The What Was, Before The Big Bang

[Turtle]

It is nothing of the sort's, reality is what is real and the truth, example- an object falls to the ground.  this is good solid science and not Theory.   When reading something if something stands out has absurd, I will question that something.  Mostly what I read of science things pop out as absurd and also impossible. 

Sometimes the obvious is the answer, example- what was before the big bang? well we know that before the big bang there must of been space, because without space, the big bang would have no space to happen in.

It is exactly the thing of the sort. Often times science shows that what appears as obvious is not the answer. You keep talking about not seeing/observing space so then you reason space is not real. I tried to show your error of reasoning with my analogy to air, which we can not see/observe directly but can scientifically measure. With air we can see its effects when wind blows and with space we can see its effects when galaxies separate.

 

In any case, science and per se scientists don't give a whit what you think and your continuing to make assertions without evidence is contrary to the forum rules.

 

Hypography Rules

•Back up your claims by using links or references: that’s where our name Hypography comes from.

•Being calm, reasoned and factual is the best way to refute someone's claims. Point out specifically where you think they went wrong, and what kind of proof you base your own opinion on.

•Respect the opinions of others, especially when you ask for opinions or espouse personal opinions yourself. As a corollary, we respect people’s right to make fools of themselves in public and when people express unsupported or controversial opinions they should not be surprised when they are refuted.

•Do not assume your points are “obvious.” They many times are not, and simply insisting they are is not a valid argument.

User Bans: Users may be banned for infringing the rules above, or for behavior that is inconsistent with our goals on this forum, including but not limited to:••Posting incoherently

•Posting repeatedly debunked theories or hoaxes

•Annoying our members

•Trolling or generally being rude without contributing positively

Edited September 2, 2015 by Turtle

[xyz]

It is exactly the thing of the sort. Often times science shows that what appears as obvious is not the answer. You keep talking about not seeing/observing space so then you reason space is not real. I tried to show your error of reasoning with my analogy to air, which we can not see/observe directly but can scientifically measure. With air we can see its effects when wind blows and with space we can see its effects when galaxies separate.

 

In any case, science and per se scientists don't give a whit what you think and your continuing to make assertions without evidence is contrary to the forum rules.

 

Hypography Rules

I am discussing assertions, that is different to making assertions, are you really trying to state that this forum does not allow a person their own opinions in a discussion? Are you trying to enforce a discipline by presenting forum rules in the aid of getting another person banned?

 

There is no justification in your rantings , I am talking in a topic called what was before the big bang, science says nothing, my opinion is there must of been space, your argument is to try and get the opp banned, I seem to miss the point of why you are trying to flame this thread and make a new member unwelcome and what your flaming has to do with the topic?

 

 

P.s air has physical presence , space does not. 

 

 

and likewise, In any case, science and per se scientists don't give a whit what you think and your continuing to make assertions without evidence is contrary to the forum rules, I ask you to provide evidence that you can observe space itself?

 

 

I offer evidence that you can not observe space itself by evidence of observation means, We can clearly see , that we see through space and can not observe space, this is an axiom everyone will agree with.  Axiom 2, we can not observe space moving.

Edited September 2, 2015 by xyz

[Turtle]

I am discussing assertions, that is different to making assertions,

You are making assertions, those assertions have been rebutted with evidence, and you continue making the same assertions.

 

are you really trying to state that this forum does not allow a person their own opinions in a discussion? Are you trying to enforce a discipline by presenting forum rules in the aid of getting another person banned?

I stated the rules. Either you understand them or you don't. If I feel you are violating them then I -as anyone can- will report your posts. What if any staff action follows is up to the staff. But yes, I will try to have you disciplined if I see fit.

 

There is no justification in your rantings , I am talking in a topic called what was before the big bang, science says nothing, my opinion is there must of been space, your argument is to try and get the opp banned, I seem to miss the point of why you are trying to flame this thread and make a new member unwelcome and what your flaming has to do with the topic?

If you think I'm violating the rules then report me.

 

The rest of your post is simply a repeat of your rebutted misconceptions and I see no point in rebutting them yet again.

