Cosmic Expansion

[aphh]

All of your points seem valid. Something is pushing large masses away from each other with accelerating velocity (which is expectable when gravity weakens between the masses. Same amount of force to one direction is needed for the acceleration when force to the opposite direction weakens).

We don't know what that force is.

 

[quantumnumber]

We might not know exactly what that force is, but there are ideas, like dark energy.

 

[DrRocket]

We might not know exactly what that force is, but there are ideas, like dark energy.

Unfortunately "dark energy" is not an explanation at all. It is simply a name given to the problem, just like a cosmological constant (which) is equivalent. Until there is some theory as to what dark energy might be, in terms that can be related to accepted physics or in terms of some radical new and testable theory, it cannot be considered as anything more than a place holder -- a fancy way of saying "we don't know". We have a model that predicts the expansion, by means of a cosmological constant, but not the slightest idea as to the source of the cosmological constant itself.

The zero point energy of the quantum field theory can result in a "cosmological constant", but the rub is that current calculations overestimate the value by 120 orders of magnitude. That is a factor of 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 which in some circles is considered a significant error.

 

[kyle_baron]

Heureka! I think I have an explanation for the ever expanding universe!

The universe is simply spinning around an axis. Even if it was spinning at constant rate, the huge masses involved would mean that due to inertia they are only accelerating outwards. Because there is no reference frame, we can't see or feel our universe spinning, but only the effects of the spinning!

Problem with this theory is if the universe is expanding to all directions. But if the space can be bent, how do we know that the direction isn't still the same direction, just visually bent because of curved space?

`
There are a few problems:

1. The universe IS expanding in all directions. The universe appears to be quite isotropic.

2. Spinning with respect to what ? That is not a trivial question. You can only provide a sensible answer if the universe is embedded in some larger space, but there is no evidence of that. Even if there were something with respect to which the universe is spinning, all of our physics is based on descriptions that rely solely on the universe itself. Hence all of the issues below remain valid. Our physical laws are not formulated in any manner in which some higher-dimensional space would change them..

3. IF the universe were spinning in any reasosnable sense, then there ought to be some pretty noticeable deviations from Newtonian mechanics (e.g. coriolis forces would be noticeable) that are not seen. There would need to be an axis of rotation (you can prove that mathematically for a 3-dimensional space simply because there needs to be a real eigenvalue for the isometric transformation of rotation). And if there were an axis of rotatin everything would be moving outward from that axis creating a noticeable hole somewhere that is not seen.

4. Space appears to be pretty flat on the largest scales. So any explanations that rely on a strongly curved spatial model are in trouble.

Here's a mind blowing concept. I've heard it stated, that our universe could be inside a black hole. Guess what? Black holes rotate.

 

[DrRocket]

Heureka! I think I have an explanation for the ever expanding universe!

The universe is simply spinning around an axis. Even if it was spinning at constant rate, the huge masses involved would mean that due to inertia they are only accelerating outwards. Because there is no reference frame, we can't see or feel our universe spinning, but only the effects of the spinning!

Problem with this theory is if the universe is expanding to all directions. But if the space can be bent, how do we know that the direction isn't still the same direction, just visually bent because of curved space?

`
There are a few problems:

1. The universe IS expanding in all directions. The universe appears to be quite isotropic.

2. Spinning with respect to what ? That is not a trivial question. You can only provide a sensible answer if the universe is embedded in some larger space, but there is no evidence of that. Even if there were something with respect to which the universe is spinning, all of our physics is based on descriptions that rely solely on the universe itself. Hence all of the issues below remain valid. Our physical laws are not formulated in any manner in which some higher-dimensional space would change them..

3. IF the universe were spinning in any reasosnable sense, then there ought to be some pretty noticeable deviations from Newtonian mechanics (e.g. coriolis forces would be noticeable) that are not seen. There would need to be an axis of rotation (you can prove that mathematically for a 3-dimensional space simply because there needs to be a real eigenvalue for the isometric transformation of rotation). And if there were an axis of rotatin everything would be moving outward from that axis creating a noticeable hole somewhere that is not seen.

4. Space appears to be pretty flat on the largest scales. So any explanations that rely on a strongly curved spatial model are in trouble.

Here's a mind blowing concept. I've heard it stated, that our universe could be inside a black hole. Guess what? Black holes rotate.

