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

 

[Russell Crawford]

Perhaps the "expansion" of space can be best understood by drawing a few dots on a balloon. Draw the dots on the balloon to indicate a solar system, with a sun and planets. Blow up the balloon. The dots signifying the solar system will expand away from their sun and will unbalance the system. And all the matter and energy will also expand with the solar system. If it remained as a solar system, then the laws of physics would change with the expansion of the Universe.

 

[Gibsense]

Perhaps the "expansion" of space can be best understood by drawing a few dots on a balloon. Draw the dots on the balloon to indicate a solar system, with a sun and planets. Blow up the balloon. The dots signifying the solar system will expand away from their sun and will unbalance the system. And all the matter and energy will also expand with the solar system. If it remained as a solar system, then the laws of physics would change with the expansion of the Universe.

The sketch in my post above shows why space does not expand in gravity-bound systems such as the Solar System. The balloon analogy only applies (the dot separation) where galaxy systems are not considered gravitationally bound.
Essentially the force causing expansion also causes the 'shape' of space in gravitationally bound systems to be maintained.

 

[CreatedEvolution]

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

I like to theorize cycles of matter that have no beginning. That is one thing I also had interest in, even though I stand neutral on creation and evolution. It is hard to say there is not signs of intelligent life in our ancient past on this planet. And while I thought to my greatest extent. I was imagining infinity which is also Einsteins theory of infinity is dividing by 0. I just theorized matter has no beginning and does cycles of big bangs from combing black holes at the end of the cycle

Nikola Tesla had the strongest influence in me arguing for creation from a scientific viewpoint. I like his theory because with that theory the answer is always in front of you and can be quite simple. Like stuff was created for us to harness.

 

[Russell Crawford]

The sketch in my post above shows why space does not expand in gravity-bound systems such as the Solar System. The balloon analogy only applies (the dot separation) where galaxy systems are not considered gravitationally bound.
Essentially the force causing expansion also causes the 'shape' of space in gravitationally bound systems to be maintained.

I am aware of the theory that space expands moving entire galaxies but is not strong enough to overcome local gravitational forces. The energy that is strong enough to accelerate the galaxies to exceed the speed of light would certainly be enough to overcome the weaker gravitational forces binding distant planets to their orbits.

 

[Russell Crawford]

I am aware of the theory that space expands moving entire galaxies but is not strong enough to overcome local gravitational forces. The energy that is strong enough to accelerate the galaxies to exceed the speed of light would certainly be enough to overcome the weaker gravitational forces binding distant planets to their orbits.

To exceed the speed of light would require an infinite force. That would be enough force for anything that I suggest.

 

[CreatedEvolution]

i theorize that something hot and light enough like a giant ash cloud experiment maybe be capable of instantaneous movement possibly pushing away from a galaxy’s gravity so fast it may exceed the speed of light… I believe these are called theoretical electron sails in space travel theories

 

[Gibsense]

I am aware of the theory that space expands moving entire galaxies but is not strong enough to overcome local gravitational forces. The energy that is strong enough to accelerate the galaxies to exceed the speed of light would certainly be enough to overcome the weaker gravitational forces binding distant planets to their orbits.

Mr Russell I have been patient and even did a sketch to explain the situation but you insist on growing yourself and the solar system and continuing with an unsubstantiated idea counter to science at large. But you could be right. And it may be there is life on Mars or the moons or ghosts in the graveyard. But at least try to argue your case with logic if not proof.

Come up with something that gives us a chance to challenge the establishment otherwise
I guess I'm just a grumpy old man.

 

[Gibsense]

To exceed the speed of light would require an infinite force. That would be enough force for anything that I suggest.

People here have been over this a number of times and I am surprised you have missed it.

• Travelling through space at the speed of light, according to Einstein's theory of Relativity, is impossible for anything with mass because it would require infinite energy
• The FTL separation of distant galaxy clusters is space added between them and not travelling through space.
• The universe's expansion, especially the accelerated part, is largely attributed to something we call "dark energy," which is still a big mystery
• You are mixing two different things
• However, when we figure out the cause of the BB we may get some answers

 

[Gibsense]

possibly pushing away from a galaxy’s gravity so fast it may exceed the speed of light…

See the above post. No mass exceeds the speed of light travelling through spacetime.

 

[Russell Crawford]

Mr Russell I have been patient and even did a sketch to explain the situation but you insist on growing yourself and the solar system and continuing with an unsubstantiated idea counter to science at large. But you could be right. And it may be there is life on Mars or the moons or ghosts in the graveyard. But at least try to argue your case with logic if not proof.

Come up with something that gives us a chance to challenge the establishment otherwise
I guess I'm just a grumpy old man.

The claim I am discussing is that if the Universe is expanding at more than the speed of light, the laws of physics state the force is infinite. It is not me that is living in non-physical world. It is those who are pushing a theory that is pretty much impossible.

 

[Russell Crawford]

People here have been over this a number of times and I am surprised you have missed it.

• Travelling through space at the speed of light, according to Einstein's theory of Relativity, is impossible for anything with mass because it would require infinite energy
• The FTL separation of distant galaxy clusters is space added between them and not travelling through space.
• The universe's expansion, especially the accelerated part, is largely attributed to something we call "dark energy," which is still a big mystery
• You are mixing two different things
• However, when we figure out the cause of the BB we may get some answers

I am aware of the amount of energy required to accelerate a mass to the speed of light. In fact that is the point I am making. I am sorry I confused you.
You claim that dark matter exists but have no proof.
I am not mixing two different things, you are confused.
I suggest you read my paper on the origin of the big bang on figshare.

 

[Russell Crawford]

See the above post. No mass exceeds the speed of light travelling through spacetime.

I am not the one that said mass exceeds light speed, I was responding to someone who claimed that the universe is expanding at greater than light speed.

 

[Russell Crawford]

Let's take a look at the point I am making. There are claims that the universe is expanding at a speed greater than light. I suggested that one could visualize a balloon that had a series of dots on the balloon that could represent the universe expanding at the speed of light, as was the claim. I showed that as the balloon expanded the solar system moved apart. The intent was to demonstrate that if there was infinite energy to expand the universe at the speed of light there would be enough energy to tear apart the solar system. And yes my theory is as bad as the theory that would require the universe is expanding at speeds as great as 2.99 x 10^10 meters per second. Both ideas are unlikely, that was the point. I am sorry I was not clear.

 

[CreatedEvolution]

See the above post. No mass exceeds the speed of light travelling through spacetime.

I believe the speed of light does vary. This is an observation theory that light does not escape black holes. If light traveling one is losing trajectory would it not also be losing speed? This theory would involve our theory of photons being massless as wrong. This could be wrong due to no light escaping a bh