Nov 30 2009, 08:11 PM
QUOTE(communist892003 @ Aug 4 2009, 02:47 AM)
What is contained in the space that the universe is expanding into?
In layman term, space is 3 dimensional vacuum.
In this realm of theoretical physics, even scientists have different views and disagree with each others. My POV is the explosion/expansion of the universe marks the creation of space and time.
S = M + ST
S = Singularity, M = matters created (matters in this case are things that are measurable, planets, EM waves, energy), ST = space and time created (M and ST were created together after the explosion and were not following any sequences)
And not
S = M in/within the ST that already exists infinitely
While the matters are continues in moving away from each others, so DOES the SPACES within them are expanding (imagine the spaces are stretched in an expanding universe).
Many of us often assume that universe space is infinite and the planets are moving away and filling up more spaces which is already there (like a boy moving two balls apart in a big room (where spaces already there) which is not quite correct.
Using this hypersphere model by Einstein, there is no such thing as what is contains in the space that the universe is expanding into, as the expansion marks the creation of the space and time itself.
If before the beginning there wasn't time, or space... is that still outside that universes boundary line?
Not quite understand the question actually. Before the explosion, the singularity is "something" scientists called plasma state, non time, non space, non matters and does not observed any laws of physics that we observed today. As such, there was no such thing as universe nor boundary line of universe in this state. It was just "something out there".
Some people called this metaphysics state and claimed that this was the creationism idea as what were potraited in their books.
They think that the stars are moving away towards the universes edge, so does that mean that we can define the centre?
The curved surface of the Earth can be used as an analogy. The Earth's surface is finite in area, but unbounded (no boundary). A traveller will not meet any edge or boundary in whatever direction he goes.
Similarly space could be finite in volume, but without any edge or boundary.
Earth is just a small part of the solar system which is a small part of on of the billions of the galaxy. Do not believe that defining the centre is possible by something that is so small. BTW, what is the significant of identifying the centre anyway.
If so, that is where the big bang stated right?
Yup, this is what big bang theory suggested.
Ahh.. Confusion.
I love it when someone can cut through all the hyperbole and get down to the roots of things. You’ve just asked some questions that honest (hard science) Astrophysicists and Cosmologists dread (because they don’t know the answer), others on the other hand freely respond (while still claiming scientific legitimacy) that they have scientific corroboration to support what they “think” or “speculate” or “believe” to which some would label as pseudo science, pure speculation or blurring the distinction between science and religion. The Corroboration these scientists site is nothing more than hard scientific measurements or proof that their theory is false, which is exactly what could be said of many religious answers to the very same questions.
My answers (some say speculation, I believe to be true) are as follows:
The universe is not expanding, there are other explanations for the scientific measurements claimed to support the expanding universe theory. That said the universe is infinite, people have a hard time dealing with absolutes such as eternity and infinity, it’s human nature,
What’s before the beginning or beyond the universes boundary? There was no single big bang, I suggest that the universe is composed of a continuous series of “mini-big bangs” cyclic, this stems from theified Field Theory in which Gravity is a force or repulsion not of attraction and gravitationally isolated black holes are unstable and will explode in a mini-big bang like event.
The boundary of the universe which if you mean visible universe or beyond is a place where space is distorted because far from matter length compresses to the point that it would be impassible yet without bounds (infinite).
Regarding the stars moving away and being able detect the center from that movement. The speculation is that the expansion of the universe has no center because of the method of expansion (like baking a cake or bread) each point within the cake or loaf expands from each other equally. If there was a center we would not be able to determine the center by measuring what is expanding away from us. Using that method it would appear that we would be the center of the universe because everything is expanding away from us. It’s interesting that that would support the ancients and not so ancients theory that the earth was the center of the universe
.
Again I don’t think there was a big bang as currently proposed, big bang theory only reinforces the point that those considering it don’t understand infinity or eternity, proposing our universe is from a big bang means it cannot exist in eternity, yet here we are.
You are correct that big bang is just one of the many theories of universe formation. We should look into all posibilites.
What you are proposing is called steady state theory. (Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle)
- The universe is infinite in age (no start, no end, always there). However, a universe is "always there" means it was infinitely existed in time. This contradict with second law of thermodynamics, as entropy (wasted energy increased, usable energy decreased) which means the universe already "heat death" long time ago.
To overcome the thermodynamics heat death issue, low entropy matters are postulated to be contineously created within the universe.
- Unfortunately the discovery of cosmic background heat radiation in 1965 has nailed this postulate down into the coffin.
Although Steady State theory has been replaced, it remains an important idea that:
A) It demonstrates the logical possibility of a universe without creation nor creator is possible (always there)
B) An universe which will not heat death after infinite time has passed is also possible
C) All processes, the matters could be attributed to the natural mechanisms
Hypersphere is a better model because:
1) It resolves the issues with hitting with a "wall" at the end of the spaces
2) It complements with General Relativity of space and time curvatures
3) It agrees with big bang discovery (In mid-1965, two pyhsicists in Bell Telephone Company discovered some mysterious radiation (white noise) from space. They revealed that it is a relic of the primeval heat, the last fading glow of the fiery birth of the universe. This discovery provides a solid evidence of a singularity explosion leading to the expension of the universe.
