22 replies to this topic

[DanMiller]

This isn't about disputing the big bang theory, so please do not think that. 

 

But when I always thought about the big bang theory. I always imaged that when it occured, that the force of the bang caused the expansion in all directions. Example, like a rock being dropped in water.  The waves expand in every direction with equal force until obstructions occur.  With the big bang, because there would have been nothing.  The expansion would continue in all directions.

 

This caused me to wonder how scientists were defining the edge of the universe.  Just couldn't grasp how they felt they were viewing the very edge of the universe when I thought of this universe as being circular.

 

That is until I seen this: https://cdn.mos.cms....JU3-1200-80.jpg

That actually makes me wonder about.
1). Why did the bang only occur in one direction.
2). How do we know this is how it occured.

 

Dan

 

Edited to add:  Or am I looking at that wrong also?

[KTAZ]

How do we know? We don't. We hypothecate based on what scientific observations are presented to us.

 

It seems to me that the only way we could hypothecate that the universe is universally round would be if our observation point were from precisely in the middle (the point of origin).

[auroraTDunn]

That's just a scientific illustration much like the way most images of a gravity well are only a 2d Planar deformation into 3D. In reality that cone exists full around the entire event horizon. Like wise the expansion, at least initially was fairly spherical.

 

Now for a more interesting nightmare, when we model the universe, (computationally with say LCDM models its in a 3D gridded cube, over time of course) there so when you look at scientific visualization (note not illustrations) remember that LOL!

 

[EDIT] TO get a better idea and representation of this just google "Cosmic background radiation map" noting that wherever we look we can image this!

Here's a link to a fairly new article that really represents this well! https://www.qeios.com/read/G6YD4M

Edited by auroraTDunn, 21 May 2024 - 01:35 PM.

[deSitter]

This isn't about disputing the big bang theory, so please do not think that. 

 

But when I always thought about the big bang theory. I always imaged that when it occured, that the force of the bang caused the expansion in all directions. Example, like a rock being dropped in water.  The waves expand in every direction with equal force until obstructions occur.  With the big bang, because there would have been nothing.  The expansion would continue in all directions.

 

This caused me to wonder how scientists were defining the edge of the universe.  Just couldn't grasp how they felt they were viewing the very edge of the universe when I thought of this universe as being circular.

 

That is until I seen this: https://cdn.mos.cms....JU3-1200-80.jpg

That actually makes me wonder about.
1). Why did the bang only occur in one direction.
2). How do we know this is how it occured.

 

Dan

 

Edited to add:  Or am I looking at that wrong also?

 

 

This isn't about disputing the big bang theory, so please do not think that. 

 

But when I always thought about the big bang theory. I always imaged that when it occured, that the force of the bang caused the expansion in all directions. Example, like a rock being dropped in water.  The waves expand in every direction with equal force until obstructions occur.  With the big bang, because there would have been nothing.  The expansion would continue in all directions.

 

This caused me to wonder how scientists were defining the edge of the universe.  Just couldn't grasp how they felt they were viewing the very edge of the universe when I thought of this universe as being circular.

 

That is until I seen this: https://cdn.mos.cms....JU3-1200-80.jpg

That actually makes me wonder about.
1). Why did the bang only occur in one direction.
2). How do we know this is how it occured.

 

Dan

 

Edited to add:  Or am I looking at that wrong also?

Doubt is allowed. It is the essence of science. Lack of doubt is the essence of religion.

 

-drl

[rob1986]

For lack of more concise terms, space is its own creation. We can percieve space as that quantity of light that has reached us after x time but the transition time from action a from body A to affect body B is moderated by something we call space.

And relativity has completely shredded the common sensical perception of space.

I actively wonder if we have fully processed the relativity of space, given that meter, and second, Re both inherently variable values.

Usually measuring things with variable units is bad science, but i really think many of the cunundrums in cosmology are a result of incomplete application of that revolutionary concept.

Edit : the math used to calcule positions for geocentric orbits was convoluted. But it was used, very successfully by capernicus, to create the transformations that ultimately gave nice elipses under kepler. He did not reinvent the wheel. He did not throw out the known data. He showed that by changing the refrence point the math yielded elegant and simple equations.

