In the begining

xelasnave · #1 23-02-2007, 01:23 PM

I was reading the other day about the big bang

and whoever I was reading said it was an "all over start" I thought it was a particular point and it all worked out from there

. What is the popular idea on this

? AND its not my way of starting an arguement that the big bang did or did not occur

. Assuming it did can anyone comment on that idea

?
alex

Karls48 (Karl) · #2 23-02-2007, 06:00 PM

Hi Alex.
I must say that you provoked me to replay with my philosophical concept of universe, gravity and of everything. No, it is not 42, even if it could be. I remember until today one summer night, school holiday’s vacation in my great grandmother place in the mountains. We lay in the grass with my older cousin watched the stars trying to find Polaris. We started talking about the stars, time and infinity. I was awed by the immensity of such a concepts and that night I could not sleep. I was eight years old then. That was over 50 years ago. Since that time whenever I had opportunity and the time I read whatever I could lay my hands on about cosmology and universe. As the articles about Cosmology, Physics and Astronomy changed over the time, constantly contradicting one finding or other I have to make some sense of it for myself. I based my view of the Universe on what I learn from reading and other media and on my own experiences and observations of the world around me.

I personally think that, if the Big Bang theory is correct, our Universe began with
Black hole. Somewhere in other Universe extremely large Black hole (due to some catastrophic event like collision of two super galaxies) was formed. It was so massive that it kept collapsing to real singularity – point in the space. At some stage it become too small and too massive to exist in its universe. It disappears from its universe. If something that exists in one place that exists, disappears, it leads to conclusion that it went to some other place that also exists. I would call it zero-dimensional space. It is not space as such; it is a possibility that surrounds space or universe. It is this zero-space possibility that allows the Universe to exist. It is the possibility that allows an object that can not exist in its universe, due to being too small and too massive, to exist somewhere else. When the singularity appeared in zero-space it had to create space for itself, loosing some energy in the process. At this point time has begin (the time is just a property of the space). It was naked singularity as at this point there was not space for event horizon. Very strong gravitational would field surrounded this singularity. We have to consider two possibilities. Either gravity can propagate via zero-space or it can convert zero-space to the space. In any case the singularity having lost some of its mass in the process creating space for itself started to expand. Similar to supernova explosion, but immensely more powerful. Some of the energy of that explosion (shock wave) would rapidly create more of space.
Assuming this scenario we have to come to some conclusions.

Matter, Energy and Space are just different states of same thing.

Our Universe is finite as it comes from finite source.

As our Universe comes from somewhere we are not completely discontinued from that place/time and can have knowledge of it.

The shape of our Universe is spherical. Original singularity would be most likely spherical as all object under influence of gravity assume spherical shape. Explosion of spherical object without any external influences will produce spherical cloud of expanding gas (or particles). Knowledge gained from the experiments I done with dynamite when I was mining for opals and copper. Just look at the fire works.

Dark matter is most likely the space itself. Some of the original energy was used in creating space.

Speed of the light is not limiting factor in the Universe. For the Universe to be as big as it is the original expansion had to be faster then light.

To have better understanding of the Universe we need to adopt concepts as Centre of Universe (point where the original singularity was) and Real time (time measurement beginning from the start of our Universe). That is how far is an object from the Centre of Universe and for how long it has existed since beginning of Universe.

If the acceleration of Universe expansion is correct and if the gravity can propagate via zero-space it is possible that our Universe is getting close to other one and its gravity is acting on our Universe.

xelasnave · #3 23-02-2007, 07:18 PM

Well Karl its nice that you have taken so much time for a considered reply I enjoyed it very much

. I will have a long think about all that, so you go mainly with the point concept rather than the "all over" thing

. I feel that makes more sense but the article made me think I was way off the mark

.
I am playing with my daughter hay stacks and horses so back on the planet for a while

.
Thanks again I want to spend some time thinking about all you have said.. couple of readings for sure

.
alex

xelasnave · #4 23-02-2007, 08:42 PM

Well you got me thinking that’s for sure

. Something ticks over even when I am doing other things. So much is rushing around in my head