No, black holes CAN rotate. They don't have to.

The statement that the universe may be a black hole, has been made but it is not a viable statement. The physics of black holes is not completely worked out, but it is pretty clear that within a black hole the mass is MUCH more concentrated that what we observe in our universe. If you were in a black hole you would see incoming matter, brought in by the gravity of the black hole and headed for the center. We don't see that.

Black hole rotation can be characterized because it rotates with respect to the rest of the universe, which is not the whole thing. That observation does not apply to the universe, because it is the whole thing.

 

[kyle_baron]

`
There are a few problems:

1. The universe IS expanding in all directions. The universe appears to be quite isotropic.

2. Spinning with respect to what ? That is not a trivial question. You can only provide a sensible answer if the universe is embedded in some larger space, but there is no evidence of that. Even if there were something with respect to which the universe is spinning, all of our physics is based on descriptions that rely solely on the universe itself. Hence all of the issues below remain valid. Our physical laws are not formulated in any manner in which some higher-dimensional space would change them..

3. IF the universe were spinning in any reasosnable sense, then there ought to be some pretty noticeable deviations from Newtonian mechanics (e.g. coriolis forces would be noticeable) that are not seen. There would need to be an axis of rotation (you can prove that mathematically for a 3-dimensional space simply because there needs to be a real eigenvalue for the isometric transformation of rotation). And if there were an axis of rotatin everything would be moving outward from that axis creating a noticeable hole somewhere that is not seen.

4. Space appears to be pretty flat on the largest scales. So any explanations that rely on a strongly curved spatial model are in trouble.

Here's a mind blowing concept. I've heard it stated, that our universe could be inside a black hole. Guess what? Black holes rotate.

No, black holes CAN rotate. They don't have to.

The statement that the universe may be a black hole, has been made but it is not a viable statement. The physics of black holes is not completely worked out, but it is pretty clear that within a black hole the mass is MUCH more concentrated that what we observe in our universe. If you were in a black hole you would see incoming matter, brought in by the gravity of the black hole and headed for the center. We don't see that.

Black hole rotation can be characterized because it rotates with respect to the rest of the universe, which is not the whole thing. That observation does not apply to the universe, because it is the whole thing.

It certainly is a viable statement. The Big Bang itself, can be thought of as a white hole, or an explosion of energy (or matter) at the opposite end of a black hole.

You have to think interdimensionally (not linear) as far as space and black holes are concerned. The universe "is the whole thing", but with overlapping spatial dimensions. Of course, none of this can be proven, but it is a logical assumption (or hypothesis).

 

[DrRocket]

No, black holes CAN rotate. They don't have to.

The statement that the universe may be a black hole, has been made but it is not a viable statement. The physics of black holes is not completely worked out, but it is pretty clear that within a black hole the mass is MUCH more concentrated that what we observe in our universe. If you were in a black hole you would see incoming matter, brought in by the gravity of the black hole and headed for the center. We don't see that.

Black hole rotation can be characterized because it rotates with respect to the rest of the universe, which is not the whole thing. That observation does not apply to the universe, because it is the whole thing.

It certainly is a viable statement. The Big Bang itself, can be thought of as a white hole, or an explosion of energy (or matter) at the opposite end of a black hole.

You have to think interdimensionally (not linear) as far as space and black holes are concerned. The universe "is the whole thing", but with overlapping spatial dimensions. Of course, none of this can be proven, but it is a logical assumption (or hypothesis).

No it is not viable. It is nonsense.

You need to think. Think seriously and logically. Interdimensionally, linearly, hyperbolically -- it doesn't matter. Just quit "thinking" in a corkscrew pattern, and augering into the ground.

There is no such thing as "overlapping dimensions". Not spacial. Not temporal. Not abstract. Not anything at all. It is a nonsense phrase, apparently designed to (very successfully) demonstrate complete ignorance of the concept of "dimension". Of course it cannot be proved. It doesn't even mean anything. It neither a logical assumption nor a logical hypothesis. It is an illogical juxtaposition of words. Babbling.

 

[kyle_baron]

No, black holes CAN rotate. They don't have to.

The statement that the universe may be a black hole, has been made but it is not a viable statement. The physics of black holes is not completely worked out, but it is pretty clear that within a black hole the mass is MUCH more concentrated that what we observe in our universe. If you were in a black hole you would see incoming matter, brought in by the gravity of the black hole and headed for the center. We don't see that.

