The edge and the center & the Big Bang vs Eternity

[ehcuob]

Hubble deep space clearly shows dense galaxies going on forever, a map of the Universe is nothing but sporadic and randum clumps, no distinc symitrical bubble like expansion with a center or void. It seems like the same old consept, the earth is flat and you will fall off the edge, but when or where will you land?<br />If the univers is infinite what is the signal? Just what I think, infinite cosmic radiation from every direction forever is exactly what you see, not a burst now and then reflected! I know the subject is complex but, Blam out of nothing here comes somthing is nonsense! Its the same as TIME when do you start the CLOCK!

 

[why06]

It's about time that a thread came where I got to post my true feelings.<br /><br />This is for all the people who believe that the universe has no center yet fail to realize that it does have an origin:<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Though the Universe has no center it does have a geometric one!<font color="white"><br />Meaning that if one was to play connect-the-dots with every particle in the universe they would get a shape...And that shape would have a center...This is the center of our universe...</font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[Saiph]

Hubble deep space images do indeed show galaxies going on for quite a ways. However, their various characteristics do not indicate that they go on forever, unchanging.<br /><br />The further you go, the lower the metal content of galaxies, meaning there have been less star development (fewer stellar "generations" of stars) that are required to enrich galaxies and newborn stars with metals heavier than helium. They also more chaotic organization, more collisions, and far more powerful and active galactic nuclei.<br /><br />All of these suggest younger galaxies. As the more distant the galaxies are, they are all younger, and we see no variation in the stages, that implies that they were all formed at a similar time.<br /><br />If the universe was eternal, we should see a uniform mixture of galaxies in all stages of development as far as we look.<br /><br /><br />why06: I can show you a geometry where there is no center, several actually.<br /><br />Take an infinite plane...where is the center? Any one you pick is arbitrary.<br /><br />Take the surface of a sphere, where is the center? any one you pick is arbitrary.<br /><br />In one, the space is infiinite and unbounded (the plane), in another, the space is infinite (you never hit an edge) but bounded, as you begin to loop.<br /><br />Either situation is a possible solution to the GR equations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[ambidexter]

If we posit that space is curved, then the center of the universe becomes meaningless. As Saiph explained, the surface of a sphere has no center.

 

[why06]

I HATE these surface of asphere anologies.....They are all one-dimensional<br /><br />Plus I have my on anology...take an baloon...now blow it up where is the center?<br />Back intime to the point that all the points on the baloon meet.<br /><br />In our universe they say there is a set limit of matter..therefore that matter must have ageometric center which can exist in 4 dimension. <br /><br />And please dont tell me how the surface represents how our universe is one-dimensional with 3-d characteristics. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[paintwoik]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Hubble deep space images do indeed show galaxies going on for quite a ways. However, their various characteristics do not indicate that they go on forever, unchanging. <br /><br />The further you go, the lower the metal content of galaxies, meaning there have been less star development (fewer stellar "generations" of stars) that are required to enrich galaxies and newborn stars with metals heavier than helium. They also more chaotic organization, more collisions, and far more powerful and active galactic nuclei. <br /><br />All of these suggest younger galaxies. As the more distant the galaxies are, they are all younger, and we see no variation in the stages, that implies that they were all formed at a similar time. <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> I hear the metal content of these far away galaxies is much higher than expected, in so that they would be much older than expected, which could actually mean that they are actually younger than our galaxy for instance, which could also be much much older than expected. Why the assumtion that these galaxies are the same age? Big Bang? Who says the Big Bang is correct. It's also been said by many, that for clumps of galaxies to form as they have, one would need more time than the current accepted age of the universe to do so, as in much more time. <br /><br />Something tells me you're not going to get what I'm getting at, but there it is anyway.<br /><br />

 

[enigma10]