..Implications from what you said.
You mentioned when something isn’t moving its explodes as a sphere. And that is so but that made me think the start point/singularity whatever we call it.. it probably would be spin very very ast as size decreased until at the point it started expanding .. I dont know that it should but could it in the space you are dealing with..I hope you see what I am driving at as you deserve the credit (only if it’s a good idea if its bad its mine for sure) ..If you take that approach then imagine the energy available to propagate the "bang" and it would then take a pattern not sphere like but like the ant nebula .. It’s a pretty one. I recon they must blow like that because they are spinning and that’s why they split in half effectively. (I have a gravity concept that supports it happening that way but whether its the way I see gravity or not the ant and many others go that way) so if you have singularity spinning maybe we get the same thing shape wise. Without taking away from your approach at all other to suggest that because that would help create the irregularities that are hard to figure ..the ones that offered the fluctuations we see in the CBR maps of the early Universe.
Sorry just thinking but even a shape of the ant neb has a giant sphere around it as well... I think if you get back far enough.
Well you have set me off for the night

. We need inflation for the big bang and that certainly was faster than the speed so you are right on how it would have to achieve the size and I think that is indeed popular thought

.. If it expanded at the speed of light it would be smaller than what we can observe.
I appreciate your ideas on "the surroundings" my little mind cant get around the seed black hole singularity being in this other space.not that it could get round the "all over idea" either

. I am not saying it cant be that way but trying to show you my difficulty in understanding the concepts at this end of time.
Another read for sure..that will be four so far.
I thinking about everything you said. and about the reasons why it could be spinning and how that may account for the irregularities.
Thanks again

. I am going to have a look at the ant neb and every other one I have showing that split.. The irregularities we now see may be able to be put in that sort of picture I wonder .. people have told me you cant find the centre but you would think there must be a way. even if we are on the inside. Like if we someplace in the ant neb. we could work it out I recon.. the Universe is a different kettle of fish no doubt but I wonder.
Sorry got carried away but I feel better about the point situation

.
Alex

Karls48 (Karl) · #5 24-02-2007, 02:30 AM

Alex.
If the original black hole were spinning then when totally collapsing to the singularity it would collapse to one-dimensional circle instead of the point. It would possibly leave connection to the place of origin (worm hole). If it expands to three-dimensional object it would be again spherical with the spin (the circle) preserved. The antiaircraft artillery shell is spinning quite fast and still it will produce spherical explosion. And yes there has to be irregularities in the shape due to random collisions of particles at beginning and gravity of the matter randomly distributed, latter on. But look at it this way. We can say that the Moon is spherical regardless of the mountains and the craters on its surface. The size of those is insignificant when compared to the size of the Moon.
May I add that all this is not a science, it is a philosophical speculation based on limited but widely spread knowledge

Karls48 (Karl) · #6 24-02-2007, 02:55 AM

Sorry, I forgot to add that if the original singularity was spinning, then our Universe has to spin too. The galaxies closer to the centre of Universe spinning slower, more distant ones, faster. That would account for red shift

xelasnave · #7 24-02-2007, 06:46 AM

Karl said...
May I add that all this is not a science, it is a philosophical speculation based on limited but widely spread knowledge
As much as folk say study at this end of the time scale is science, those who say they have it worked out 100% should be as hummmble Karl. I like your views and again I thank you for sharing them. Thinking about it makes one realise that try as we may how will we ever really know but its wonderful that we can enquire. I like your thought on red shift.

Best wishes alex

PeteMo (Pete) · #8 26-02-2007, 02:30 PM

Hi Karl
Like Alex I need to think a bit about some of the stuff you mention, as it has certainly got the grey matter going. Thanks for taking the time to write this. I'm often wondering if there was a big bang, what was there before the bang and what catalyst triggered the bang. You mention one point that has me intrigued, namely that the universe expanded faster then light. If this is the case, then the age of the universe is too old, since we assume light travels, and has always traveled, at 186,283 mps (sorry still think in old money) when we measure distances. Hence the universe covered the present observable distance in a shorter time period, giving the older 'looking' age.