Black hole rotation can be characterized because it rotates with respect to the rest of the universe, which is not the whole thing. That observation does not apply to the universe, because it is the whole thing.

It certainly is a viable statement. The Big Bang itself, can be thought of as a white hole, or an explosion of energy (or matter) at the opposite end of a black hole.

You have to think interdimensionally (not linear) as far as space and black holes are concerned. The universe "is the whole thing", but with overlapping spatial dimensions. Of course, none of this can be proven, but it is a logical assumption (or hypothesis).

No it is not viable. It is nonsense.

You need to think. Think seriously and logically. Interdimensionally, linearly, hyperbolically -- it doesn't matter. Just quit "thinking" in a corkscrew pattern, and augering into the ground.

There is no such thing as "overlapping dimensions". Not spacial. Not temporal. Not abstract. Not anything at all. It is a nonsense phrase, apparently designed to (very successfully) demonstrate complete ignorance of the concept of "dimension". Of course it cannot be proved. It doesn't even mean anything. It neither a logical assumption nor a logical hypothesis. It is an illogical juxtaposition of words. Babbling.

LOL! Nice set of derogatory adjectives, instead of arguements. Because Dr. Rocket says so, no one else's ideas matter. Well, I guess if they don't find gravity weakening (or leaking) at the smallest scales, into other dimensions, at Cern, then you may be correct. But, until then, it's just your opinion.

 

[DrRocket]

LOL! Nice set of derogatory adjectives, instead of arguements. Because Dr. Rocket says so, no one else's ideas matter. Well, I guess if they don't find gravity weakening (or leaking) at the smallest scales, into other dimensions, at Cern, then you may be correct. But, until then, it's just your opinion.

No Kyle, it is not an opinion. Your statements simply make no sense in any known language. One cannot provide an objective disproof of words that are meaningless to start with.

There is no such thing as "leaking into other dimensions". All that you have proved with that suggestion is that you have no idea what the work "dimension" means. None at all.

I it is not that no one else's ideas matter. Quite the contrary. It is simply that your "ideas" are not ideas at all, and they certainly don't matter -- they cannot even be intelligently described. If you want to be taken seriously you need to learn at least enough physics to be able to state a thought in terms that can be discussed in the normal language of science. Babbling and baby talk just don't work.

For instance, try to disprove this -- "3%&(&*Gjh95$^$^#%$&". That meaningless concatenation of symbols makes just as much sense as your "idea".

 

[Boilermaker]

hello everyone,

I don't have time right now to read all the posts, I have to run off to work, but before I forget to say anything I'd like to say this.......if you read any theories about the "double slit" experiment, you won't read too many before you read some Scientist speculating that it's caused by a "parallel Universe" or some other "dimension". All you have to do is read science magazines or books or listen to a scientist talking and it won't take very long before there is talk of "M Branes" "P Branes" "Parallel Universes" "10 or 11 Dimensions" "all possible futures" "Supersymmetry" "Strings/Superstring" if you read anything by Michu Kaku you will also read about those subjects, if you read Hawking you will read about virtual particles and such, Black Holes, Instantons, the" light cone" there are as many theories as there are scientists....almost.

for anyone to deny this is simply not reading beyond what they write themselves, they can't be. Every day one Scientist discovers or searches for something which will overturn someone else's theory, they don't just search to prove theories. Also, the Internet is a Public forum, not a Private one for Scientists, some of the scientists who disdain your thoughts and questions should give you links to some of their own ground breaking theories and thoughts......I take my own license to talk about my own fantasies in the "what if" realm from all the nonsense I've read from some Real Scientists.

do you think perhaps since almost everything else in the Universe is spinning and revolving or orbiting in circles that maybe the Universe itself might be too? if it has to be in relation to some "thing" then what was the "something" that the Universe is expanding in relation to? What did it appear in relation to? nothing right? so, maybe it spins in relation to nothing?

don't curse the dark, light a candle.

