The cause of Bigbang ?

[IG2007]

when the Universe was considered to be at rest with its energy concentrated in a large and unique dimension,

I already told you, the Universe cannot be considered to be at rest, as, we have to consider the Universe as one single indivisible energy-mass system and we have nothing else, literally nothing else, relative to the Universe to say whether its at rest or at motion. At least according to the BBT, it is scientifically impossible to deduce whether the Universe is at rest or at motion.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

What proof do you have (A) that BB is expanding and (B) that BB is the universe?

Observational data determines the expansion of the Universe! The only argument that is contrary to this would be the existence of what they call "tired light" that has never been proven and goes against what we know about electromagnetism!

If BB is really expanding for what?

Expanding is the increase in volume, characterized in the frame of the body that is expanding and not in relation to any other existence or "non-existence"!


If he is expanding to nothing, then he is losing energy doing it and there are no signs that he is!

Precisely for this reason The universe cannot lose energy, but exchange the internal ones it has for each other! In nature there is no loss of energy, when you spend energy you are transferring it to the environment or another body in the Physical environment! When considering the Universe as having any existence at every instant, it cannot exchange energy with "non-existence"! So he has to conserve his Total or global energy

If it is expanding in an infinite fluctuation, the BB loses or does not gain energy. There is no infinite, if there were, there would be no expansion!

That is the main reason why I believe that the BB theory is wrong about BB being the universe.
Many other small details, such as the starting point for everything and the reason for a BB, are lacking in classical BB theory!

It is lacking in theory, but not more in this article! and the article is based on the BigBang theory!

Can't have your cake and eat it to.
If the BB is expanding and no real proof of that exists
Local universe and all the universe we see are acting differently so some parts seem to be expanding (distant objects) and some are not expanding (local galaxies moving towards us).
In an expanding universe that isn't possible.
Expanding into nothing isn't expanding simply occupying more of nothing.
Conservation of energy says that if you dilute something energy is lost so the (BB as the all) it is would be loosing energy trying to occupy more of nothing.
No free energy ride.

If it occupies something that already exists (fluctuation) then it can continue to expand without an energy loss since it's only expanding into the universe of fluctuation.

Classic BB theory is interesting but a rethink of what the real universe is is past overdue since most of the ideas of the BB as the universe lead down paths that have serious math problems, energy problem or unresolvable conclusions.

JMO

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

VPE, you stated in post #93:

"
If the BB is truly expanding then into what?
Nothing, endless quantum fluctuation?"

I think we have extablished elsewhere that there is nothing "outside" the Universe for it to expand into. J have a serious question for you, as I would like to understand better these "quantum fluctuations". I have come across an idea, in another context, the idea that entropy may wear different clothes in different settings. When the Universe proceeds to heat death, (if, indeed, you agree with that scenario) interchange between atoms may cease because of the increasing distances apart. But what happens (in your opinon) at a quantum level? Do subatomic particles cease to run around each other? We keep hearing about smaller and smaller entities. Does entropy still have a function, indeed, a driving force under these circumstances?

Cat

I think it's a game of energy.
If our BB is all that exist it's sure to run out of energy trying to fill in nothing at some point.
If our BB is simply expanding into endless fluctuation then it can expand forever or until it runs into another BB area.

Hard to say what the smallest thing in the universe is, it could get smaller forever or have some basic building block.
Quantum leap orbits tend to say that a basic building block exists and void to the next block.
One thing that is very interesting is electrons in quantum orbits never loosing energy.
Sure sounds like a perpetual motion machine.
Always wondered how that was possible then i thought about the void between orbits and got an idea how it was possible.
No energy loss because they travel in void and it has no time or space just an energy level.
Also answers why orbits location of electrons can't be pinned down since they travel out of time and space so they are probably in every orbit location at once.
JMO

 

[Catastrophe]

JMO, "Local universe and all the universe we see are acting differently so some parts seem to be expanding (distant objects) and some are not expanding (local galaxies moving towards us).
In an expanding universe that isn't possible."