Your faster than light concept gave me an idea. When you say that " At some stage it become too small and too massive to exist in its universe. It disappears from its universe. If something that exists in one place that exists, disappears, it leads to conclusion that it went to some other place that also exists." could this be a jump into Hyperspace/Exospace? What if those expanding parts of the universe traveling faster than light left normal space (if there is such a thing) and entered some kind of hyperspace or exospace dimension? Could it be that if Worm Holes or Gates to Hyperspace exist, they could be portals through parts of the universe that are still expanding faster than light?

Hope I've not misunderstood your concepts. I have probably been reading/watching too much SciFi during my formative years, but Arthur C Clark did say at the end of his 2001 A Space Odyssey that "This is a work of fiction, the truth will be far stranger".

Cheers Pete

xelasnave · #9 26-02-2007, 04:46 PM

Hi Pete,
I can’t answer the questions you have put to Karl but his point that the Universe expanded faster than light is covered by the “inflation theory”. The idea was needed to save the big bang for without it there is difficulty in giving it further support. Inflation was put forward originally by a Russian whose name I can not recall but was developed by a chap..Alan Guth. Inflation sees a period in the early Universe where it “doubled” at a rate of a trillion times in a split second but as this period was a “doubling” we don’t see it a “speed” of growth??? therefore does not pull a speeding ticket

. It seems rather lame to me but without it we go back to the state of play before this idea blew Fred Hoyles steady state theory out of the water, which sort to explain observed “expansion” of the Universe as being due to new matter/energy being “created. Personally I think both ideas (big bang and steady state) missed something but I love them both as one would love two children being careful not to favour one over the other because of tales they tell about each other

.
I will get out of the way so Karl can answer from his point of view on the other matters you raise

. I have views about worm holes you dont need to hear

Interesting thoughts by the way

.
Alex

PeteMo (Pete) · #10 26-02-2007, 07:10 PM

Hi Alex
Thanks for pointing me in the direction of "Inflation Theory", which sounds more like something an economist or politician would use. It seems that no theory/hypothesis is without drawbacks. Reminds me of the two apparently conflicting theories particle or wave used to describe light.
With the origin of the universe I keep an open mind, as none of us were there when it happened and we can all use what ever evidence suits our view.

Generally I tend to be wary of theories relying solely on complex mathematics as evidence, as Zeno's Paradox illustrates how the logic could be correct, but way off from what we observe. Besides you only need some Harvard buff to present a conflicting equation and we're all back to square one.

Overall these different theories all present some elements of truth somewhere, but like you say there seem to be essential pieces missing from the models we have.
Cheers
Pete

xelasnave · #11 26-02-2007, 09:31 PM

I try to keep my mind open and learn everything I can about popular thought I get strong for one thing or another but finally I enjoy the ability to step back consider my craziness and the similar conditions I sometimes observe in most things

. I have moments when I think gravity rain is the only way it can work because it’s a nuts and bolts approach

. But I also know that the particles that I need would pass thru an atom like a comet passes thru our Solar System

so it can never go past a belief in a possibility

, at most become a theory

.. and thought and even observation can lead us away from reality..whatever that may be

?
I reflect and fortunately I have a lot to reflect upon that is the best and the worst thing of being human really

.
Alex

Dujon · #12 27-02-2007, 10:37 AM

Darn it, Alex, I explained this to you months ago.

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ad.php?t=11392

Honestly, some people!

xelasnave · #13 27-02-2007, 11:06 AM

Oh that Universe

.. there are so many its hard to keep track of them all

.
AND I just thought.. we do feel air pressure its just that most humans dont notice it... We dont feel dark energy but its there

so they say.
I feel accepting the Universe is expanding leads us on paths away from reality

... hang on I think I am in a different Universe at the moment

.
Anyways do you recon you could go over it again I mustta missed something

. The implication of the gravity rain Universe is that its effects on light may well be different to what we think we see at the moment. I dont know if the effect of dark energy has been taken into account in respect of light travelling over huge distances. You would think if they have a figure for it it will go in the pot.