 

[SpeedFreek]

Every day one Scientist discovers or searches for something which will overturn someone else's theory, they don't just search to prove theories. Also, the Internet is a Public forum, not a Private one for Scientists, some of the scientists who disdain your thoughts and questions should give you links to some of their own ground breaking theories and thoughts......I take my own license to talk about my own fantasies in the "what if" realm from all the nonsense I've read from some Real Scientists.

do you think perhaps since almost everything else in the Universe is spinning and revolving or orbiting in circles that maybe the Universe itself might be too? if it has to be in relation to some "thing" then what was the "something" that the Universe is expanding in relation to? What did it appear in relation to? nothing right? so, maybe it spins in relation to nothing?

don't curse the dark, light a candle.

Yes, scientists do sometimes seem to spend a lot of effort to come up hypotheses, in the hopes that there might be a way found to test them some time in the future. They are always based on some aspect of new theory, quantum physics, for instance. All the things you mentioned (parallel universes etc) have come from looking into the implications of quantum physics.

They are all formulated to try find an explanation for something we have already observed.

So what is it that a "rotating" universe is supposed to explain? What observations have we made, where a rotating universe would be needed to explain them?

There is a big difference between asking what the universe is expanding into, and wondering whether it might be rotating in relation to anything. You see, we can tell the universe is expanding from our point of view right here. We already have the evidence of expansion - it exists within the universe. We do not need to consider what it is expanding in relation to, as it doesn't actually need to be expanding in relation to anything except itself - this is measurable.

Asking what the universe appeared in relation to is pretty much the same deal. We know it appeared. It doesn't have to exist in relation to anything else, it has already defined its existence.

We can see it, so it exists. We can see that it is expanding. There is no scientific basis upon which we can say it came from, or is expanding into, anything. We do not need to consider it in relation to anything else in order to state that it appeared, and that it is expanding.

Now for it to be rotating as whole unit, well that's a different matter entirely.

 

[Boilermaker]

hello SpeedFreek,

oh, I don't know if the Universe is rotating, I was responding to the previous post before mine which basically just ridicules a person for asking a question. I had Religious people do that to me on anther site, I was trying to figure out if the Religious people there had asked any of these questions people are asking around here and the next thing you know I was having a nice conversation but one person came along and started freaking out and claiming i was dangerous....it was crazy, I wasn't allowed to even ask, that's what it was like when I was a little kid in school, because Religion was the main course at the time and questions meant lack of faith......it was bad to think.

many people don't have the schooling or any other exposure to enable them to ask interesting questions of PHD
scholars in these fields but surely a little patience and encouragement would be better.........it's one thing to be berated by a Religiou fanatic for asking questions but shouldn't lovers of science appreciate that others have questions and seek a place and someone sensible to ask?

I was mad when I got here and thought someone stole my little question, I was desperate for a sensible person to appraise it and guide my thoughts a little.........not ridicule me and send me off perhaps to blind religious faith for my answers..............that;s all.

I don't know if the Universe is spinning but you know what? at leas it's an original question, I've never heard that one asked before and originality is very rare, even in science........it's all been asked or said or done before, except when someone asks something new, but then something new isn't always welcomed.

why couldnt the Universe be spinning? maybe we can't prove it, but that's the motivation for many things scientists do, TO PROVE things....one way or the other, what kind of science is done by people who just throw their hands up in the air saying "oh, we'll never prove that lets not bother even asking"?

boring science, it makes people look at the lunatic fringe stuff (tongue in cheek).

 

[DrRocket]

hello everyone,

I don't have time right now to read all the posts, I have to run off to work, but before I forget to say anything I'd like to say this.......if you read any theories about the "double slit" experiment, you won't read too many before you read some Scientist speculating that it's caused by a "parallel Universe" or some other "dimension". All you have to do is read science magazines or books or listen to a scientist talking and it won't take very long before there is talk of "M Branes" "P Branes" "Parallel Universes" "10 or 11 Dimensions" "all possible futures" "Supersymmetry" "Strings/Superstring" if you read anything by Michu Kaku you will also read about those subjects, if you read Hawking you will read about virtual particles and such, Black Holes, Instantons, the" light cone" there are as many theories as there are scientists....almost.

for anyone to deny this is simply not reading beyond what they write themselves, they can't be. Every day one Scientist discovers or searches for something which will overturn someone else's theory, they don't just search to prove theories. Also, the Internet is a Public forum, not a Private one for Scientists, some of the scientists who disdain your thoughts and questions should give you links to some of their own ground breaking theories and thoughts......I take my own license to talk about my own fantasies in the "what if" realm from all the nonsense I've read from some Real Scientists.

do you think perhaps since almost everything else in the Universe is spinning and revolving or orbiting in circles that maybe the Universe itself might be too? if it has to be in relation to some "thing" then what was the "something" that the Universe is expanding in relation to? What did it appear in relation to? nothing right? so, maybe it spins in relation to nothing?

don't curse the dark, light a candle.