[Pmb]

xyz - There is a lot that goes into observations than just the fact that there is a cosmological redshift. What's important is the exact nature of the redshift as a function of the distance between galaxies. That's where Hubble's law comes in. If you really want to get into it then read this page:

 

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l10_p4.html

[Pmb]

xyz - All galaxies moving away from each other is not space expanding is it now, is science trying to say that they observe bigger gaps between masses?

 

I'll say this again; it's not that its irrational to say that space is expanding. The problem lies in your ignorance of general relativity and cosmology. E.g. you don't know what it means for space to expand. You keep looking for something physical like a rubber sheet to stretch. That's the error in your reasoning. Frankly its irritating discussing this with you since you make claims that all of we physicists are wrong and wrong in the exact same way and you make that assertion with no understanding of the theories from which they came.

 

You keep making the mistake that space does not have a physical presence based on the fact that there is nothing there for you to interact with. That's wrong. We can interact with empty space by placing things in the space and then take measurements on the geometry of the arrangements of the objects in that space. For example; if you wanted to determine whether space was curved or not then first you have to know what that means. The example I'll use is the sphere since its easy to imagine. If you were a 2D being living on the surface of a 3D sphere then nothing outside the surface exists to you. Now have two 2D beings stand next to each other facing in the same direction. The each starts to side step for a very a certain distance. How far depends on the radius of the 3-sphere. E.g. If the radius of the 3-sphere is 1 unit then the person side stepping would have to side step a total distance of pi/2 ~ 1.5 units. Now that 2D being walks forward the same distance. The other 2D being would only move forward a distance of 1.5 units. In flat space these two beings would never meet. If the geometry is sphere-like then they meet. This is because the geometry of the two spaces are different. Walking those distances is a way of taking physical measurements of the space. A similar experiment would have two 2D beings standing next to each other and each of them start off walking in a straight line. In a general curved surface their paths will intersect, i.e. the surfaces would not be Euclidean anymore.

 

In the example of the expanding universe there will be more and more space being created, i.e. the volume of the universe keeps increasing.

 

Regarding redshift: I hope you didn't think that I gave that as some sort of "proof" that the universe is expanding. I gave it as evidence of that fact. Evidence and proof are not the same thing. Note also that there's no place for proof in physics. See Alan Guth explain why at:

http://www.newenglandphysics.org/common_misconceptions/DSC_0002.MOV

 

So in short; You can’t experimentally tell the difference between an expanding universe with galaxies moving as it expands or a universe in which galaxies move apart . See
Am. J. Phys. 75, 151 (2007); http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2360990
Am. J. Phys. 77, 59 (2009); http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2987790

for some discussion of the issues. I think that this basically a semantic and/or reference frame problem, and that the “space is expanding” perspective has some pedagogical and conceptual advantages. But as far as I know, one cannot distinguish the perspectives experimentally. I.e. merely seeing redshift won't tell you that space is expanding. You need a model of the universe to work with and a theory to describe it. Would you like to read those articles?

 

The reason that it's say that the universe is expanding is that the theory says so and the theory is correct in that it's been tested thoroughly.

[A-wal]

xyz - I never avoided the explanation. I simply choose not to repeat myself. I already described what it means for space to expand, i.e. all galaxies moving away from each other. There's more to it than that of course but I'm unable to cut and paste URLs making it very difficult for me to reference pages.

Can't you describe in your own works what it means for space to expand and how this differs from objects simply moving away from each other? No you can't!

 

I said that we know that space is expanding because we observe all galaxies moving away from each other and there are galaxies whose cosmological redshift is so high that it can only mean that the galaxy is moving away from us at speeds greater than the speed of light. That can only happen if its space itself that is expanding. There are observations which imply all if this.

Utter BS! The red shift is so high that the galaxies must be moving away from each other faster than light, but they can't be so it's the space that's expanding. It's the same thing! When objects move away from each other the space between them increases/expands. When the space between objects increases/expands those objects move away from each other.

 

The red shift means that recession isn't the only cause of red-shift, obviously! How can you can that it "can only happen if its space itself that is expanding"? It's, not its. It's completely unscientific to claim that known possible cause is the only possible cause of anything simply because it's the only known cause. It's utterly ridiculous to claim that a cause that makes no sense whatsoever is the only possible cause.

