More on the Big Bang - what was before t = 0?

[Catastrophe]

In wider terms,

The average size of a galaxy is between 3,000 and 300,000 light-years in diameter. The Milky Way is an example of an average-sized galaxy, with a diameter of about 100,000 light-years.

Although the Milky Way may be included within "average", it is well towards the upper end, being about 33 times the lower limit (100/3), but one only one third (100/300) the upper limit.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

I consider our galaxy to be young and new galaxies can still be created. If my theory of matter always existed there never was 0=0. Something cannot come from nothing 0 will always be 0 nothingness but as we start to discover super mega galaxies I am almost certain we are a small galaxy and since we are approaching another galaxy we are actually on the cooling period of the Big Bang which explains the vast distances between galaxies

Yes, the Milky Way is approaching the Andromeda galaxy:

• Speed
  The two galaxies are moving toward each other at a speed of about 68 miles per second (110 kilometers per second).
  
  
  
• Prediction
  NASA astronomers predicted in 2012 that the galaxies would collide in about four billion years.

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

If my theory of matter always existed there never was 0=0. Something cannot come from nothing 0 will always be 0 nothingness

0=1-1 , 0=23-23 Something can come from nothing. Ask your bank manager

 

[Catastrophe]

0 = 23 - 23

Clearly 0 is coming from 23 by subtracting 23 from a pre-existing 23.

Is this the standard response you are offering?

Cat

 

[CreatedEvolution]

0=1-1 , 0=23-23 Something can come from nothing. Ask your bank manager

With no action you have no reaction. Matter does exist and I believe our theory of instantaneous existence is an excuse to say we don’t matter. Nikola Tesla believed in a creator and his iq was hi. I believe in watchers and intelligence like ancient text quote. Your theory is absurd as we are the center of the galaxy. Where this big bang may have originated. So you’re saying something can come from nothing. That is tooth fairy belief. There are up to 400 billion stars in our galaxy and all have the same origin. Giving them high probability to have similar composition.

 

[CreatedEvolution]

0=1-1 , 0=23-23 Something can come from nothing. Ask your bank manager

This means in the end there will be absolute 0 again? Sounds farfetched.

 

[Catastrophe]

Gibsense, I am not trying to argue or score points. I am trying to understand.

I am starting from redshift, and Hubble's deduction that galaxies are moving away from each other at a speed proportional to their distance apart (except for the Local Group, where gravity wins out).

Then, applying logic, if galaxies move apart at speed proportional to distance, sooner or later (probably sooner thhan 14 bn years?) they will exceed the speed of light. I would suggest that this requires an upper limit to HL, just as there is a lower limit. In other words, we do not understand the whole picture.
But is it not "the Universe" which is supposed to be expanding? Not just space without matter? And should not spacetime include matter? So if spacetime expands faster than light, how does it exclude matter?

The answer to this (according to Hubble), at least as I understand this "explanation", is that it is space or spacetime which is expanding, not the material galaxies. Similarly, during inflation, after BB, was not this expansion (inflation) not supposed to be FTL, and was it immaterial space which was expanding, not the material "Universe"?

This ties in with the idea that, if we, materially, were expanding with space(time), we would not be able to notice it. Vide flatlander not being able to notice two points on a spherical surface not moving apart, when this is supposed to be how he judges the expansion of the spherical surface.

So, how is it that we notice material galaxies moving apart? If only space is expanding, it is carrying the galaxies with it. But, whereas the distance between galaxies is expanding, apparently the sizes (distances across) of the galaxies are not? Just as the universe (our observable universe - what we cannot observe is not science) is expanding but we, ourselves, are not.

To me, this looks increasingly like a semantic (or, rather, a General Semantic) paradox.
We are not understanding (insufficient definition) and/or misusing our terms. The problem is not the "universe", it is in our heads. At least, that is where I am at the moment.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

• Explanation
  Hubble's law describes the relationship between the distance of a galaxy and how fast it's moving away from Earth. However, the expansion of space itself is not limited by the speed of light.

Are there two kinds of space here (explanation ex Google)?

The distance between galaxies, and "space itself"?

And is it the expansion of space, or of spacetime?

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

My take:

Page 38 - From a drop of water....

Page 38 - 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.

forums.space.com

 

[Gibsense]

So, how is it that we notice material galaxies moving apart? If only space is expanding, it is carrying the galaxies with it. But, whereas the distance between galaxies is expanding, apparently the sizes (distances across) of the galaxies are not? Just as the universe (our observable universe - what we cannot observe is not science) is expanding but we, ourselves, are not.

To me, this looks increasingly like a semantic (or, rather, a General Semantic) paradox.
We are not understanding (insufficient definition) and/or misusing our terms. The problem is not the "universe", it is in our heads. At least, that is where I am at the moment.

Maybe this sketch will explain the issues you may be getting at. You can interpret the 'time arrows' as a force if that helps.
This is just my personal interpretation of reality so caution is needed but to me it is realistic. Er, ignore the red arrows they just point to mass

[url=https://postimages.org/][/URL]

 

[Gibsense]

This means in the end there will be absolute 0 again? Sounds farfetched.

Sure does. But then what in science doesn't? Or at the Bank, maybe there is some interest