Good point. We hear so much about expansion, does it mean than when local galaxies move together, then there is a local contraction? And noone has ever answered my question: If rulers expanded with the Universe then we would never know about the expansion. One old inch would measure one new bigger inch.

Cat

P.S. Have you seen my question in post #100?
"Does entropy still have a function, indeed, a driving force under these circumstances?"

 

[Catastrophe]

I think it's a game of energy.
If our BB is all that exist it's sure to run out of energy trying to fill in nothing at some point.
If our BB is simply expanding into endless fluctuation then it can expand forever or until it runs into another BB area.

Hard to say what the smallest thing in the universe is, it could get smaller forever or have some basic building block.
Quantum leap orbits tend to say that a basic building block exists and void to the next block.
One thing that is very interesting is electrons in quantum orbits never loosing energy.
Sure sounds like a perpetual motion machine.
Always wondered how that was possible then i thought about the void between orbits and got an idea how it was possible.
No energy loss because they travel in void and it has no time or space just an energy level.
Also answers why orbits location of electrons can't be pinned down since they travel out of time and space so they are probably in every orbit location at once.
JMO

Sorry, just seen this reply.

I was thinking exactly the came. At 0 deg K, are electrons obediently supposed to lie down next to their nuclei? And what about EM rdiation? The particles lie down and the waves keep going? Plus, can everything become stationary relative to everything else, so there is no more movement at all relative to anything?

Cat

 

[Sócrates Georges Petrakis]

I mean that entropy depends not only on the distribution of mass in space but also on the amount of space in existence! because this influences the possible states that mass and energy can be or follow! The third dimension has more space, a second dimension has only two axes and the first dimension only one axis! Example: comparing dimension 3 with dimension 1: It depends on the state of the Universe, if it is tending to contract, the mass is more dispersed in dimension 1 (entropy would be large), however, it is small due to lack of space! making the mass is concentrated!

 

[Atlan0001]

Infinite and finite (infinite(s) / infinitesimal(s) / infinities of....) do not need anything else but the other to exist. They do NOT need cause and effect as they co-exist -- as they are naturally correlative. They have no "time" to their existence (regarding 'finite', the "infinity of...."), thus are "timeless" (again regarding 'finite', the "infinity of...."). They will naturally have some ever-continuing horizon dimension or dimensions of their difference. It will always be a timelessly crossing infinity of fluctuations in horizon(s), "quantum field fluctuations," or 'flash sparks' (Planck level hot blue-white holes (Planck level blue-white stars -- here one instant, gone the next, leaving continuing material existence to otherwise ever finitely disappearing 'finite' (to Universe (U) via a corresponding infinity of blackholes / blackhole stars))), so to pertain to all of the above.

Universe (U) (Multiverse) and universe (u) (multiverse) (infinite(s) / infinitesimal(s) / infinities of....) do not need anything else but the other to exist. They, "infinite" and "finite," do not need cause and effect to exist as they co-exist -- as they are naturally correlative....

Only 'finite' has beginning and end (in "infinite").

*edit*

I cannot believe I made such a typo that hurt my post so much as in leaving out the word NOT. Instead of "They do...." it should be "They do NOT...."! I have corrected this grievous error. I am up days and nights assisting a family member after a temporarily disabling surgery and I'm not getting much sleep.

 

[Sócrates Georges Petrakis]

I already told you, the Universe cannot be considered to be at rest, as, we have to consider the Universe as one single indivisible energy-mass system and we have nothing else, literally nothing else, relative to the Universe to say whether its at rest or at motion. At least according to the BBT, it is scientifically impossible to deduce whether the Universe is at rest or at motion.

You got it wrong! I didn't say that the Universe is at rest! I said that to start or end any movement (expansion) you have to be at rest (this is basic in Physics)

 

[Sócrates Georges Petrakis]

You got it wrong! I didn't say that the Universe is at rest! I said that to start or end any movement (expansion) you have to be at rest (this is basic in Physics)

motion is the variation of position as time goes by! saying it’s the space that’s expanding is not important, the effect is the same! there will be variation of position between the components of the universe that highlight the motion!

