No. Einstein and others have demonstrated clearly that spacetime is malleable. Time dilation is beyond any reasonable doubt.
if the universe and space was created at the moment of the big bang where did the big bang happen At the instan before the event there was nowhere a?
Page 11 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
- Status
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
IMO, the so called Big Bang "startup" was actually passage through a nexus from a previous phase of the same, one and only, Universe.
Cat
Cat
Einstein tried to explain to the world about Relativity.
Many do not understand what Relativity means.
What is time dilation?
What is Space malleable?
What is passage through a nexus?
Many do not understand what Relativity means.
What is time dilation?
What is Space malleable?
What is passage through a nexus?
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Passage through nexus? This is a model. It is no better or worse than infinite density and temperature exploding out of nothing.
Well, I happen to think that it is better. Of course, it could only be at an atomic (or below) level. No star ships slipping through undetected. Densities and temperatures quite high. After all, stars form when matter gets compressed.
By whatever mechanism (and anything is better than exploding out of nothing at infinite density) the dying phase was probably compressed by gravity. Don't forget, this is only a model. At a certain point, the pressure becomes sufficient and the contents (the dying phase of the Universe) 'squirts' through the nexus to be 'born again' as the new phase of the Universe.
Cat
Well, I happen to think that it is better. Of course, it could only be at an atomic (or below) level. No star ships slipping through undetected. Densities and temperatures quite high. After all, stars form when matter gets compressed.
By whatever mechanism (and anything is better than exploding out of nothing at infinite density) the dying phase was probably compressed by gravity. Don't forget, this is only a model. At a certain point, the pressure becomes sufficient and the contents (the dying phase of the Universe) 'squirts' through the nexus to be 'born again' as the new phase of the Universe.
Cat
IG2007
"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
"i still try to imagine how that would happen."
I could never imagine anything so . . . . . . (I am lost for words) . . . . . . as an infinitely small Universe at infinitely high density (and all the other infinity stuff) suddenly appearing out of nothing and exploding for no apparent reason.
Cat
I could never imagine anything so . . . . . . (I am lost for words) . . . . . . as an infinitely small Universe at infinitely high density (and all the other infinity stuff) suddenly appearing out of nothing and exploding for no apparent reason.
Cat
IG2007
"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Same.I could never imagine anything so . . . . . . (I am lost for words) . . . . . . as an infinitely small Universe at infinitely high density (and all the other infinity stuff) suddenly appearing out of nothing and exploding for no apparent reason.
Cat
To be honest, I agree with the BBT in almost every axiom of it, except singularity. How about replacing it with planck star?
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
In loop quantum gravity theory, a Planck star is a hypothetical astronomical object, theorized as a compact, exotic star, that exists within a black hole's event horizon, that is created when the energy density of a collapsing star reaches the Planck energy density.
Planck star - Wikipedia
Hi IG, I would think that 'my' nexus must be conceptually similar to a black hole, at least in some respects (minus singularity).
"Under these conditions, assuming gravity and spacetime are quantized, there arises a repulsive 'force' derived from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The accumulation of mass-energy inside the Planck star cannot collapse beyond this limit" My emphasis - I like it! Ergo nexus. But it is still hypothetical.
Cat
Planck star - Wikipedia
Hi IG, I would think that 'my' nexus must be conceptually similar to a black hole, at least in some respects (minus singularity).
"Under these conditions, assuming gravity and spacetime are quantized, there arises a repulsive 'force' derived from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The accumulation of mass-energy inside the Planck star cannot collapse beyond this limit" My emphasis - I like it! Ergo nexus. But it is still hypothetical.
Cat
The following paper is worth understanding what is out there.
You can also search arXiv for Super Clusters of Galaxies, giving you an idea of the size of objects.
Not only the size but the enormous number to be researched.
