" mean? What is this thing, "BB galaxies" which we are either close to or not? Is it the origin of the big bang? Is it the location in which the big bang originated? Yes? No?

 

~modest

[HydrogenBond]

Say we placed dots, not only on the surface of a balloon, but also within its spongy interior. Next, we blow it up to simulate the expansion of space-time, so all the points are moving away from each other in all directions. The center of gravity will not change, but only the relationship of the dots to the center and to each other. Where is the center of gravity in our uniform expansion universe, which should be always the same?

 

Say we had a star expand, but we moved the center of the gravity from its original position. We will move it in the x-direction for simplicity. The expansion could not be uniform in all directions and maintain this moving center of gravity. In the direction of the motion of the center, the expansion would need to be faster, than in the direction away from the motion. This type of universe is not observed. The center of gravity would have to be conserved, if we assume a uniform expansion in all directions. Where is the center of the universe?

 

Technically, the universe did not expand uniformly, because of the observed superstructures. Superstructures means some areas have higher density or less expansion. Does the superstructure distribution reflect a consistent center of gravity or does this reflect a center of gravity in some type of motion, from which we can predict the current center?

 

Say the motion of the center of gravity was a helix or a tetrahedron. The expansion would need to occur in a way that defines this center of gravity. I am not saying it is, but both scenarios would create certain versions of superstructure within the general expansion.

[modest]

Say we placed dots, not only on the surface of a balloon, but also within its spongy interior. Next, we blow it up to simulate the expansion of space-time, so all the points are moving away from each other in all directions.

 

That does not simulate "the expansion of space-time". It simulates the expansion of space. This is why I asked you earlier in this thread "Is there any source you can find that would explain the 'contraction of space-time'?" Did you see this question?

 

To the best of my knowledge, spacetime does not contract, expand, or move. Those are qualities of space. The expanding sponge simulates the expansion of space—not spacetime. There is a big difference between the two.

 

The center of gravity will not change, but only the relationship of the dots to the center and to each other. Where is the center of gravity in our uniform expansion universe, which should be always the same?

 

The universe (in standard cosmology) does not have a center and does not have a center of gravity.

 

Where is the center of the universe?

 

I should quote some sources:

 

Is it possible to point to a direction in the sky and say "that way is the center of the universe, where the Big Bang started?" If not, why not?

 

>...Now we know that not only are we humans not at the center of the universe, but there is no center of the universe!...

NASA -- Phone Dr. Marc Archives

 

This is also an appropriate time to clear up several common misconceptions about the expansion of the universe. Firstly, the galaxies are not receding away from us, but away from each other. We are not the center of the universe, nor does the concept of a geographic center have any place in modern cosmology. The universe is not expanding “into” something (such as more space). In the most literal sense, space itself is expanding, and as it does it carries the galaxies along for the ride.

 

Cosmology 101 By Kristine M. Larsen

 

It is a common misconception to imagine that the universe has a center, but, as you just realized, that is impossible. As you study cosmology, you should take care to avoid thinking that there is a center of the universe.

 

Horizons: Exploring the Universe By Michael A. Seeds, Dana Backman

 

I believe the problem which causes this misconception is in thinking of 'the universe' as something which exists in space and thinking of expansion as the explosion of matter into space.

 

Does the superstructure distribution reflect a consistent center of gravity or does this reflect a center of gravity in some type of motion, from which we can predict the current center?

 

Local inhomogeneities do not represent a universal center. They represent the centers of a local perturbations.

 

Say the motion of the center of gravity was a helix or a tetrahedron. The expansion would need to occur in a way that defines this center of gravity. I am not saying it is, but both scenarios would create certain versions of superstructure within the general expansion.

 

The visible universe has a center of gravity (which, by the way, isn't here on earth at the center of the visible universe). But, big bang theory has no center or center of gravity for the universe as a whole.

 

~modest

[36grit]

I don't like the idea of nothing outside either but it seems to be the accepted model. It seems like everybody has their opinion and their own personal model though. I guess we'll all have to wait and see who's is right and who's is wrong. I think the universe has no center because all time therein is relative to the speed and motion therein, and that all the universe is the center of it's own points in time, relative to the infinite future that surrounds us. But that doesn't mean that there are no other universes around us.

My evolving model has already been posted for all to ridicule and stand in awe of. lol

I have read one other one that I kinda liked and Modest seems to be an expert and most of the youtube videos that I've seen agree with his point of view.

[LaurieAG]

Hi Modest,

 

The balloon model is the best way to explain in basic terms.