 

[Sócrates Georges Petrakis]

Sorry, just seen this reply.

I was thinking exactly the came. At 0 deg K, are electrons obediently supposed to lie down next to their nuclei? And what about EM rdiation? The particles lie down and the waves keep going? Plus, can everything become stationary relative to everything else, so there is no more movement at all relative to anything?

The concept of completely static is this! to start or end a motion you must be at rest completely! It doesn't exist: particles, kinetic, atomic or quantum energy! To conserve energy the only and maximum energy that can exist is a potential!
I don't know if you saw the other answers so I'm going to repeat them!

I mean that entropy depends not only on the distribution of mass in space but also on the amount of space in existence! because this influences the possible states that mass and energy can be or follow! The third dimension has more space, a second dimension has only two axes and the first dimension only one axis! Example: comparing dimension 3 with dimension 1: It depends on the state of the Universe, if it is tending to contract, the mass is more dispersed in dimension 1 (entropy would be large), however, it is small due to lack of space! making the mass is concentrated!

As for the other question, the following question may arise: because in the contraction with one of the massive parts being one-dimensional it starts to expand and in the expansion as two particles also one-dimensional start to contract! What's the difference? The difference is that in the maximum contraction the mass that begins to expand occupies the entire unidimensional space (having no unidimensional space to bend it loses its gravitational effect) In the case of expansion instead of occupying the entire unidimensional space as particles are separated by a large unidimensional space that can be curved by them! and not losing its gravitational characteristics, start to get closer, that is, make the universe start a contraction!

 

[IG2007]

third dimension has more space, a second dimension has only two axes and the first dimension only one axis!

Look, one dimension has one axis. Space is a three-dimensional thing and each of them have only one axis.

 

[Sócrates Georges Petrakis]

[QUOTE = "IG2007, postagem: 536636, membro: 1110336"]
Veja, uma dimensão tem um eixo. O espaço é uma coisa tridimensional e cada um deles tem apenas um eixo.
[/CITAR]
As dimensões mencionadas são internas ao nosso universo tridimensional! Se não ler o artigo submetido na íntegra, não conseguirá compreender ou dar a sua opinião de acordo com o contexto! Se você está interessado no assunto, continue lendo! ler não é complicado e é rápido!

 

[Sócrates Georges Petrakis]

Look, one dimension has one axis. Space is a three-dimensional thing and each of them have only one axis.

The dimensions mentioned are internal to our three-dimensional universe! If you do not read the article submitted in full, you will not be able to understand or give your opinion according to the context! If you are interested in the subject, read on! reading is not complicated and is fast!

 

[IG2007]

The dimensions mentioned are internal to our three-dimensional universe! If you do not read the article submitted in full, you will not be able to understand or give your opinion according to the context! If you are interested in the subject, read on! reading is not complicated and is fast!

You are breaking a fundamental law of Physics, if the third dimension has three axes, the second dimension has two axes, and the first dimension has one axis, then we have five axes. And that does not make any sense.

 

[Sócrates Georges Petrakis]

You are breaking a fundamental law of Physics, if the third dimension has three axes, the second dimension has two axes, and the first dimension has one axis, then we have five axes. And that does not make any sense.

I didn't understand your point of view! The universe continues to have a maximum of three spatial dimensions, not five!

 

[IG2007]

I didn't understand your point of view! The universe continues to have a maximum of three spatial dimensions, not five!

You are saying that the third dimension has three axes.

 

[Sócrates Georges Petrakis]

You are saying that the third dimension has three axes.

Yes, length, width and height!

 

[Catastrophe]

As dimensões mencionadas são internas ao nosso universo tridimensional! Se não ler o artigo submetido na íntegra, não conseguirá compreender ou dar a sua opinião de acordo com o contexto! Se você está interessado no assunto, continue lendo! ler não é complicado e é rápido!

Google Translates as::
The dimensions mentioned are internal to our three-dimensional universe! If you do not read the article submitted in full, you will not be able to understand or give your opinion according to the context! If you are interested in the subject, keep reading! reading is not complicated and it is fast!