[Submitted on 28 Jun 2021 (v1), last revised 1 Aug 2021 (this version, v2)]
The eROSITA Final Equatorial-Depth Survey (eFEDS): Catalog of galaxy clusters and groups
A. Liu, E. Bulbul, V. Ghirardini, T. Liu, M. Klein, N. Clerc, Y. Oezsoy, M. E. Ramos-Ceja, F. Pacaud, J. Comparat, N. Okabe, Y. E. Bahar, V. Biffi, H. Brunner, M. Brueggen, J. Buchner, J. Ider Chitham, I. Chiu, K. Dolag, E. Gatuzz, J. Gonzalez, D. N. Hoang, G. Lamer, A. Merloni, K. Nandra, M. Oguri, N. Ota, P. Predehl, T. H. Reiprich, M. Salvato, T. Schrabback, J. S. Sanders, R. Seppi, Q. Thibaud
You can also search arXiv for Super Clusters of Galaxies, giving you an idea of the size of objects.
Not only the size but the enormous number to be researched.
[Submitted on 28 Jun 2021 (v1), last revised 1 Aug 2021 (this version, v2)]
The eROSITA Final Equatorial-Depth Survey (eFEDS): Catalog of galaxy clusters and groups
A. Liu, E. Bulbul, V. Ghirardini, T. Liu, M. Klein, N. Clerc, Y. Oezsoy, M. E. Ramos-Ceja, F. Pacaud, J. Comparat, N. Okabe, Y. E. Bahar, V. Biffi, H. Brunner, M. Brueggen, J. Buchner, J. Ider Chitham, I. Chiu, K. Dolag, E. Gatuzz, J. Gonzalez, D. N. Hoang, G. Lamer, A. Merloni, K. Nandra, M. Oguri, N. Ota, P. Predehl, T. H. Reiprich, M. Salvato, T. Schrabback, J. S. Sanders, R. Seppi, Q. Thibaud
| Comments: | Submitted to A&A for the Special Issue: The Early Data Release of eROSITA and Mikhail Pavlinsky ART-XC on the SRG Mission. 25 pages, 13 figures |
| Subjects: | Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2106.14518 [astro-ph.CO] |
| (or arXiv:2106.14518v2 [astro-ph.CO] for this version) |
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
"Asking what came before the Big Bang … would be like asking what lies south of the South Pole."
Stephen Hawking
Stephen Hawking
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Very timely quote.
I don't know whether you saw this, but the flatlander analogy shows this point very well. The (n + 1) dimensional being sees the answer clearly.
(1) Question - Edgeless universe? | Page 5 | Space.com Forums
Cat
I don't know whether you saw this, but the flatlander analogy shows this point very well. The (n + 1) dimensional being sees the answer clearly.
(1) Question - Edgeless universe? | Page 5 | Space.com Forums
Cat
Last edited:
Where am I going with this?
To understand you must research?
When people say the universe is 13.7 Billion years old, they do not know the complexity and depth of the universe.
Deep field images area of a rice seed over 13,2 billion years northern hemisphere
Showed over 5000 galaxies over 14 billion years old
Deep field images 13.2 billion years in the Southern Hemisphere showed the same.
So far no one person has given me evidence of the BBT.
To understand you must research?
When people say the universe is 13.7 Billion years old, they do not know the complexity and depth of the universe.
Deep field images area of a rice seed over 13,2 billion years northern hemisphere
Showed over 5000 galaxies over 14 billion years old
Deep field images 13.2 billion years in the Southern Hemisphere showed the same.
So far no one person has given me evidence of the BBT.
IG2007
"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Harry, just check this out and tell us which part you don't believe.
I accept most of it EXCEPT the part very close to t = 0 (for want of a better word) where physics breaks down by trying to divide the real world by infinity. I do not believe in a singularity. I prefer a nexus to a previous 'phase' of the Universe.
Big Bang - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Big_Bang
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its ... History of the Big Bang theory · Big Bang nucleosynthesis · Category:Big Bang
What is the Big Bang Theory? - Phys.org
https://phys.org › Astronomy & Space › Astronomy
In short, the Big Bang hypothesis states that all of the current and past matter in the Universe came into existence at the same time, roughly ...
18 Dec 2015 · Uploaded by Fraser Cain
The big bang | Institute of Physics
https://www.iop.org › physics-stepping-stones › big-bang
Albert Einstein came up with the ground breaking theory in 1915. But it was another physicist, Alexander Friedmann, who studied the equations and made a ...