I fully expect someone to perform the same service for cosmology.

Edited by rob1986, 21 May 2024 - 02:18 PM.

[deSitter]

For lack of more concise terms, space is its own creation. We can percieve space as that quantity of light that has reached us after x time but the transition time from action a from body A to affect body B is moderated by something we call space.

And relativity has completely shredded the common sensical perception of space.

I actively wonder if we have fully processed the relativity of space, given that meter, and second, Re both inherently variable values.

Usually measuring things with variable units is bad science, but i really think many of the cunundrums in cosmology are a result of incomplete application of that revolutionary concept.

Edit : the math used to calcule positions for geocentric orbits was convoluted. But it was used, very successfully by capernicus, to create the transformations that ultimately gave nice elipses under kepler. He did not reinvent the wheel. He did not throw out the known data. He showed that by changing the refrence point the math yielded elegant and simple equations.

I fully expect someone to perform the same service for cosmology.

Cosmology is not on the same logical foundation as relativity. The latter is subject to experiments. All cosmological claims are absolutely tentative and conditional. There are no experiments. Notice I didn't say Big Bang, I said ALL cosmology. That is why it necessarily has religious overtones.

 

The important point for science in the context of cosmology is significance. If there is more input than output, you have "negative significance". No cosmology ever created has positive significance. There is always more input than output.

 

Not wishing to become involved in another tiresome debate about these matters, I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions from the above.

 

-drl

[rob1986]

Cosmology is not on the same logical foundation as relativity. The latter is subject to experiments. All cosmological claims are absolutely tentative and conditional. There are no experiments. Notice I didn't say Big Bang, I said ALL cosmology. That is why it necessarily has religious overtones.

The important point for science in the context of cosmology is significance. If there is more input than output, you have "negative significance". No cosmology ever created has positive significance. There is always more input than output.

Not wishing to become involved in another tiresome debate about these matters, I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions from the above.

-drl

Granted, but some of these supositions affect our inferences about various physical phenomenon.

One of the reasons i dont get much bothered when we uprate or downrate the age of the universe...

[DanMiller]

That's just a scientific illustration much like the way most images of a gravity well are only a 2d Planar deformation into 3D. In reality that cone exists full around the entire event horizon. Like wise the expansion, at least initially was fairly spherical.

 

Now for a more interesting nightmare, when we model the universe, (computationally with say LCDM models its in a 3D gridded cube, over time of course) there so when you look at scientific visualization (note not illustrations) remember that LOL!

 

[EDIT] TO get a better idea and representation of this just google "Cosmic background radiation map" noting that wherever we look we can image this!

Here's a link to a fairly new article that really represents this well! https://www.qeios.com/read/G6YD4M

Thank you for this link.  I think I described what I thought the wrong way.  Glancing threw this article made me realize this.  The expansion is like a ball. Everything is projecting outward in all directions.  If I understood what I was reading correctly.  And the explanation that we can only view 45 percent of galaxies makes sense to me. 

 

If I read that wrong, sorry for my ignorance.  But if I don’t ask, I will never know.

 

Dan

[Pinballwiz]

We may never know how it all began. A mystery indeed.

[Tony Flanders]

Doubt is allowed. It is the essence of science. Lack of doubt is the essence of religion.

I agree with respect to science but not with respect to religion. Serious theologians adopt a skeptical attitude quite similar to scientists -- and always have.

[yuzameh]

It's a geometry thing.  As they used to say in the books, but not so much nowadays, the "universe is finite but unbound".  I can't think in 4D of spacetime so can't tell you what that means.

[yuzameh]

Serious theologians

By definition a serious theologian has a faith based dogmatism based upon perceived doctrine and is only cynical (in the most extreme cases fatally so) towards that which contradicts their accepted world view.

 

A serious theologian will use as their source references statements such as "as such and such said" (usually such and such said it over a millennium ago in a highly different societal context, let alone a highly different knowledge base).  This same call to authority, as much tied into the name dropping as the actual quote they are taking from that individual (which is likely third hand translated anyway, maybe more, say in some christian sect terms from classical greek to old arabic to the partially artificial modern latin - not roman latin, and then to english as it was spake when the crowns of england and scotland were first merged).  This call to authority and recourse to what someone said somewhere irrespective of reality.