You are mixing apples and oranges, and maybe some peaches and plums. The so-called Standard Model of Particle physics is based on two quantum field theoriesl The Electroweak theory and quantum chromodynamics (the theory of the strong force). That is currently accepted physics, the best that we have. Virtual particles are a part of that theory, the prediction of quantum field theories with respect to the nature of the vacuum. Those theories are pretty solid and supported by a lot of experimental data.

M theory, M-branes, P-branes etc. are part of a speculative and unproved theory that is the successor to string theory. M theory arose out of an attempt by Witten to save string theory that at the time had devolved into several competing theories. Witten proposed and showed a plausible argument for the idea that thos theories are really just different faces of a single theory. But it was and remains a conjuecture. Similarly the AdS/CFT correspondence of Maldecena is an unproved conjecture.

It is important to distinguish between what is established and what is conjecxtural or imaginative. Unfortunately much of what is written in the popular literature, even by respected phyusicists fails to make that distinction.

Black holes and tlight cones are solid parts of general relativity and therefore of establsihed physics. Instantons are not. String theory and M theory are speculative. So is supersymmetry. Parallel universes, in the sense of Hugh Everett, are neither. That is an interpretation of quantum theory that produces precisely the same predictions as does the conventional interpretation, and hence is not really new physics at all. In terms of phphilosophy it may be interesting, but in terms of physics it is basically irrelevant (except to sell books for public consumption). The previously named quantum field theories are the best that we have at this time. Together with general relativity they are the pillars of modern physics. But they are not the last word and research goes on.

 

[SpeedFreek]

many people don't have the schooling or any other exposure to enable them to ask interesting questions of PHD scholars in these fields but surely a little patience and encouragement would be better.........it's one thing to be berated by a Religious fanatic for asking questions but shouldn't lovers of science appreciate that others have questions and seek a place and someone sensible to ask?

I understand you, I have been berated myself in the past! I hope my above reply to you didn't seem to be berating, it wasn't meant to be. Sometimes I take what is known as the Socratic approach, where in replying to a question I ask questions that are meant to lead the reader to think about new aspects of the subject under discussion themselves, and I suppose this can come across as condescending but it is not meant to be.

This is the Physics forum - "Discussion about and insight into the subject of Physics and its theories". It is the most scientifically rigorous of the forums here - imagine it as if you are in the physics classroom! The students might like discussing interesting ideas, but once in a while a professor will come along and tell them exactly how scientific their thinking is!

 

[Boilermaker]

SpeedFreek,

how scientific is this thought? I read from time to time about the Big Bang theory and people write that it was incredibly hot. Could the Initial Quantum Singularity be hot without being able to radiate heat?

the thought I'm having is that if there was no space/time then it couldn't vibrate or have any energetic state at all, I mean,...........was it a wave/particle type thing? I don't see how it could be and I don't see how it could be considered hot unless there was something else which was less hot, less energetic to transfer heat to. As far as my simple mind knows, without vibration or movement of any type (you know what I mean) it would be cold. At least, as molecules of my coffee lose energy by transfer of heat to the surrounding molecules of air (you know what I mean here too) they move less and less, the denser molecules become due to loss of energy or transfer of energy the colder they become........right...or wrong?

water or gas or metals all contract as they give off heat......well maybe not water, it expands for some reason as ice. but my belief is that in general things contract as they cool and they move less as the cool and if something stopped moving and transmitted no energy it would be absolutely cold, am I wrong?

so, I keep picturing in my feeble mind, the initial quantum singularity as being cold and then if it expanded and the energy it contained spread out it would have to be getting colder as it went to a less energetic state by having space/time and other energetic particles (words escape me as i don't have them, just like particles and heat escaped the singularity which didn't have them either, lol!)..............

do you see what I'm getting at anyway? maybe if this is rubbish or not smart enough to be on this forum it could go somewhere else or I should go somewhere else?

thanks for the explanation SpeedFreek, it's always appreciated.

