Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sean Mirrsen]

Since we've barely worked out how exactly life appeared on our planet, trying to label one theory of the Universe's creation or structure as absolutely true is premature, at best.

I'm using slightly different nomenclature. Universe is something that exists in Space. Space is the emptiness, the Universe is everything else. I'm also standing by the "finite looped space, finite universe" viewpoint.

Also, the Big Band would be a perfectly distributed explosion. Since what exploded was a concentrated mass of pure energy, its composition was uniform. The parts closer to the center received less of an impulse than those at the edges, and the "impulse gradient", so to speak, scattered the energy/would-be matter in a near-uniformly filled sphere. From there, gravity and various perturbations thereof created the universe as we see it.

The "pulse of radiation" is a misnomer in case of ambient energy. For one, it would be a very very thick pulse. Its outer rim would consist of ultra-high-frequency waves, gradually receding in intensity and frequency closer to the center of origin. It'd also be a pulse of energy more than radiation, since it'd basically be launching into the void. Pressure, or whatever a force with similar effect would be called at that level, would push/pull the expanding energy into the surrounding space - this, unlike "stretching space", actually would increase the wavelengths.
And then, there's always the possibility that BR is being actively emitted. Gravity would have surely pulled some of matter/energy back into the center, creating a "universe core" composed of the physicists' worst nightmares (or wildest fantasies, whichever works). This could, theoretically, also be emitting this stuff, and the closed loop of the universe would mean that eventually it'd become uniform from all directions.

[G-Flex]

The issue there is that, as you just described it, it would seem that the universe has a "center" where the explosion took place, and that we'd be able to determine this.

Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the case, as the expansion of the universe appears to be uniform and homogenous. No one part appears to be any more special than the rest.

[ChairmanPoo]

Big Band?

[Flaede]

Big Band?

He's already pointed out his habit to typo that word. Although I like the idea of Cosmic Swing. "We're all just one long improvisation, man"

[Neruz]

Since we've barely worked out how exactly life appeared on our planet, trying to label one theory of the Universe's creation or structure as absolutely true is premature, at best.

I'm using slightly different nomenclature. Universe is something that exists in Space. Space is the emptiness, the Universe is everything else. I'm also standing by the "finite looped space, finite universe" viewpoint.

Also, the Big Band would be a perfectly distributed explosion. Since what exploded was a concentrated mass of pure energy, its composition was uniform. The parts closer to the center received less of an impulse than those at the edges, and the "impulse gradient", so to speak, scattered the energy/would-be matter in a near-uniformly filled sphere. From there, gravity and various perturbations thereof created the universe as we see it.

The "pulse of radiation" is a misnomer in case of ambient energy. For one, it would be a very very thick pulse. Its outer rim would consist of ultra-high-frequency waves, gradually receding in intensity and frequency closer to the center of origin. It'd also be a pulse of energy more than radiation, since it'd basically be launching into the void. Pressure, or whatever a force with similar effect would be called at that level, would push/pull the expanding energy into the surrounding space - this, unlike "stretching space", actually would increase the wavelengths.
And then, there's always the possibility that BR is being actively emitted. Gravity would have surely pulled some of matter/energy back into the center, creating a "universe core" composed of the physicists' worst nightmares (or wildest fantasies, whichever works). This could, theoretically, also be emitting this stuff, and the closed loop of the universe would mean that eventually it'd become uniform from all directions.

There is no center of the universe. (And we don't actually know what exploded, only that matter and antimatter were involved, and for some reason there was more matter than antimatter.)

When we say that everything is moving away from everything else, we mean it. Not 'moving away but following a similar vector', 'moving away as if we were at the center of the explosion'.

Additionally, as previously stated; if the universe somehow 'exploded' into space (which is nonsense), all the galaxies should be in an ever expanding spherical shape, rather than distributed randomly but evenly across the cosmos.


Finally, you don't get to redefine what 'space' means. Space already has a perfectly acceptible definition: "The first 3 dimensions, those of length, height and depth."

[Sean Mirrsen]

Them letters are too close together.