 

Here, let's do a bit of calling to authority and quoting what someone said once, namely T H Huxley, and his comments upon the only time Samuel Wilberforce encountered reality.  Imagine someone saying summat like that in the current era of pc-ness where even the most antagonistic to their fellow hominids are given the right to ignore facts in their expounded utterages.  What was said might be right, might be wrong, debate based upon rhetoric solves little if anything and cynicism perforce is irrelevant in such a scenario.  A serious theologian cannot be cynical as ugly little facts, to quote T H Huxley (oooops, done it again! ; ) , are not even included in their investigations.

 

I'll now go kick a stone and refute it in a Johnsonian sort of way.  See, that's what you get when you use the serious theologian approach, quoting folk deemed authoritative figures even when they cannot be proven to be authoritative figures via any objective criteria beyond their reputations (and the good fortune of their utterances being placed upon the record).

 

 

EDIT : It is interesting to note, without trying to force an argument of common causality, that calls to authority, quoting said deemed authorities, and, ignoring, or, repudiating rather than refuting facts, are also indicative of pseudoscience, which has some very serious proponents.

Edited by yuzameh, 30 May 2024 - 10:39 AM.

[helpwanted]

"Something I always wondered about the Big Bang theory"

 

Penny's last name?

you know I'm not the only one thinking it! 

[rmollise]

This isn't about disputing the big bang theory, so please do not think that. 

 

But when I always thought about the big bang theory. I always imaged that when it occured, that the force of the bang caused the expansion in all directions. Example, like a rock being dropped in water.  The waves expand in every direction with equal force until obstructions occur.  With the big bang, because there would have been nothing.  The expansion would continue in all directions.

 

This caused me to wonder how scientists were defining the edge of the universe.  Just couldn't grasp how they felt they were viewing the very edge of the universe when I thought of this universe as being circular.

 

That is until I seen this: https://cdn.mos.cms....JU3-1200-80.jpg

That actually makes me wonder about.
1). Why did the bang only occur in one direction.
2). How do we know this is how it occured.

 

Dan

 

Edited to add:  Or am I looking at that wrong also?

 

 

You are confusing diagrams intended to illustrate the sequence of events with what happened. Yes, it was "in all directions."

[rob1986]

By definition a serious theologian has a faith based dogmatism based upon perceived doctrine and is only cynical (in the most extreme cases fatally so) towards that which contradicts their accepted world view.

A serious theologian will use as their source references statements such as "as such and such said" (usually such and such said it over a millennium ago in a highly different societal context, let alone a highly different knowledge base). This same call to authority, as much tied into the name dropping as the actual quote they are taking from that individual (which is likely third hand translated anyway, maybe more, say in some christian sect terms from classical greek to old arabic to the partially artificial modern latin - not roman latin, and then to english as it was spake when the crowns of england and scotland were first merged). This call to authority and recourse to what someone said somewhere irrespective of reality.

Here, let's do a bit of calling to authority and quoting what someone said once, namely T H Huxley, and his comments upon the only time Samuel Wilberforce encountered reality. Imagine someone saying summat like that in the current era of pc-ness where even the most antagonistic to their fellow hominids are given the right to ignore facts in their expounded utterages. What was said might be right, might be wrong, debate based upon rhetoric solves little if anything and cynicism perforce is irrelevant in such a scenario. A serious theologian cannot be cynical as ugly little facts, to quote T H Huxley (oooops, done it again! ; ) , are not even included in their investigations.

I'll now go kick a stone and refute it in a Johnsonian sort of way. See, that's what you get when you use the serious theologian approach, quoting folk deemed authoritative figures even when they cannot be proven to be authoritative figures via any objective criteria beyond their reputations (and the good fortune of their utterances being placed upon the record).


EDIT : It is interesting to note, without trying to force an argument of common causality, that calls to authority, quoting said deemed authorities, and, ignoring, or, repudiating rather than refuting facts, are also indicative of pseudoscience, which has some very serious proponents.

I think theology is off limits here.

B i think, from experience, theologians come in two flavors, one noisier than the other...

[Starman1]

This isn't about disputing the big bang theory, so please do not think that.