The common misconception is the big bang was uniformal. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Plus I have my on anology...take an baloon...now blow it up where is the center? <br />Back intime to the point that all the points on the baloon meet. </font><br /><br />You're right. To properly think of the balloon analogy, we have to think of the so called center of the balloon as the time component in space-time, and not as a spacial dimension!<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

Indeed!<br /><br />This is why, using the big-bang model, the universe has no centre of origin. Or more precisely, the centre of origin is the big-bang itself.<br /><br />Also, we see ourselves as the centre of our observable universe, but according to the theory the same would apply wherever you were in the universe. So where is the actual centre then?<br /><br />why06: I know how you feel about the 1 and 2 dimensional models, but your statement below about the universe having a geometric centre isn't as simple as it might seem.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Meaning that if one was to play connect-the-dots with every particle in the universe they would get a shape...And that shape would have a center...This is the center of our universe... </font><br /><br />But <i> when </i> are you connecting these dots, and from which viewpoint? Wherever you look in the universe, the information is out of date. The further you look, the more out of date the information is. So if you want to know where everything is <i> now </i> you cannot accurately confirm where everything will have gone!<br /><br />Without the ability to view the universe as a whole from the outside, and to make all the photons move at infinite speed, you cannot know the shape of the universe and therefore cannot find a geometric centre. Furthermore, as the shape changes so does the geometric centre, thus making the geometric centre a purely arbitrary point.<br /><br />And of course a geometric centre is a purely 3 dimensional construct. We need to think in more dimensions than that to understand the nature of the universe. This is where the mathematicians have the advantage, and where us simple 3 dimensional thinkers always need 1 or 2 dimensional models to make sense of things! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[Saiph]

well, it's not a one dimensional analogy, it's 2d, with a 3rd dimension "hyperspace". And I use that, because I get headaches when I think about 3 dimensional objects bent into a spherical topology.<br /><br />And I agree, it doesn't fully expound upon the issues, and using the 3rd dimension as the time axis is something I've done before.<br /><br />The problem here is your use of "geometric". Geometric refers to the 3 spatial axis that are mutually perpendicular. The "center" that you illustrate by using the 3rd dimension in the balloon analogy as time, is more of a temporal, or space-time center which I'll agree does exist (as that's the fundamental conclusion of the big bang theory <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[doubletruncation]

Saiph: Very nice and quick summary! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[why06]

You and speedfreak were both correct. I guess suggesting a physical center would limit the size of the universe.<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">Excuse me for mentioning...but if I wasn't certain I would think you had a couple fans following you <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[why06]

Effectively though space-time should form a living time-line as the space-time farthest out from the Big Bang should expand more than the time within the center which should be farther back in time respectively. Purely on a huntch, I would guess that heading to our universal point of origin would put you further and further back in time. Because the outside space would have moved faster than the interior space because it is spread out more? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

If you want to think of the big-bang as if it came from a singularity, a point of zero volume and infinite density (note I did not say infinite mass!), then surely if everything came from a point of zero volume, everything is the point of origin.<br /><br />If you want to think of the expanding universe as a simple sphere of expanding space, with the oldest stuff at the edges, then surely the point of origin, the <i> earliest </i> place, is all around the very edge!<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[why06]

ummm....Im stumped. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[why06]

Wait I got it....Well if the same thing were to happento the singulaity potentially inside a black hole and gravity was to shut of teporarally. would all the partiicles in that came spewing out of the hole be the point of origin?<br /><br />Yes, but they would not all come out at the same time so in other words<br />The time will stil be most compacted at center.<br /><br />Once it expands there is no sigularity. This is ahard perspective to take since we may be inside a siguarity ourselves. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