In layman term, space is 3 dimensional vacuum.
In this realm of theoretical physics, even scientists have different views and disagree with each others. My POV is the explosion/expansion of the universe marks the creation of space and time.
S = M + ST
S = Singularity, M = matters created (matters in this case are things that are measurable, planets, EM waves, energy), ST = space and time created (M and ST were created together after the explosion and were not following any sequences)
And not
S = M in/within the ST that already exists infinitely
While the matters are continues in moving away from each others, so DOES the SPACES within them are expanding (imagine the spaces are stretched in an expanding universe).
Many of us often assume that universe space is infinite and the planets are moving away and filling up more spaces which is already there (like a boy moving two balls apart in a big room (where spaces already there) which is not quite correct.
Using this hypersphere model by Einstein, there is no such thing as what is contains in the space that the universe is expanding into, as the expansion marks the creation of the space and time itself.
If before the beginning there wasn't time, or space... is that still outside that universes boundary line?
Not quite understand the question actually. Before the explosion, the singularity is "something" scientists called plasma state, non time, non space, non matters and does not observed any laws of physics that we observed today. As such, there was no such thing as universe nor boundary line of universe in this state. It was just "something out there".
Some people called this metaphysics state and claimed that this was the creationism idea as what were potraited in their books.
They think that the stars are moving away towards the universes edge, so does that mean that we can define the centre?
The curved surface of the Earth can be used as an analogy. The Earth's surface is finite in area, but unbounded (no boundary). A traveller will not meet any edge or boundary in whatever direction he goes.
Similarly space could be finite in volume, but without any edge or boundary.
Earth is just a small part of the solar system which is a small part of on of the billions of the galaxy. Do not believe that defining the centre is possible by something that is so small. BTW, what is the significant of identifying the centre anyway.
If so, that is where the big bang stated right?
Yup, this is what big bang theory suggested.
Ahh.. Confusion.
I love it when someone can cut through all the hyperbole and get down to the roots of things. You’ve just asked some questions that honest (hard science) Astrophysicists and Cosmologists dread (because they don’t know the answer), others on the other hand freely respond (while still claiming scientific legitimacy) that they have scientific corroboration to support what they “think” or “speculate” or “believe” to which some would label as pseudo science, pure speculation or blurring the distinction between science and religion. The Corroboration these scientists site is nothing more than hard scientific measurements or proof that their theory is false, which is exactly what could be said of many religious answers to the very same questions.
My answers (some say speculation, I believe to be true) are as follows:
The universe is not expanding, there are other explanations for the scientific measurements claimed to support the expanding universe theory. That said the universe is infinite, people have a hard time dealing with absolutes such as eternity and infinity, it’s human nature,
What’s before the beginning or beyond the universes boundary? There was no single big bang, I suggest that the universe is composed of a continuous series of “mini-big bangs” cyclic, this stems from theified Field Theory in which Gravity is a force or repulsion not of attraction and gravitationally isolated black holes are unstable and will explode in a mini-big bang like event.
The boundary of the universe which if you mean visible universe or beyond is a place where space is distorted because far from matter length compresses to the point that it would be impassible yet without bounds (infinite).
Regarding the stars moving away and being able detect the center from that movement. The speculation is that the expansion of the universe has no center because of the method of expansion (like baking a cake or bread) each point within the cake or loaf expands from each other equally. If there was a center we would not be able to determine the center by measuring what is expanding away from us. Using that method it would appear that we would be the center of the universe because everything is expanding away from us. It’s interesting that that would support the ancients and not so ancients theory that the earth was the center of the universe
. Again I don’t think there was a big bang as currently proposed, big bang theory only reinforces the point that those considering it don’t understand infinity or eternity, proposing our universe is from a big bang means it cannot exist in eternity, yet here we are.
You are correct that big bang is just one of the many theories of universe formation. We should look into all posibilites.
What you are proposing is called steady state theory. (Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle)
- The universe is infinite in age (no start, no end, always there). However, a universe is "always there" means it was infinitely existed in time. This contradict with second law of thermodynamics, as entropy (wasted energy increased, usable energy decreased) which means the universe already "heat death" long time ago.
To overcome the thermodynamics heat death issue, low entropy matters are postulated to be contineously created within the universe.
- Unfortunately the discovery of cosmic background heat radiation in 1965 has nailed this postulate down into the coffin.
Although Steady State theory has been replaced, it remains an important idea that:
A) It demonstrates the logical possibility of a universe without creation nor creator is possible (always there)
B) An universe which will not heat death after infinite time has passed is also possible
C) All processes, the matters could be attributed to the natural mechanisms
Hypersphere is a better model because:
1) It resolves the issues with hitting with a "wall" at the end of the spaces
2) It complements with General Relativity of space and time curvatures
3) It agrees with big bang discovery (In mid-1965, two pyhsicists in Bell Telephone Company discovered some mysterious radiation (white noise) from space. They revealed that it is a relic of the primeval heat, the last fading glow of the fiery birth of the universe. This discovery provides a solid evidence of a singularity explosion leading to the expension of the universe.
Quote
0.0172sec
0.34
6 queries
GZIP Disabled