 

Observation is nothing without theory. We have theory from general relativity and a great deal of experimental data which implies that GR is correct.

And a great deal that that implies that it isn't, that always gets brushed under the carpet.

 

GR when applied to the universe gives us a metric which implies that its space itself that is expanding.

And how does this magical metric distinguish between "space itself" expanding (a nice slice of word salad without absolutely no physical meaning what so ever) and galaxies simply moving away from each other?

 

I'll tell you why. It's because of the initial assumption that GR's description is an acurate one. In other words you're trying to use the model as evidence of its own validity. Totally circular reasoning.

 

 

Do you still think the time dilation and length contraction happen at different rates? :)

[NotBrad]

Hello A-wal, I cannot claim to be sure that I understand what was meant by xyz, but I personally think what he is describing could be an increase in circumference of the atom. Considering how much energy an atomic bomb releases upon splitting the atom, would it be so far a stretch to think that radioactive decay is not the only form of decay experienced by atoms? Maybe this expansion of space itself is only perceivable due to the fact that after a certain distance a light source diminishes to a single point of light, regardless of how high the resolution of the observation device. So considering this, and the fact that this phenomenon of light actually exists could potentially give us an explanation of what xyz is saying. Hell, just for fun I'll throw in a diagram!

Sorry about the quality, did it in like 5 minutes.

 

What I mean by light density is that even though the objects still have the same proportional size relative to an atom, due to the expansion of the systems between us and it, there appears to be a great deal of expansion. But if the atoms were smaller and were to generate light 13 billion years ago, the distance between the particles in the light would not be affected by the expansion of an atom due to the fact that they as far as I know, are independent particles of radiation. This means that though they would seem to be smaller and therefore have experienced less expansion, they could potentially have expanded the exact same amount as all other atoms in the universe while remaining stationary. This if observed objectively would lead a scientist who is thinking "by the book" to assume that the observed phenomenon is actually an increase in the distance between atoms, rather than the atoms themselves expanding independently from the light we are using to observe them.

 

Remember that this is just a theory, and completely impossible to prove in fact, due to the fact that we cannot measure expansion if our tools expand at the same rate.

 

Edit, if one of you guys is an actual physicist and uses it to get a Nobel Prize, I'm suing. 

Edited November 11, 2015 by NotBrad

[A-wal]

How would expanding atoms create the impression of objects moving away from each other? Contracting atoms would, but then distance wouldn't be a factor. The idea of an expanding universe is based primarily on observed redshift. The further away a galaxy is, the more redshifted it is. This has been taken to mean the the same between objects is expanding (more space = faster expansion = higher redshift). Trouble is this is expressly forbidden by the special theory of relativity that states that the space between objects can never change fast enough for any two objects to being moving at or over the speed of light relative to each other. It's not normally worded like that but it should be because two objects can move faster than the speed of light relative to each other. The Earth's spin means that distant stars are moving much faster than the speed of light relative to us but the distance between us and them isn't changing so the rule isn't broken.

You should probably call something like that an idea instead of a theory. The word theory has a completely different context in the scientific world than it does in the real world (theory > hypothesis > idea. Those are greater thans, not arrows. You'd need to reverse it for that.) and some of the people here seem to like ignoring what was the obvious the intended meaning of the poster. I think they're under the impression that it somehow makes them look smart rather than pedantic.

[xyz]

I will to explain in diagram form 

 

diagram 1

 

inverse square Law and the weakening of light intensity at a distance.

 

 

any questions?

 

Link/diagram 2

 

vanishing points

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He20Q_DGbkY

 

 

link'diagram 4

atoms

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOoVrz0Qqho

 

link 5

expansion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KJKQOFnoac

 

 

Watch them in full screen please

 

 

Things that move away from an initial reference frame relatively decrease in size to the observer to a point boundary where the object will vanish from sight . This is also true of a black body, a flash light walked backwards will eventually relatively to the observer vanish.  Objects we see moving away from the initial reference frame and localised light source, will stretch the force of the incident light that is chasing the moving away object reducing radiation pressure.     Rainbows also have red, visually observed but no near speed of light, angular displacement stretching the pressure and the raindrop projecting the image.   The expansion of galaxies we observe is not an expansion of space itself, it is objects moving through space into more space away from each other.   The balloon analogy is bad way to express an expansion, putting the convertual thought of a space edge in comparison to a flat earth. 