My examples are all abstractions. I do this on purpose when we are speculating like this. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Lets try another angle.<br /><br />Imagine void. Nothingness. No space, no time. Then a singularity appears. All of the potential of the universe is <i> inside </i> this singularity. The singularity inflates into the super heated quark-gluon plasma of the early universe. At this time, all of the universe is within that inflated space. There is only void outside that space. Space-time only came into existance within that space, and then the expansion of space-time began, dragging the remains of the plasma with it.<br /><br />Within that expansion, every place is expanding away from every other place.<br /><br />The guark-gluon plasma has cooled and isn't distributed evenly, due to quantum fluctuations whilst it was forming. As space expands, this primordial matter expands with it, and the "lumpiness" of this matter leads to concentrations of mass as gravity starts pulling the lumps together. Eventually the first generations of stars form from these concentrations of matter.<br /><br />These stars are drawn apart by the expansion of space-time, and are swirling around within space-time due to gravity. But everywhere is still expanding away from everywhere else.<br /><br />So, except in terms of time, is there a point of origin for all this? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[infidel]

Hey, I am new to this forum, I was hoping to find some answers to some basic big bang theories. I have looked around and could not find a specific answer. <br /> Here it is:<br /><br /> 1. I heard that space is a tangible thing. Someone on this forum used a loaf of bread with rasins in it as an analogy to the universe expanding. The space itself pushing the mass of the universe. This sounds a bit hard to believe. Please point me in the right direction to understand this.<br /><br />

 

[infidel]

Hey, I am new to this forum, I was hoping to find some answers to some basic big bang theories. I have looked around and could not find a specific answer. <br /> Here it is :<br /><br /> 1. I heard that space is a tangible thing. Someone on this forum used a loaf of bread with rasins in it as an analogy to the universe expanding. The space itself pushing the mass of the universe. This sounds a bit hard to believe. Please point me in the right direction to understand this.<br /><br />

 

[why06]

<font color="yellow">Well that's what were talking about right now... so just listen to whats being said...you'll get it.<font color="white"><br /><br />Welcome <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />What your talking about is expansion. In this concept we believe the universe is expanding. This expansion serves as an answer for the red-shift of far-off galaxies. Red-shift occurs when things are moving away. It's like the Doppler effect for light. The light spread out because the galaxies seem to be moving away. <br /><br />Now y would galaxies move away from us when Gravity attracts us <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br />Perhaps it is because Space time is expanding between the galaxies outside of gravities range...<br /><br />This is the Expansion Theory. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[why06]

A Good Question:<br /><br />Can a singularity even exist outside our universe??? <br /><br /><br />Plus speedfreak, even if you had the mathematics to trace back the origin. You would need a common point of reference. to trace it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

Can a singularity even exist outside our universe?<br /><br />Well if we assume the existence of other universes then it seems to me they can. Or if we assume a singularity can start a universe, maybe a singularity somewhere else can start another one.<br /><br />As to the common point of reference, this is why I earlier asked "But when are you connecting these dots, and from which viewpoint?" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[why06]

what Im saying is a singularity is known to exist in demensions of space and time, but does it exist when when there are non of those demensions....<font color="yellow">and what does this have to do with my connect the dots idea. There is still a geometric center no matter what way you look at it if a finite amout of matter exist... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

Can I not comment on two different points in one post without people thinking they have anything to do with each other? Maybe I need to requote everything I am replying to. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I understand what you are saying about a singularity. I thought I confirmed that when I asked if we can assume a singularity can start our universe. i.e. a singularity can appear where there is no universe, and create one.<br /><br />On another <i> unrelated </i> point, you mentioned that you need a common point of reference in order to find a centre. In my earlier post, I commented on your joining the dots by asking <b> when </b> are you doing this and what is your <b> viewpoint </b>.<br /><br />By when, I mean when are you taking the measurements to establish your universal centre? When the light left the dots, or when it reached your viewpoint? And <i> where </i> is your viewpoint?<br /><br />It all relates, as you say, to common points of reference. What would these be? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[why06]

Oh...<br />What Im trying to say is I need a point to view the rest of the universe. That is still. Or not moving.....<br />VERY hard to do with expanding space and gravity moving everything about. <br /><br />In order to have an accurate reference point I would need to be <b> Completely Still. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> </b> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>