But when I always thought about the big bang theory. I always imaged that when it occured, that the force of the bang caused the expansion in all directions. Example, like a rock being dropped in water. The waves expand in every direction with equal force until obstructions occur. With the big bang, because there would have been nothing. The expansion would continue in all directions.

This caused me to wonder how scientists were defining the edge of the universe. Just couldn't grasp how they felt they were viewing the very edge of the universe when I thought of this universe as being circular.

That is until I seen this: https://cdn.mos.cms....JU3-1200-80.jpg
That actually makes me wonder about.
1). Why did the bang only occur in one direction.
2). How do we know this is how it occured.

Dan

Edited to add: Or am I looking at that wrong also?

When you look out, you look back in time, and you cannot look back in time past the point where the universe was opaque. So every point in the universe exists in its own spherical reality. We do not, nor ever will, see the entire universe at the same age.

But, the universe did not explode into nothing. Time and space were created along with the universe. Picture a cubical shape that represents the universe expanding at great speed.
The matter within it is expanding with the frame, but, due to gravity, is not flying apart.

[DanMiller]

When you look out, you look back in time, and you cannot look back in time past the point where the universe was opaque. So every point in the universe exists in its own spherical reality. We do not, nor ever will, see the entire universe at the same age.

But, the universe did not explode into nothing. Time and space were created along with the universe. Picture a cubical shape that represents the universe expanding at great speed.
The matter within it is expanding with the frame, but, due to gravity, is not flying apart.

Actually, that makes sense to me.  Thank you.  That is something I knew, but just didn't apply to what I was thinking.  With that said, if we were to draw a circle which would represet the expansion of the universe.  And in the middle of that circle would be the point of where it started. The point in time would be 0, where time started?  Anything on the other side, totally opposite from us would be before time to us?  Bet I just said something that just isn't possible.

 

Dan

[Starman1]

Time cannot exist without space and what is outside the universe is not space. If it were, it would have time. The two are linked together.

The problem is that there is not anything outside the universe by definition. The universe is not expanding into something--it is expanding itself.

[DanMiller]

Time cannot exist without space and what is outside the universe is not space. If it were, it would have time. The two are linked together.

The problem is that there is not anything outside the universe by definition. The universe is not expanding into something--it is expanding itself.

Actually, that was not where I was going.  Again, picture the round circle with a dot in the middle.  The dot being where the bang began, ground zero.  And the ciricle would be how much the universe has expanded from the explosion.  That dot would be the beginning of time, so we will say time is at zero.  When we view through telescopes, we are looking back in time.  So, the closer to that dot. The father back in time we are looking.  Ok, say we finally get to the dot, ground zero in our observations. Say it is ???? light years we are looking back in time.  At the point we are looking at the beginning of time if we can see ground zero. The inial place where the bang occured.. Right?  Now, lets take this a step further.  What if we can see on the far side of that dot. Lets say we can see on the other side of ground zero.  What would time be there?

 

Dan

[rob1986]

There is no localized "start" to the universe. Everything, everything, everything that is, was, will be or can be, is derived from that dot. All space, and all matter, and I would hazard a guess all time as well. Everything, for all practical purposes, was at the center of the universe, as t receeds to zero.

Edited by rob1986, 02 June 2024 - 03:20 PM.

[Kasmos]

Maybe I'm just an idiot, but is it possible that the starting point (dot), popped out of another Universe? Something like the other side of a Super Massive Black Hole.

[Starman1]

Maybe I'm just an idiot, but is it possible that the starting point (dot), popped out of another Universe? Something like the other side of a Super Massive Black Hole.

You're free to speculate, but that is in the realm of science fiction, not science.

At least, not yet.

[Far Star]

I agree with respect to science but not with respect to religion. Serious theologians adopt a skeptical attitude quite similar to scientists -- and always have.

Correct. There are numerous publications by theologians in which doubts are expressed about various doctrines of the Church. Some of these theologians have also studied natural sciences (e.g. physics or biology) and deal with borderline issues between theology and natural sciences. Even the Pope once said a few years ago that he occasionally doubts his faith.

 

Incidentally, the Catholic Church operates its own observatory with the "Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope", see here:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/