Edited November 11, 2015 by xyz

[A-wal]

The balloon analogy doesn't have edges. The curved two dimensional surface of the balloon represents three dimensional space. Look at it like this. If you move in a 'straight' line in any direction of space you eventually end up back at your starting point and you see that you have in fact traveled in a circle, like going round the Earth. The expansion of the balloon/universe means that the circle gets bigger over time.

That's not what's wrong with the big bang. What's wrong with it is that there are four dimensions that have a complete equivalence. If you travel far enough in one direction of time you eventually end up back where you started. The universe isn't expanding in four dimensions because that makes now sense. One of the four dimensions is time and expansion is a change in size over time, so in four dimensions it has to be static.

It's not 'bouncing' (continually expanding and then contracting, and then expanding, etc), that would make it ...()()()()()..., that shape. It's a four dimensional sphere. Looking over a curved surface is imo what causes objects to appear redshifted. The more space between the observer and the observed object, the more curvature shifts the light. More space = more curvature = higher redshift. That doesn't violate special relativity.

[xyz]

The balloon analogy doesn't have edges. The curved two dimensional surface of the balloon represents three dimensional space. Look at it like this. If you move in a 'straight' line in any direction of space you eventually end up back at your starting point and you see that you have in fact traveled in a circle, like going round the Earth. The expansion of the balloon/universe means that the circle gets bigger over time.

 

That's not what's wrong with the big bang. What's wrong with it is that there are four dimensions that have a complete equivalence. If you travel far enough in one direction of time you eventually end up back where you started. The universe isn't expanding in four dimensions because that makes now sense. One of the four dimensions is time and expansion is a change in size over time, so in four dimensions it has to be static.

 

It's not 'bouncing' (continually expanding and then contracting, and then expanding, etc), that would make it ...()()()()()..., that shape. It's a four dimensional sphere. Looking over a curved surface is imo what causes objects to appear redshifted. The more space between the observer and the observed object, the more curvature shifts the light. More space = more curvature = higher redshift. That doesn't violate special relativity.

If you travel in a linear velocity expanding the distance between you and your starting point, you do not end up back where you started from unless you change velocity.   Space neither as dimensions, these are virtual representation of ''convertual'' thought, Minowskis space time is virtual . 

[A-wal]

What does velocity have to do with it? I think you mean unless you change direction?

 

If there's a finite amount of space and the universe is closed you do end up back where you started just like going around the Earth, except there's an extra spatial dimension.

 

What do you mean space neither as dimensions? Space doesn't have dimensions? Yes it does. It has three.

 

What do you mean by virtual. A model of space-time is either an accurate representation of reality or it isn't.

 

What I really don't get is how the big bang hypothesis can lead to anything other than a closed, spatially finite universe. How can something start off as finite and at some point after a finite amount of time become infinite? That makes no sense!

[xyz]

What does velocity have to do with it? I think you mean unless you change direction?

 

If there's a finite amount of space and the universe is closed you do end up back where you started just like going around the Earth, except there's an extra spatial dimension.

 

What do you mean space neither as dimensions? Space doesn't have dimensions? Yes it does. It has three.

 

What do you mean by virtual. A model of space-time is either an accurate representation of reality or it isn't.

 

What I really don't get is how the big bang hypothesis can lead to anything other than a closed, spatially finite universe. How can something start off as finite and at some point after a finite amount of time become infinite? That makes no sense!

An object moving has to be travelling a speed or an acceleration so I put velocity for motion (p) and direction.

Space is not a closed system, if we travelled to the ''edge'' of space we  will not fall off like a flat earth or bump into a wall or just dissolve into nothing. The black background of space is a boundary of limitation, in another words things are relative to small to see by vanishing points and any light will be so red shifted it will look ''darkness''.  There is a certainty you can stack Chinese dolls for infinite number of time meaning an infinite space. It is simple logic of only two choices, a space within a space or a space with a rock like a cave, but the logic leads to one answer of infinite, infinite space or inside an infinite rock, but outside of the rock must be space, so it must be infinite space. 