 

[Atlan0001]

Rereading my post here #48 I started off with what I've since realized to have been a mistake. This is a simple admission of that mistake. IG2007 did start off his post, which I was replying to, correctly in my own view, now. My post #107 well enough explains my change in realization. I was going to delete it or edit it but decided to leave it as is and simply admit the mistake. The "difference" between simultaneous existence just is not within the scope of "cause and effect."

 

[Catastrophe]

"Rereading my post here #48 I started off with what I've since realized to have been a mistake. This is a simple admission of that mistake."

May I respectfully advise you that those who make mistakes in long and/or sequential posts are likely to lose readers willing to plough through same. A mistake (and we all make some) in a short non-sequential post(s) is more likely to be forgiven. Then there are the perceived mistakes of course - those you may not recognise.

Having said that, may I commend you on your honest recognition of this mistake, and your willingness to apologise for it and leave it on view. I have given a deserved 'Like'.

Cat

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Sorry, just seen this reply.

I was thinking exactly the came. At 0 deg K, are electrons obediently supposed to lie down next to their nuclei? And what about EM rdiation? The particles lie down and the waves keep going? Plus, can everything become stationary relative to everything else, so there is no more movement at all relative to anything?

Cat

For sure at some pint if our BB is everything it will run out of energy.
Filling nothing in with something is taking energy and although the BB has lots of energy it's not infinite.
Waves are going to need a medium to flow in so when the energy runs low to keep expanding even waves will stop and mutual gravity takes over.
That scenario could be a staggering number of years down the road.

My feeling is that we simply run into a neighbor/neighbors and that stops expansion and self gravity takes over to contract our BB.
Our BB IMO is expanding faster towards external gravity sources (other BB areas in all possible formats from expanding to contracting to giant Black hole)
Gives us a good reason for BB's in the first place with pushy neighbors.

 

[Catastrophe]

This is a question of Semantics anf Philosophy. It seems to come down to the question:
Was there only one Big Bang, or are such occurrrences a normal part of a cyclic Universe, or even of the one Universe but having multiple branches. My personal view is that the single occurrence can be ruled out as it is just due to our anthrocentric lack of understanding. A jam tart must have a beginning, so therefore the Universe must have one sort of attitude.

When it comes to other choices, "you pays your money and you takes your pick". I do not believe that science has any data or ability to organise experiments in this area.

Cat

 

[Sócrates Georges Petrakis]

This is a question of Semantics anf Philosophy. It seems to come down to the question:
Was there only one Big Bang, or are such occurrrences a normal part of a cyclic Universe, or even of the one Universe but having multiple branches. My personal view is that the single occurrence can be ruled out as it is just due to our anthrocentric lack of understanding. A jam tart must have a beginning, so therefore the Universe must have one sort of attitude.

When it comes to other choices, "you pays your money and you takes your pick". I do not believe that science has any data or ability to organise experiments in this area.

Cat

Good Morning! Friend! After reviewing that article I had shown you several times, I ended up writing another article! This one is much more interesting and was published in researchs Square! If you are interested in reading the address, it is Link:
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-708548/v1

 

[Catastrophe]

H

It’s easy to think of a balloon expanding as an analog, but a balloon has a center. If you ask an ant crawling on the expanding balloon‘s surface, however, especially a balloon that is so large no curvature is noticeable, the ant will, with lots of crawling, determine there is no center. All points on the surface are separating uniformly from all other surface points.

GR is the 3D version of the 2D balloon.

iPad

That is exactly what I have been saying about my flatlander. He sees no centre to the surface of the 'balloon' but ( n + 1) sees the centre of the sphere (balloon) which is not accessibe to the FL (ant).

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Good Morning! Friend! After reviewing that article I had shown you several times, I ended up writing another article! This one is much more interesting and was published in researchs Square! If you are interested in reading the address, it is Link:
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-708548/v1

I just read the abstract. To me 1-D is a point. 2-D is a surface. What is 1-D in your theory?

Cat