Hang on I can see another Universe in the distance..this one looks really interesting.

alex

Karls48 (Karl) · #14 28-02-2007, 02:49 AM

Hi Pete
First of all, whatever you do think about the Universe it is just as right as what I do think about it or just as right as what any Doctor, Professor, or winner of Nobel Prize thinks about it. Simple truth is that we don’t have clue what the Universe is and how it works. With any luck we may in next couple hundred years explore our solar system and really understand how it works. Next challenge will be to explore and comprehend vast void between us and the nearest star. If we ever get there then we maybe able confirm or reject some of the current theories about the Universe.
It is only few thousand years ago when we discover mathematic and learn how to preserve our thoughts in writing. Some five hundred we believed that Earth is flat and the centre of the Universe. It seems to me that we still think that we are the centre of the Universe. We look on the Universe relative to us, instead us relative to the Universe. It is little presumptuous of us trying to give definitive answers to the nature of the Universe or impose limits as the speed of the light at such early stage of our civilisation.. It seems that our Solar system will be here for quite long time (by our perception of time). Do you imagine that in the year one million AD much of what we think today about the Universe would be still true?
I see the knowledge as endless stairway up. Someone discovers something new and steps up. The rest of us follow, pausing, dissemination new knowledge, trying to apply it to different disciplines of science and for the practical use it in our lives. Then someone makes another discovery based on previous discovery and that’s how our knowledge progresses. Ancient Egyptians build the Pyramids but could not build Space Shuttle. We can build the Shuttle but cannot build faster then light spaceship. Not until we take number of steps up. However, if the Egyptians had not build the Pyramids I doubt it that we could build the Shuttle.
And your question about hyperspace- I will have to think about it.

xelasnave · #15 28-02-2007, 07:27 AM

Karl I salute your wisdom few enjoy the ability to see past their own significance.
alex

shredder · #16 28-02-2007, 04:18 PM

Alex,

I think you will find the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. The big bang started at a singularity, and that singularity was everywhere, it was all there was so it had to be everywhere. Then it expended and is still everywhere.

You are thinking in terms of every day life where there is an observer standing outside and looking in (so to speak). There was no outside. And there is still no outside even today.

Stephen Hawkings has some very good books on this, but they are a bit of a read.

And I must say I dont agree with Karls philosophy that we all know equally well what is going on (not saying I am right, just that this approach isnt). For example some people still believe the world is flat... does that make them right? Some people make a life study of this and while they may not be right or ever be right they are probably closer than me...

Karls48 (Karl) · #17 28-02-2007, 05:17 PM

Shredder
I agree with your last comment about some people being little bit close to the truth then others. I did not express myself clearly. I was trying to make point that at this stage of our civilisation we don’t have much chance to know it all.

shredder · #18 28-02-2007, 07:22 PM

Fair enough. There are equally some areas of study where we are all just guessing.

Personally I think the Dark Energy is one of these... Something that can't be seen, questionably measured or detected yet accounts for most of the universe and binds everything together.... Sounds a little like they are fishing for answers to me. How many times have scientists made this kind of claim before only to later discover something else and go Oops in hind sight that does look a little silly.

PeteMo (Pete) · #19 28-02-2007, 07:27 PM

Hi Karl
Makes you wonder what the Egyptians would have built if they had our technology at their disposal.

Like your philosophy, as at the moment we know so very little, hence we have all these ideas but not what I'd call conclusive proof. With the beginning of the universe (if there was one, it could be eternal, I don't know I wasn't there at the time) all we have to go on is what is left over from the big bang, which isn't the same as actually seeing it happen.

PeteMo (Pete) · #20 28-02-2007, 07:30 PM

Hi Shredder
It does sometimes seem that the scientific community do a bit of fishing to explain why they are not seeing what their theory claims to see. But then none of us have the benefit of hindsight at the time of proposing ideas.