 

Space only has dimensions your mind,  matter has dimensions . space is shapeless, any dimension can fit in space. 

 

space-time is not accurate. 

 

The big bang happened in space. that is how. 

[A-wal]

You can't travel to the edge of space. I already explained that. It doesn't have an edge, whether is finite or not.

 

You can keep on going and never reach an edge in a finite universe because it's a closed but unbounded system.

 

It is exactly like moving around the surface of the Earth. The Earth's surface doesn't have any edges but it's finite.

 

Something has to be causing the redshift. It means that the light waves are being stretched somehow. It's not simply dimming.

 

You can't stack Chinese dolls forever if the universe is finite so why is it a certainty that you can stack them forever?

 

Mass and energy exist within the four dimensions. It doesn't mean that because they have to be housed in space there must be an infinite amount of space.

 

Spacetime is the accurate description of the location of any given object or event. It's a coordinate system and you need all four dimensions in order to accurately locate somethings position.

 

No space doesn't only have dimension in my mind. It has three dimensions. Up/down, left/right, forward/back. That's what space means.

 

The big bang didn't happen in space. It describes a closed system as I've described expanding from a single point. It's not about the universe expanding into space that's already there, it's an expansion of the universe as a whole, including space.

 

Your stuck on space being finite. Just imagine yourself in the centre of a sphere and as you move away from any object in the sphere you move an equal distance towards it in the opposite direction and you always remain in the centre of the sphere. No matter how far you go you never reach/approach an edge, just like on the surface of the Earth. That's a closed and unbounded system.

[xyz]

You can't travel to the edge of space. I already explained that. It doesn't have an edge, whether is finite or not.

 

You can keep on going and never reach an edge in a finite universe because it's a closed but unbounded system.

 

It is exactly like moving around the surface of the Earth. The Earth's surface doesn't have any edges but it's finite.

 

Something has to be causing the redshift. It means that the light waves are being stretched somehow. It's not simply dimming.

 

You can't stack Chinese dolls forever if the universe is finite so why is it a certainty that you can stack them forever?

 

Mass and energy exist within the four dimensions. It doesn't mean that because they have to be housed in space there must be an infinite amount of space.

 

Spacetime is the accurate description of the location of any given object or event. It's a coordinate system and you need all four dimensions in order to accurately locate somethings position.

 

No space doesn't only have dimension in my mind. It has three dimensions. Up/down, left/right, forward/back. That's what space means.

 

The big bang didn't happen in space. It describes a closed system as I've described expanding from a single point. It's not about the universe expanding into space that's already there, it's an expansion of the universe as a whole, including space.

 

Your stuck on space being finite. Just imagine yourself in the centre of a sphere and as you move away from any object in the sphere you move an equal distance towards it in the opposite direction and you always remain in the centre of the sphere. No matter how far you go you never reach/approach an edge, just like on the surface of the Earth. That's a closed and unbounded system.

I am sorry but you are completely misreading or misinterpreting my posts. 

[A-wal]

Then express yourself more clearly.

You seem to think the flat and infinite conception of space is the only one that makes sense. It isn't, and it's not the one that describes where we live.

[xyz]

Then express yourself more clearly.

 

You seem to think the flat and infinite conception of space is the only one that makes sense. It isn't, and it's not the one that describes where we live.

Flat space?  I do not think flat, infinite yes, infinite describes space. We can show this in experiment on the Earth, by vanishing points.  Can you not understand that beyond a radius in isotropic directions from the Earth we lose the ability to see?   Again this can be shown to be true in a simple experiment on Earth.   I can create the exact same impression of space in an enclosed warehouse.   What you think to be some sort of dimension is not what you think it is, the dimensions of space you observe from within your body is the amount /limit of distance you can see all around you,  I assure you it is not of enclosed space.   However in saying that, a virtual finite Universe, in the sense that light boundaries are the enclosure, would be acceptable in my opinion. 

 

Edited November 11, 2015 by xyz