I already explained why it could seem that the universe is uniformly expanding. And just because we can't see the universe center (come on, we can't see, and can barely detect a measly black hole - and that thing would be huginormous in comparison, with appropriately supersized gravity wells and whatnot), doesn't mean it can't be there.

And I'm fine with Space being Space. Yes, three dimensions. Like any good coordinate system, it shouldn't spontaneously change resolution and/or size. If it's infinite, it's infinite. If it's not, then it's as large as it should be.
It's also not hardwired into the Universe, the Universe simply exists in it.

[Neruz]

The reason we cannot detect the center of the universe is because everything is moving away from us.

If you use the usual definition of center of an expanding ball; the point that everything is moving uniformly away from, we appear to be right there, right now.


Space as a co-ordinate system is a part of the Universe, if the Universe gets bigger, Space will get bigger.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Why can't the Universe expand into the Space?

Imagine the finite universe. Just because the stuff between its planets seems empty, doesn't mean it is. There's energy in there. But, far enough out, there could be a place where there's no energy, especially if space is infinite. From the moment the universe came into being from a single point, its total occupied volume can't be greater than a sphere with a radius of 1 light-second for every second of its existence (if your relativity is to be believed on "c is the limit"). Beyond it, is nothingness. You can say that beyond the universe, nothing exists, and you would be right. But unless you're travelling faster than lightspeed or can FTL-teleport, you'll never get beyond the universe's border. And when you get there, you'll see no difference, except there's nothing around you but blackness, and heat radiates away a little faster (no incoming radiation). Your own energy will leak (radiate) into the void, creating a mini-universe for you, which would be in no way special except to you.

[Neruz]

I see you're still not getting the whole 'Space is a function of the universe' thing.

The Universe cannot expand into Space because Space did not exist before the Universe did; the 3 dimensions of Length, Width and Depth were all crumpled up into that Singularity, along with everything else.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Would you please stop proclaiming your view as the only true one? Reiterating it over and over again won't make me change my view.

[Neruz]

My view actually has experimental evidence to back it up? Quite a lot of experimental evidence in fact.

We might not be sure exactly how the Universe works or where it came from (although we're getting closer ever day), but the fact that the three spatial dimensions and the one temporal dimension are a function of the Universe and part of it is very well established. That's why the concept of 'before the Universe' is invalid. There was no 'before' the Universe. Time didn't exist until the Universe did.

[eerr]

My view actually has experimental evidence to back it up? Quite a lot of experimental evidence in fact.

We might not be sure exactly how the Universe works or where it came from (although we're getting closer ever day), but the fact that the three spatial dimensions and the one temporal dimension are a function of the Universe and part of it is very well established. That's why the concept of 'before the Universe' is invalid. There was no 'before' the Universe. Time didn't exist until the Universe did.

Oh reaaaaaly?

experimental evidence that proves no universe existed before the big bang?

what the hell could ever prove that?

[Neruz]

No you idiot, experimental evidence that supports the statement that Spacetime is a part of the Universe.

If you can come up with a way that Spacetime can be both a part of the Universe and not a part of the Universe at the same time, be my guest.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Established through calculations, no doubt.

I can do only one thing, the thing that I always do - I'll leave that viewpoint alone and let it be whatever it wants.

But if you want to elaborate, I won't mind. We need a fresh discussion topic. So bring on the superstrings and *looks back a page* Calabi Yau manifolds.

ninja edit - if we went up to that talk level, I'll proceed.Scratch that, I won't fall that way. No, the universe can simply be the tangible part of creation. It's the coordinate system, time and space, that has always existed. It's not possible to be outside of time and space, not the universe. The universe is a glorified glob of dust.

[Neruz]

Ugh, i can see we're going to need to introduce you to Brane cosomolgy, Calabi-Yau Manifolds and String Theory, none of which i want to do, or actually see any point doing, because you'll continue to just ignore them. I doubt you'd understand them anyway, since in order to do so you need to first study higher order mathematics for a couple of years.

Sorry Sean, but if your response to experimental verification is "No" then there is nowhere further to go.