Cat
I accept most of it EXCEPT the part very close to t = 0 (for want of a better word) where physics breaks down by trying to divide the real world by infinity. I do not believe in a singularity. I prefer a nexus to a previous 'phase' of the Universe.
Big Bang - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Big_Bang
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its ... History of the Big Bang theory · Big Bang nucleosynthesis · Category:Big Bang
What is the Big Bang Theory? - Phys.org
https://phys.org › Astronomy & Space › Astronomy
In short, the Big Bang hypothesis states that all of the current and past matter in the Universe came into existence at the same time, roughly ...
18 Dec 2015 · Uploaded by Fraser Cain
The big bang | Institute of Physics
https://www.iop.org › physics-stepping-stones › big-bang
Albert Einstein came up with the ground breaking theory in 1915. But it was another physicist, Alexander Friedmann, who studied the equations and made a ...
Cat
Last edited:
An emission of light starts from far away, say fourteen billion light years away. It is not going to travel in a straight line since the curvatures, actually the spirals, of the universe turn light's straight lines along curved paths. Be that as it may, the 2-d frame accumulates 2-d frames from the rear (from infinity, thus imploded as to accumulation (what that might look like I leave to your imagination) since infinity cannot possibly be observed), sides, and front, as mergers, as it travels through the universe It, the accumulated merger of 2-d frames arrives at the Earth observer's telescope as movement closest to Earth being largest, graduating to infinitesimal far away, and no movement at all -- a fixed picture -- farthest from Earth. The observable, sensed, universe with its myopic physics (otherwise known as "relative physics" or "physics of relativity").
But universes, time-verses, from Earth to fourteen billion x 6 trillion miles from Earth are universes, plural, now and not observed or observable from Earth. At fourteen billion x six trillion miles the movement that has been occurring over fourteen billion years at that distance, much less beyond that distance -- to infinity, would be the purest blur if they could be observed from Earth at all. Universes, plural, because locally there, there would not be any greater movement than we observe locally to us. So movement in the universe, as to look, is most likely exactly the opposite to what is observed in the light frames, and otherwise sensed, from Earth. Exactly the opposite to relativity's myopia. The greatest movements over time have occurred exactly where we observe the least movement to have occurred, the distances (to infinity) most distant from Earth. And that translates, relatively speaking ('relativity' to local, foreground, Earth speaking (as if the entire universe were closed up to the Earth)) to pure speed, accelerations, in universe! And, again relative speaking, then observed, then thought, to come from what?!
But universes, time-verses, from Earth to fourteen billion x 6 trillion miles from Earth are universes, plural, now and not observed or observable from Earth. At fourteen billion x six trillion miles the movement that has been occurring over fourteen billion years at that distance, much less beyond that distance -- to infinity, would be the purest blur if they could be observed from Earth at all. Universes, plural, because locally there, there would not be any greater movement than we observe locally to us. So movement in the universe, as to look, is most likely exactly the opposite to what is observed in the light frames, and otherwise sensed, from Earth. Exactly the opposite to relativity's myopia. The greatest movements over time have occurred exactly where we observe the least movement to have occurred, the distances (to infinity) most distant from Earth. And that translates, relatively speaking ('relativity' to local, foreground, Earth speaking (as if the entire universe were closed up to the Earth)) to pure speed, accelerations, in universe! And, again relative speaking, then observed, then thought, to come from what?!
Last edited:
Then again, as I've alluded to before, the non-local background infinity generates its own material physics toward the local (toward us for one local) that in fact do not exist locally to any of an infinity of locals. The totaled up background non-local toward each of all of an infinity of foreground locals. Analogous to the forest having material influence upon each tree making up the forest (the trees are in the forest. The forest is in each of the trees.) It has its own look. It has its own physicality, its own dimensionality in the multi-dimensionality of the Multiverse.
This non-local background materiality has heat as part of its physical multi-dimensionality (BB / Planck heat). It is horizon constant. A constant of distant horizon -- like the constant of the speed of light -- no traveler traveling the open system (therefore the opening system), the hyperspace hyperplanes (plane to plane, to plane), would ever approach.