 

If you perceive the surface of the balloon as space time then you should always expect to get a degenerate triangle from the physical observation and triangulation of 3 points perceived to be on its surface expanding or otherwise.

 

Unless anybody knows different, the only way we experimentally observe things like the path of light is to set a trap that captures any whatever we set out to capture that enters the trap from the direction the trap was pointing during the discrete period of time that the trap was open. For a start I don't like balloon models that are more like dandylions wearing condoms.

 

Secondly, Irwin Hubble made star count observations that he considered could be mathematically explained without a superficial expanding universe model, I hold similar reservations and have always worked back from first principles to find where the perception disconnects from reality.

 

A couple of years ago I posted a 1 page essay titled MAXIMUS ARCUS QUO that put forward a concept of determining how to classically observe or trap the longest undistorted light path we can see through a series of CCDs with zoom lens attached like the survey array attached to the HST. If we find many different candidates for MAXIMUS ARCUS QUO then we can only surmise that we are not observing our universe from the surface of a dandylion wearing a condom but are observing it from the center of a balloon whose interior surface is merely our current experimental view horizon.

 

su·per·fi·cial 

–adjective

1. being at, on, or near the surface: a superficial wound.

2. of or pertaining to the surface: superficial measurement.

3. external or outward: a superficial resemblance.

4. concerned with or comprehending only what is on the surface or obvious: a superficial observer.

5. shallow; not profound or thorough: a superficial writer.

6. apparent rather than real.

7. insubstantial or insignificant: superficial improvements.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pompeiu%27s_theorem

 

Further investigations reveal that if P is not in the interior of the triangle, but rather on the circumcircle, then PA, PB, PC form a degenerate triangle, with the largest being equal to the sum of the others.

[HydrogenBond]

Explain an expansion of matter that does not have a center of gravity? The balloon analogy is misleading because it has a center of gravity.

[modest]

I'm sorry, Laurie. It seems like our understanding of what a 'big bang universe' is differs. Perhaps because of that, I do not follow your reasoning. I don't know how looking to see if we are "close to BB galaxies at all quadrants" would indicate that we are at "at the center of a BB universe". That just seems like a misconception to me, but you aren't answering what "close to BB galaxies" means, so I don't know.

 

I don't know what the degenerate triangle you're talking about is supposed to refer to.

 

The balloon model is the best way to explain in basic terms.

 

 

If you perceive the surface of the balloon as space time...

 

I don't know how the surface of a balloon can represent spacetime. If you drew a spacetime diagram on the surface of a balloon, for example, and inflated it... that would be problematic.

 

The surface of the balloon in the balloon analogy is meant to represent two dimensions of space. Time can be considered orthogonal to the surface of the balloon.

 

~modest

[modest]

Explain an expansion of matter that does not have a center of gravity?

 

Every distance between any two points gets larger over time in a manner proportional to distance, such as with the expansion of:

 

• A big bang universe.
  
• A Robertson-Walker metric filled with a perfect fluid.
  
• A Friedmann universe.
  
• A three dimensional spherical manifold.
  
• An Einstein universe.
  

none of which have a center

 

The balloon analogy is misleading because it has a center of gravity.

 

It's an analogy. One needs to omit the third dimension and consider it a 2 dimensional manifold with intrinsic curvature. As such, it has no center, nor a center of gravity.

 

~modest

[DevayanBir]

i too dont get the logic behind finding a center of gravity of the universe because if one believes the existence of only one univese then nothing is going to act on the center of gravity and in the multiverse gravity could be specific only to our universe

the example with the balloon is just too uniform after the big bang nothing was uniform why should the expansion be

i think the question here becomes the point of the big bang

space telescopes are picking up light they say from the first galaxies

Now i dont know this but i assume the galxies closer to the point big bang nust be the oldest one so maybe there is actually a general direction

to the point of the universe is expanding by creating its own space is very promising but does this mean that one should look at our universe not as a thing but more like it is unreal

if the multiverse is to be looked at i wonder in wat are all these universes floating ?

[HydrogenBond]

Distance in the universe is based on doppler shift, but there is an other way to create a red shift. For example, say we had two stars, one is more massive. Since the space-time well of the more massive star will be deeper, energy leaving the deeper well will red shift more than than the same emissions from a shallower space-time well less massive star. With galaxies getting denser, as they mature, thire wells are getting deeper and red shift should increase. The oldest galaxies had the most time to get denser, and therefore would be expected to have more red shift that a younger galaxy.

[modest]

i too dont get the logic behind finding a center of gravity of the universe because if one believes the existence of only one univese then nothing is going to act on the center of gravity and in the multiverse gravity could be specific only to our universe

 

I would agree

 

the example with the balloon is just too uniform after the big bang nothing was uniform why should the expansion be

 

Over large distances (on a large scale) the universe is actually quite uniform. In scientific language we would say that over large cosmic distances homogeneity is a good approximation

 

i think the question here becomes the point of the big bang

space telescopes are picking up light they say from the first galaxies

Now i dont know this but i assume the galxies closer to the point big bang nust be the oldest one so maybe there is actually a general direction...

 

Believe me when I say, you are missing something important.

 

The "first galaxies" that they are talking about are young galaxies. They are galaxies which existed in a time only shortly after the big bang itself. Light travels at a finite speed, so the light from these galaxies has taken a long time to get to us. The image of the galaxy that we see today was emitted a very long time ago. We see it as it used to be. :phones: all we see of stars are their old photographs" :phones:

 

So, the further away we look is the further back in time we are looking simply because light takes time to reach us. The "fist galaxies" that we see are at a distance of about 13 billion lightyears in light travel time. This means that we see them as they existed 13 billion years ago and the light has taken 13 billion years to reach us. They appear young. They existed in a time when the universe was very young.

 

These galaxies surround us—in every direction. Such galaxies would appear to surround anyone in our universe today—no matter where they are. So, there is not a general direction toward the big bang.

 

The big bang happened everywhere. In the place you are standing right now was the big bang 13.7 billion years ago. The big bang happened where the Andromeda galaxy is 13.7 billion years ago In a galaxy far, far away—where Luke Skywalker might be standing right now—the big bang happened 13.7 billion years ago. Everywhere that exists today was part of the singularity of the big bang 13.7 billion years ago.

 

This, at least, is big bang theory, and it is very well supported.

 

~modest

[modest]

Distance in the universe is based on doppler shift

 

No. Distance is based on many things only one of which is redshift. Redshift can be based on three things—only one of which is doppler shift.

 

but there is an other way to create a red shift.

 

There are two ways to create redshift besides doppler shift. Look at the wiki page for "redshift".

 

For example, say we had two stars, one is more massive. Since the space-time well of the more massive star will be deeper, energy leaving the deeper well will red shift more than than the same emissions from a shallower space-time well less massive star.

 

That is called gravitational redshift

 

The oldest galaxies had the most time to get denser, and therefore would be expected to have more red shift that a younger galaxy.

 

The closest galaxies which we are able to observe are the oldest. They are the least redshifted. The most significant factor affecting redshift over cosmological distances is cosmological redshift. Again, look at the wiki page for "redshift".

 

Also, did you follow my earlier point that spacetime doesn't expand—it is space which expands. You keep saying that spacetime expands and spacetime contracts and that just makes no sense to me at all. You might mean that space expands and space contracts. Is this the case? Are you reading this?

 

~modest

[DevayanBir]

"The big bang happened everywhere. In the place you are standing right now was the big bang 13.7 billion years ago. The big bang happened where the Andromeda galaxy is 13.7 billion years ago In a galaxy far, far away—where Luke Skywalker might be standing right now—the big bang happened 13.7 billion years ago. Everywhere that exists today was part of the singularity of the big bang 13.7 billion years ago."

 

I agree to this but wat i mean by the point of big bang is from where it started to expand ????

Are you trying to say that this universe is still probably a point????

[modest]

I agree to this but wat i mean by the point of big bang is from where it started to expand ????

 

It started to expand everywhere.

 

This is a common misconception as far as big bang theory goes (and I really don't mean the word 'misconception' in a bad way). The big bang was not an explosion in space. There is no point in space that can be identified as where the big bang started to expand from. It was an explosion of space. All of space started, and started to expand, from this event.

 

I may be doing a horrific job of explaining, so... let me find some sources to explain...

 

The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space... I think the thing that trips up most people when they think about the Big Bang, is thinking about it in terms of an explosion, like a supernova or a nuclear bomb. This leads to some typical inaccurate assumptions...

 

These assumptions come from thinking about the Big Bang as a typical explosion, one originating from a single point and spewing matter out concentrically from there. That’s not what the Big Bang was. The Big Bang was not an explosion of matter into space, rather it was an explosion of space ITSELF, and since space and time are interconnected, we really have to say it was an explosion of space AND time, or space-time.

 

http://everyjoe.com/technology/the-big-bang-was-an-explosion-of-space-not-in-space-191/

The frequent picture people seem to have is matter flying outwards from a single point (like an explosion). However, the matter is all actually standing still while space itself expands dragging the matter with it.

 

The general analogy for this is having a series of paperclips on a rubber band. As the rubber band is stretched, the paperclips appear to move away from one another even though they are in fact holding still with regard to the rubber band. Similarly, galaxies hold still more or less (there are small movements due to gravitational interactions) while they are carried by the expanding universe.

 

So again, there was no “explosion” but instead, an expansion which is carrying all the rest of the universe away from us.

 

http://angryastronomer.blogspot.com/2006/07/big-bang-common-misconceptions.html

 

In most popularized science sources, BBT is often described with something like “The universe came into being due to the explosion of a point in which all matter was concentrated.” Not surprisingly, this is probably the standard impression which most people have of the theory. Occasionally, one even hears “In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded.”

 

There are several misconceptions hidden in these statements:

 

The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.

 

BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.

 

The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space.

 

In reality, the simplest description of the theory would be something like: “In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler.”

 

http://scienceray.com/astronomy/common-misconceptions-about-the-big-bang/

 

I understand that explosions as we conceive of them today have a point of origin. An explosion like a bomb which leads to the expansion of matter has a center in space (where the bomb originally was). But, this is not the case with big bang theory. There is nowhere in three dimensional space that we can point to which was the origin of the big bang. The big bang was not an explosion of matter outward into preexisting space.

 

The balloon analogy is helpful in this regard. Imagine filling up a balloon with air. Ignore everything, EVERYTHING, except the surface of the balloon. Which point on the surface of the balloon is the center of expansion? At which point did the expansion start? Most simply put—there isn't one. Expansion happens over the surface of the whole balloon, and expansion started everywhere on the surface. The expansion is of the surface itself, just as expansion is of space itself in our universe. There is no place IN space where expansion began.

 

~modest

[36grit]

if you want to move the center of the visable universe, just walk accross the room. If you want to know; where is the center of the known universe, you must locate the Hubble telescope. If the universe started out a ball of light existing in a realm of infinite possibilites it may well have defined a center, and if this ball expanded to a size beyond our possible vision, then it is still the center, therefore: the universe was and is it's own center. The universe is not expanding into distance, it is creating distance. If there is a distance outside the universe, it is not the same as the distance inside our universe.

[HydrogenBond]

If we compare contracted and expanded space-time, expanded space-time implies higher entropy. One way to see this is with an analogy. Say we have two factories, both producing millions of widgets, with both averaging one defect per hour. If we placed one factory in contracted space-time and the other in expanded space-time and watched, since time is more dilated in the contracted reference it would appear like the defect rate is is slower in the contracted reference. With time moving faster in the expanded reference the defect rate will appear faster. As such, side by side, entropy will be higher in a more expanded space-time reference.

 

If the universe is expanding in an accelerated way, universal entropy should be accelerating. Is this happening?

[klkeough]

A bit of history about how the "Big Bang" got it's name. Sir Fred Hoyle, a solid scientist, had little problem addressing the politics of science.

 

Anyway, Hoyle, a steady state man, couldn't take seriously this absurd cosmological concept------from his view anyway. Hoyle's heresy was to dismiss the whole notion of an event that heretofore had no name. So Hoyle jokingly called this goofy idea and non-event "the Big Bang".

 

How many people know this bit of history ? It seems noteworthy to me. Sorry folks but nobody has been able to demonstrate that the "anthropic principle", strong or weak, has no traction.

 

We still haven't learned the depth of the message delivered by Copernicus: sorry people, it doesn't look like things revolve around us--just the opposite. Every age manifests hubris in a distinctive way.

 

People actually believe we are separate from Nature. We believe that the most intelligent creatures in the Uni-verse will turn out to be us. We relegate our thinking and reflection as something that happens exclusively within the cranium.

 

Truthfully, virtually all scientific knowledge points to the fact that the Uni-verse itself is teeming with intelligence and is itself Intelligence. We selective inattention to any information that would question the very foundations of your beliefs (even scientists succumb to dogma) People in the 21st century believe and act on this belief. Let's face it---it was tough to hear the sun didn't revolve around us but that is way easier than accepting the truth that far from Intelligence being something that is strictly contained and constrained to the cranium. We are most definitely not the center of Intelligence in the Uni-verse. A handful of "animals" are showing forms of intelligence that rival or surpass ours on earth.

 

WE ARE THE CENTER OR INTELLIGENCE IN THE UNIVERSE is like believing that the heavens revolved around the earth and flat earths, etc.

 

Amazing hubris.