 

[DrRocket]

SpeedFreek,

how scientific is this thought? I read from time to time about the Big Bang theory and people write that it was incredibly hot. Could the Initial Quantum Singularity be hot without being able to radiate heat?

the thought I'm having is that if there was no space/time then it couldn't vibrate or have any energetic state at all, I mean,...........was it a wave/particle type thing? I don't see how it could be and I don't see how it could be considered hot unless there was something else which was less hot, less energetic to transfer heat to. As far as my simple mind knows, without vibration or movement of any type (you know what I mean) it would be cold. At least, as molecules of my coffee lose energy by transfer of heat to the surrounding molecules of air (you know what I mean here too) they move less and less, the denser molecules become due to loss of energy or transfer of energy the colder they become........right...or wrong?

water or gas or metals all contract as they give off heat......well maybe not water, it expands for some reason as ice. but my belief is that in general things contract as they cool and they move less as the cool and if something stopped moving and transmitted no energy it would be absolutely cold, am I wrong?

so, I keep picturing in my feeble mind, the initial quantum singularity as being cold and then if it expanded and the energy it contained spread out it would have to be getting colder as it went to a less energetic state by having space/time and other energetic particles (words escape me as i don't have them, just like particles and heat escaped the singularity which didn't have them either, lol!)..............

do you see what I'm getting at anyway? maybe if this is rubbish or not smart enough to be on this forum it could go somewhere else or I should go somewhere else?

thanks for the explanation SpeedFreek, it's always appreciated.

I assume that by the "initial quantum singularity" you mean a single point. That relates to predictions based on general relativity. The problem is that general relativity is incompatible with quntum mechanics, and hence that singularity is not directly relatable to quantum theory. You are trying to apply two incompatible theories simulataneously. That is understandable because there is no alternative at this time. This situation is the motivation for the on-going research in an attempt to find a theory that encompasses both relativityand quantuum theory, a so-called "theory of everything".

There are perehaps a couple of ways to resolve your quandry.

The easiest way is to consider the situation, not at t=0 but at a very short period of time afterwards, perhaps at 10^-33 seconds after t=0. Then there is some space other than a single point, and you can make sense of the notion of temperature, and yes the universe would have been quite hot then.

Another way is to note that the singularity is a direc5t result of the mathematics and constraints of general relativty. There is competing theory of gravity, called the Einstein-Cartan theory. It differes from general relativity in that it relaxes an assumption of GR, the assumption that there is no torsion in space-time, and produces predictions that are indistinguishable from GR with present measurement technologies. The differences are only significant under extreme circumstances. The Big Bang is an extreme sircumstance. Eisntein-Cartan theory has the featue that the Hawking-Penrose sorts of singularities do not occur, and the Big B ang under Einstein-Cartan has no singularity, just as very compact initial universe ( a centimeter or so in diameter). The universe would be quite hot in that situation.

 

[SpeedFreek]

do you see what I'm getting at anyway? maybe if this is rubbish or not smart enough to be on this forum it could go somewhere else or I should go somewhere else?

I composed this reply to you earlier, but had to go out and wanted to check it before I posted it, and now I am back I see that DrRocket has answered the specifics of your question far better than I ever could. I will still post the reply I had composed though, as I want to make sure you understand something about this forum:

Asking questions is never a problem here, however silly they might seem. It is only the answers to those questions that can be silly, especially if people try to answer those questions without appreciating certain aspects of the problem being proposed.

This thread was swimming along smoothly for the first page or so. A question had been raised, and answered as far as science can answer it so far and everyone seemed happy. Then someone came along and suggested that they had their own explanation for the universal expansion, that the universe was spinning and so everything was accelerating outwards from the centre of rotation. They were given four reasons why that doesn't seem to be the case, which they accepted as valid.

Then someone suggested the universe was inside a rotating black hole. It was pointed out how (amongst other things) the current model of black holes should, if applied to the universe as a whole, leave clues in our universe - we would not see the relatively smooth universe we see (where nowhere seems more special than anywhere else). The poster then replied, trying to explain how thinking "interdimensionally", with overlapping dimensions, would be a logical assumption. He was told that thinking "interdimensionally" was a meaningless statement that shows a lack of understanding of what a dimension is, and that if they wanted to propose such a model they needed to learn the physics required to model it properly, so we can understand them.

You might think that they were treated rudely, but if you read their posts you will see that they came into a scientific discussion, not with a question but with a statement of a solution to the problem. A statement that seemingly had no basis. I doubt the reaction would have been the same if they simply asked "could the universe be inside a black hole?", but instead they stated "It could, and here's why" but their reasons were not backed up by science.

It is fine to ask questions, or to propose speculative models and ask questions about them. But if you come in saying you have a solution and imply that your solution is scientifically valid, when it is not, you should be told so in no uncertain terms. Many people lurk, reading these threads but never posting and we don't want people going away with their head filled with misconceptions.

Anyway, back to your question:

A singularity is not part of space-time. You are talking about notions of heat transfer when we have no concept of space or time for anything to happen within. We can only consider what happened after the singularity, what happened after time=0, but not at t=0. What we think we know is, as soon as you have a very small volume of space filled with the contents of the observable universe, it will expand. It will be hotter, the smaller it is, and will cool as it expands.

At a deeper level, you cannot predict what comes out of a singularity, you can only work backwards towards it, but never quite get there.

 

[Boilermaker]

thank you both for the explanation........I need to go to a thread where I can ask crazy questions myself...I suppose.

thanks, again. I believe in freedom of speech but not derailing other conversations sorry for judging the Dr., to the other poster, lets go find another thread buddy.

g'bye

 

[SpeedFreek]

I found this on Ned Wrights Cosmology website, and thought of this thread...

Is the Big Bang a black hole?

 

[CommonMan]

I found this on Ned Wrights Cosmology website, and thought of this thread...

Is the Big Bang a black hole?

Good post but, here we go again. Which came first, the black hole or the big bang. Was the chicken in the egg or was the egg in the chicken? Until more solid evident is found which I hope it’s soon, I am sure that real sciencetist like Dr. Rocket is about ready to pull his hair out if we keep asking these questions without any proof of real facts.

 

[DrRocket]

I found this on Ned Wrights Cosmology website, and thought of this thread...

Is the Big Bang a black hole?

Good post but, here we go again. Which came first, the black hole or the big bang. Was the chicken in the egg or was the egg in the chicken? Until more solid evident is found which I hope it’s soon, I am sure that real sciencetist like Dr. Rocket is about ready to pull his hair out if we keep asking these questions without any proof of real facts.

there is not chicken-or-egg problem. In order to have our universe you need the Big Bang. In order to have a black hole you need our universe. The Big Bang singularity is different from a blackhole singularity. A black hole exists within the universe, space-time. The big bang is a singularity of space-time itself.

Time itself originated with the Big Bang. There is no meaning to "before" the Big Bang.

The Big Bang came first. Clearly. Is came before EVERYTHING, including any black hole.

 

[DrRocket]

thank you both for the explanation........I need to go to a thread where I can ask crazy questions myself...I suppose.

thanks, again. I believe in freedom of speech but not derailing other conversations sorry for judging the Dr., to the other poster, lets go find another thread buddy.

g'bye

Don't feel inhibited about asking questions.

The poster that I was addressing earlier has a history, of which your are probably not aware, of advocating vociferously his personal theories, which are utter nonsense, and are based on complete ignorance of mathematics and physics. It is actually worse that simple ignorance. He as a vast array of "facts" that are utterly false. He and I are not, and will never be, best buddies.

 

[kyle_baron]

Don't feel inhibited about asking questions.

The poster that I was addressing earlier has a history, of which your are probably not aware, of advocating vociferously his personal theories, which are utter nonsense, and are based on complete ignorance of mathematics and physics. It is actually worse that simple ignorance. He as a vast array of "facts" that are utterly false. He and I are not, and will never be, best buddies.

ROFLMAO!

 

[CommonMan]

ROFLMAO![/quote]

I hope I don't look stupid but, WHAT does this mean? I'm sorry I haven't keep up with short hand nor do I text on my cell phone.

 

[DrRocket]

ROFLMAO!

I hope I don't look stupid but, WHAT does this mean? I'm sorry I haven't keep up with short hand nor do I text on my cell phone.[/quote]

It means "roll on the floor laughing my ass off". Some people perform that exercise as a substitute for thinking, because it is much less taxing. Apparently operational posteriors are more common than effective intellects.