Which reminds me of the multi-dimensionality of gravity, almost always seen as being 1-dimensional. It is also a dimensionality of planes within planes, within planes. It isn't solely contractive, it is also expansive, else there would be no surface of the Earth, an expanding expanse when approached from outer-space -- or even from high in the sky of Earth. If our local universe were to be descending, dropping, into a large depth of Abyss, we might not observe it to be contracting (closing up), we might observe it to be expanding (opening up), that very expansiveness a product of gravity.
This non-local background materiality has heat as part of its physical multi-dimensionality (BB / Planck heat). It is horizon constant. A constant of distant horizon -- like the constant of the speed of light -- no traveler traveling the open system (therefore the opening system), the hyperspace hyperplanes (plane to plane, to plane), would ever approach.
Which reminds me of the multi-dimensionality of gravity, almost always seen as being 1-dimensional. It is also a dimensionality of planes within planes, within planes. It isn't solely contractive, it is also expansive, else there would be no surface of the Earth, an expanding expanse when approached from outer-space -- or even from high in the sky of Earth. If our local universe were to be descending, dropping, into a large depth of Abyss, we might not observe it to be contracting (closing up), we might observe it to be expanding (opening up), that very expansiveness a product of gravity.
Last edited:
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
if the universe and space was created at the moment of the big bang where did the big bang happen At the instan before the event there was nowhere a?
After 268 posts. I believe it to be established that, even if t'were 'grammatical and complete', then it was south of the south pole to begin with.
Cat
After 268 posts. I believe it to be established that, even if t'were 'grammatical and complete', then it was south of the south pole to begin with.
Cat
I have read all the WIKI notes.
If you wish to prove the BBT, than do so, but Using hear say there say , is not proof.
When you talk about infinity and T=0
What do people mean?
I keep on saying show me the proof.
Wiki is written by people who know very little of the complexity of the universe and the properties of matter.
If you wish to prove the BBT, than do so, but Using hear say there say , is not proof.
When you talk about infinity and T=0
What do people mean?
I keep on saying show me the proof.
Wiki is written by people who know very little of the complexity of the universe and the properties of matter.
Images showing matter going through changes in time to explain the BBT are Stone Age explanations. Particularly when the images show a monopole rather than a dipolar.
But! Saying that
We do observe dipolar fields coming out of so called condensates that mimic black hole properties.
M87 is a prime example, along the dipole vortices we do observe formation of stars and clusters of stars.
At the centre of the Virgo Super Cluster there lives a mimic black hole, that’s over 100 billion solar masses and the size of the vortices are so big that our Milky Way can fit in the vortex, what the BBT tries to explain, that is happening kind of now as a cyclic event.
But! Saying that
We do observe dipolar fields coming out of so called condensates that mimic black hole properties.
M87 is a prime example, along the dipole vortices we do observe formation of stars and clusters of stars.
At the centre of the Virgo Super Cluster there lives a mimic black hole, that’s over 100 billion solar masses and the size of the vortices are so big that our Milky Way can fit in the vortex, what the BBT tries to explain, that is happening kind of now as a cyclic event.
IG2007
"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
I am perfectly happy with my understanding of cosmology and am quite prepared to discuss it in a sane and straightforward manner with interested parties. However, I am not here to be the subject of demands for information from anyone. If anyone doubts the recognised BBT (as I do in a small part around the so called singularity) then they are at liberty to pursue their own enquiries (as I do). I will not readily turn down any polite requests for what are simply my own opinions on the subject, but I am not going to respond to what I consider to be imperious demands.
Cat
Cat
Sure you can and always do... you never do otherwise universe-wise:Sorry, I can't time travel to t=0.
Past (-) ----- future (+) -----> now (t = 0).
With due respect, if i offend, I’m very sorry.
No body demands.
Discussion is always open.
If you want to cook in the kitchen, be prepared sometimes to get burnt.
At the end of the day, you eat what you prepare.
Believe what you can prove.
No body demands.
Discussion is always open.
If you want to cook in the kitchen, be prepared sometimes to get burnt.
At the end of the day, you eat what you prepare.
Believe what you can prove.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
This Week In Space podcast: Episode 141 —Holiday Special 2024- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Planes, drones or UFOs: What are people seeing in the New Jersey sky?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 21
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram