The What Was, Before The Big Bang

[A-wal]

If you think there's no curvature in space then you think it's flat. It has to be one or the other. What you're describing is flat.

 

The fact that light can be too far away to see in no way proves or in any way suggests that space is infinite.

 

A closed finite and ubounded universe where every object is in the centre from its own perspective is a perfectly valid and self-consistant model of the universe whether you can grasp it or not. Your assurences means nothing if you are unable to comprehend the model.

 

I give up.

[xyz]

If you think there's no curvature in space then you think it's flat. It has to be one or the other. What you're describing is flat.

 

The fact that light can be too far away to see in no way proves or in any way suggests that space is infinite.

 

A closed finite and ubounded universe where every object is in the centre from its own perspective is a perfectly valid and self-consistant model of the universe whether you can grasp it or not. Your assurences means nothing if you are unable to comprehend the model.

 

I give up.

It is neither curved or flat , space is shapeless by its infiniteness, see diagram I added on last post. 

 

 

added - the telescope is moving relative to the observation.

Edited November 12, 2015 by xyz

[A-wal]

If it's not curved then it's flat. It's that simple. Flat means not curved. Trust me, the universe you're describing is spatially flat.

That diagram has nothing to do with it. We're not talking about the observable universe, we're talking about the universe as a whole.

You're stuck in one conception of space and unable to see it any other way so you're rejecting what you can't conceptualise based on nothing more than assuming if it's the only one you can grasp then it must be the right one. You're never going to learn anything like that. If you want to refute a model then you must understand the model. What you see as flaws aren't flaws in the model, they're the parts that don't make sense to you. I've described a self-consistent model that you don't understand so you're questioning its validity, which is the right thing to do, but you're not pointing out errors in the model. You're arguments don't have any merit because you're just stating and re-stating your own view and claiming it's the right one. Not good enough!

[CraigD]

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 know you addressed this challenge to pbm, not me, but it’s a fun one, and not too difficult, I think, so I’ll take it! :)

 

The distance between two bodies increasing because the space between them expands, differs from the distance between them increasing because they simply move away from each other, in that in the first case, neither body experiences acceleration, while in the second case, one or both does.

[xyz]

If it's not curved then it's flat. It's that simple. Flat means not curved. Trust me, the universe you're describing is spatially flat.

 

That diagram has nothing to do with it. We're not talking about the observable universe, we're talking about the universe as a whole.

 

You're stuck in one conception of space and unable to see it any other way so you're rejecting what you can't conceptualise based on nothing more than assuming if it's the only one you can grasp then it must be the right one. You're never going to learn anything like that. If you want to refute a model then you must understand the model. What you see as flaws aren't flaws in the model, they're the parts that don't make sense to you. I've described a self-consistent model that you don't understand so you're questioning its validity, which is the right thing to do, but you're not pointing out errors in the model. You're arguments don't have any merit because you're just stating and re-stating your own view and claiming it's the right one. Not good enough!

I understand the present model and the balloon analogy and understand finite enclosed space and entropy increase and inflation,  an finite space is logically wrong ,  I do not describe something that is flat to that of something with volume. 

 

Can we start with finite and infinite?  

 

In my thoughts I considered finite and infinite, and considered any possible logic involved.   

 

 

 

Scenario - An ant in the center of a huge cave is talking to a fire fly, they can see each other by the glow of the fire fly , but neither of them can see the cave walls as the light from the firefly is to weak in intensity by time it reaches the cave walls, and the intensity ''drops off' over distance becoming dimmer and dimmer like an automatic radial dimmer switch .  However , neither the ant or the firefly know the science of this. Both the ant and the fire fly have a sense of being enclosed.  However the ant and the fire fly could successfully travel to discover the cave walls.   The ant says to the fire fly  '' we live inside a space inside a solid, the solid must be infinite''.

In panic the fire fly flew madly about, claustrophobic and confused, until he flew down a small passage that lead into a huge space that was also dark but there  was something different about it, the above twinkled, the roof of the new cave was lit by ''fire flies''.  Excited the firefly quickly flew back to his friend the ant to tell him the news, the firefly says  ''' there is some good news and some bad news, I have found a passage that leads into another space through these walls, the walls are not infinite, we are living in a space within a solid within a space within a  solid''.  The ant looked on puzzled as he made his way in to the new space that smelt fresh. 

''whats the bad news? '' asked the ant

 

''I can not travel to those other fire flies they are so far away and seeking a way through the cave wall''  replied the firefly. 

 

''Do not worry said the wise ant, there is not another cave wall, the other fire flies are simply flying into space, two options give us only one possible answer''  replied the ant

 

 

''We live in a space within a solid and after that solid is space, so either now  the new walls are infinite space or a infinite solid , or beyond the solid is more space''  said the Ant

 

 

That is the basic meaning to the Chinese dolls, logic suggests infinite with a P=1

 

Also the logic is and can be experimentally proven , the fire fly would vanish in the dark of the original cave relative to the ant when the fire fly moved away when it reached a vanishing point, P=1

 

and logically the ant would vanish to the firefly to when the firefly moved away and reached its vanishing point P=1

Edited November 12, 2015 by xyz

[A-wal]

I know you addressed this challenge to pbm, not me, but it’s a fun one, and not too difficult, I think, so I’ll take it! :)

 

The distance between two bodies increasing because the space between them expands, differs from the distance between them increasing because they simply move away from each other, in that in the first case, neither body experiences acceleration, while in the second case, one or both does.

Er, what? Only if they're accelerating away from each other.

 

Do you mean there must have been some initial acceleration in the second case? That's not the challenge.

 

Explain a single actual difference between the distance between two inertial objects increasing because the space between them is expanding and the the distance between them increasing because they're simply moving away from each other.

 

 

xyz

That's just an elaborate why of stating that you believe space must be infinite without a single justification for that model being the only possibility. You still haven't grasped the balloon model. You claim to have but if that were true you'd see that nothing you've said even relates to it, let alone invalidates it. Just keep thinking about the flat Earth model and what changes when you turn it into the spherical model. Now that with three dimensions instead of two. It really is that simple.

[A-wal]

I know you addressed this challenge to pbm, not me, but it’s a fun one, and not too difficult, I think, so I’ll take it! :)

 

The distance between two bodies increasing because the space between them expands, differs from the distance between them increasing because they simply move away from each other, in that in the first case, neither body experiences acceleration, while in the second case, one or both does.

I get ya. If the space between them is expanding then as the space increases they'll move away from each other faster with no acceleration felt by either.

 

Okay, there is a way test it in principle. Now is there a realistic test that we can do before the sun burns out?

[xyz]

 

 

 

xyz

That's just an elaborate why of stating that you believe space must be infinite without a single justification for that model being the only possibility. You still haven't grasped the balloon model. You claim to have but if that were true you'd see that nothing you've said even relates to it, let alone invalidates it. Just keep thinking about the flat Earth model and what changes when you turn it into the spherical model. Now that with three dimensions instead of two. It really is that simple.

There is no spherical space, space has no shape, any shape people define is abstract, I suggest you re-think about ''flat space'' I have done all my thinking and know what I am on about.   The logic is infinite, no other options or choices, talking before big bang, not considering big bang no need to consider this,   Consider a void, forget matter, answer the question, 

 

 

Lets consider the evidence, my logic tells me that for something to exist it needs a volume of space to occupy to exist in, surrounding this something is space, now if the something was a lump of metal, metal expands when heated, and needs surrounding space to expand into, very simple physics that anything that expands needs space to expand into.  The space of a void has no physical properties not even light, there is nothing to stretch and nothing to expand, there is no light to stretch and no matter to expand,  Living in a space within a solid or living in a space within a space is the only two choices, however the choice is infinite, leaving space infinite and P=1 I am correct.  Remove all matter from space, all CBMR and we are clearly left with a void, space is not that complicated.

 

 

However if you do really want to talk about an enclosed volume of space within an infinite space, then I will accept if you want to give a shape by an imaginary boundary, and call it virtual shape, that would be logically correct. 

 

 

Which brings me back to the big bang, EWUe needs space to happen in, energy can not make space , energy and matter occupy space. Space is also ''immortal'' evidentially it can not be destroyed. 

 

 

Religion and science see the blackness background of space as being a boundary , an ''edge'', this is not there, you would travel beyond our vision limit, that is it and all that the masses illusion is.

 

The Ant and the Firefly are at the same place in thought as us, the only reason they think it is a roof is because they can't travel there to find it is not really a wall.

 

 

P.s Do not presume I do not know my stuff, I know very well what I am on about physically, my explanation may not be great, there is a problem with syntactic ambiguity , I am working on a solution for this. 

 

 

 

Imagination is dangerous , fact is much better, take your pick of imagination, the below as much premise as god. 

 

To express in simplicity Wake up ''Truman''

 

 

added - If you could remove all the stars and galaxies from around the milky way, just leaving the milky way, that would be your boundary of sight. You would have nothing to compare and the blackness of the background would be relatively closer . 

Edited November 12, 2015 by xyz

[A-wal]

You mean rethink curved space, you're description is of flat space.

I don't need to rethink curved space. You're the one who can't get your head around not me.

You claim infinite flat space is the only model that makes logical sense yet can provide no logic to refute other models because you don't understand those other models. If you want to claim that the model you're using is the only valid candidate then you need to show why the others don't work, not just keep saying your one has to be right because that has nothing to do with the validity of the others.

I'm not saying the way you're thinking thinking of space is invalid, although I do believe it's not the the right one.

What question? You haven't asked one.

Consider a void in which any object that travels a certain distance in any direction ends up right back where they started, using other objects to compare their position or they'd have no frame of reference. That's a closed finite, unbounded, positively curved universe and it makes complete logical sense. You're interpreting the fact that you can't grasp it as an indication that it's false rather than an indication that you need to stop being confined in your thinking to only one model. In fact the universe I described makes far more logical sense because it's not open ended, it's a complete, self-contained model.

If you mean I should consider the flat spacetime model with space extending out forever in all directions, I already know that model. You need to try to understand the curved finite model.

Finish this sentence. The closed, positively curved, finite model is logically flawed because...

And don't say because another model has to be the right one.

 

You say lets consider, the evidence, then claim that expansion means infinite space (it doesn't), then claim that the choice is infinite without giving anything to support that assertion.

If you remove all matter then space has no meaning. It's not infinite or finite. Space and only be defined within the context of a coordinate system ans that requires matter.

A closed envelope of space is by definition a finite universe, not an infinite one.

Once again, the big bang didn't happen in space. It describes an expansion of space, as in the space between matter expanded.

Once again, there is no edge to space in any model of it!!! You're not even listening. A closed finite space has no edges! It's unbounded. If you claim it describes something I've told you multiple times that it doesn't I'm going to stop talking to you call you names that you'll never read, because I've stopped talking to you.

You don't know your stuff. You don't understand the model you're trying to refute, that's obvious from your posts. You're assuming the only model you understand is the right one because it's the only one you understand.

What the smeg does the bit you added have to do with it. If you remove everything else then the edge of what's left will be the furthest thing you can see. Well yea, obviously!

 

 

I know you addressed this challenge to pbm, not me, but it’s a fun one, and not too difficult, I think, so I’ll take it! :)

The distance between two bodies increasing because the space between them expands, differs from the distance between them increasing because they simply move away from each other, in that in the first case, neither body experiences acceleration, while in the second case, one or both does.

What you're saying is that the model predicts that objects can not only move away from each other faster than the speed of light but they can also accelerate away from each other without feeling a force. BS!

All we can say is that the light from distant galaxies is redshifted and the further away they are from us, the more redshifted the light. If two objects are moving away from each the space between them increases/If the space between two objects increases they move away from each other. If two objects are accelerating away from each other the space between them increases at a progressively faster rate over time/If the space between two objects increases at a progressively faster rate over time they are accelerating away from each other. You're trying to claim that 1+2 and 2+1 are different because of some stretched light instead of realising the blatantly obvious, that there has to be another cause of redshift.

If we're looking at galaxies over curved space is the redshift we observe not exactly what should be expected?

Edited November 12, 2015 by A-wal

[NotBrad]

I think A-wal should consider presenting his ideas in a less hostile tone, I hate to be the one to say it but there it is. A-wal, this is a forum for people to gather and discuss in a calm manner, about science. If you wish to be hostile I would suggest visiting the thread about Iran and the current state of affairs involved with the limiting of their access to nuclear weapons. I can see that you are obviously passionate about the subject of physics, and would like to have your voice heard, but the condescending tone is not necessary in an environment such as this, not everyone here is actually a physicist or an engineer. There are people like me who are only 18 and just contributing to the forums in the way of constructive ideas that people who actually know a thing or two can talk to me about. It doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong, or even qualified to speak about these things based on your education. There will be people who just want to have their voice heard and their ideas recognized.

[A-wal]

I think I've been extremely patient. I've taken the time to try to explain to him that his arguments aren't validations of the model his subscribes to or invalidations of a model that he clearly doesn't understand and I think I've done it a far less hostile and patronising way than the previous posters who took far less time trying to teach him.

 

Or are you talking about my response to CraigD? He can take it. I'm attacking the model, not the man.

 

Edit:

Oh and being qualified to speak about something depends entirely on a persons level of understanding of what they're describing, not on their education. Education is not the only route to or any guarantee of understanding a subject.

Edited November 12, 2015 by A-wal

[xyz]

1.Consider a void in which any object that travels a certain distance in any direction ends up right back where they started,

 

 

Finish this sentence. The closed, positively curved, finite model is logically flawed because...

 

 

Your pushing to quickly, slow down please and start fundamentally.   A void does not contain any objects - 

''noun

 

1. 1.

   a completely empty space.

   "the black void of space"''

    

   I try to use strict definition .

    

    

   The closed, positively curved, finite model is logically flawed because...the model fits inside an infinite void Model, and our observation is dependent to a radius that is dependent to light magnitude and vanishing points of matter that creates an illusion of an enclosed space, a finite distance.    

    

   And please stop making assumptions,  ''You're the one who can't get your head around not me.''

    

    

   It is you who does not understand me.   Can I run you through a simple experiment that may help you understand?

Edited November 12, 2015 by xyz

[NotBrad]

I am not here to begin a debate about the merits of education and qualification. But although they are definitely not always the best measure of qualification, they certainly do provide a very good way of proving the calibre of your perspective. That said, I think you are arguing a moot point here in all honesty. The beautiful thing about science is that it is only right until somebody proves it wrong.

 

Now about that recent post by xyz, he certainly has you beat there. No argument you can present can refute that. For there to be a boundary, there must be something on the outside of that boundary. Look back at our little conversation that revolves around the concept of god in this post. It may seem to be a deviation from the topic being discussed here, but it certainly relevant in the context of arguing the laws of physics.

[xyz]

I am not here to begin a debate about the merits of education and qualification. But although they are definitely not always the best measure of qualification, they certainly do provide a very good way of proving the calibre of your perspective. That said, I think you are arguing a moot point here in all honesty. The beautiful thing about science is that it is only right until somebody proves it wrong.

 

Now about that recent post by xyz, he certainly has you beat there. No argument you can present can refute that. For there to be a boundary, there must be something on the outside of that boundary. Look back at our little conversation that revolves around the concept of god in this post. It may seem to be a deviation from the topic being discussed here, but it certainly relevant in the context of arguing the laws of physics.

Thank you, and here is a simple thought experiment that shows it 

 

 

 

underneath the firefly just out of the ''fireflies'' range is a bee. You can not see the bee because the light from your relative position and the light from the fire fly has not enough magnitude to reflect the bee.

 

and this 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 12, 2015 by xyz

[A-wal]

Space without any objects has no properties at all. It's neither finite or infinite, isn't anything. It's like trying to describe what's north of the north pole. To define space you need matter.

The fact that the closed model fits inside an open model doesn't in any way invalidate the closed model. What you're describing there is actually higher dimensional space and there are theories that attempt to describe that. Search for 'brane' if you're interested. Higher dimensional space isn't a requirement of the closed space model, it works just as well without it.

The fact that there's a radius to the observable universe has nothing whatsoever to do with it! Why do you keep going on about this? How could a limited view be an indication of a closed system? Again, you're trying to argue against something that you have no understanding of so you're argument makes no sense.

I'm not making assumptions. I understand both models. You understand only one of them. You think that the one you understand is right simply because it's the only one you can understand.

Listen to me very carefully. If you want to claim that the model you're using has to be right then you need to explain why the others are wrong. To do that you need to be able to grasp those other models. Do you understand? You're attempted arguments against it so far aren't valid because the consist entirely of misconceptions of the model.

 

1. It is you who does not understand me.   Can I run you through a simple experiment that may help you understand?

As long as it isn't like the last one you suggested in the other thread.

 

But although they are definitely not always the best measure of qualification, they certainly do provide a very good way of proving the calibre of your perspective.

Only if you just want to take a quick glance, and even then it's not an accurate indication.

 

Now about that recent post by xyz, he certainly has you beat there.

No he doesn't. He doesn't even understand what he's trying to refute.

 

For there to be a boundary, there must be something on the outside of that boundary.

OMFG!!! Are you two doing this on purpose?
"You can keep on going and never reach an edge in a finite universe because it's a closed but unbounded system."
"Once again, there is no edge to space in any model of it!!! You're not even listening. A closed finite space has no edges!"

 

Look back at our little conversation that revolves around the concept of god in this post.

No! I've spent too much time trying to explain a very simple concept already. If you've got a point to make you can make it here.


Will somebody please back me up here. Or are you all too busy laughing?

Edited November 12, 2015 by A-wal

[xyz]

 

 

Are you two doing this on purpose?

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

 

That's incorrect, an unbounded system is a system that has no bound, finite is a bound, limited in size or extent, that is contradictory. It is either finite or infinite, there is no infinite finite. 

 

I think the opp is trying to say that the expansion can expand into infinite space for an infinite distance.  However, you will only observe a finite distance before vanishing points are reached and light magnitude is to weak and things will simply ''vanish'', then the ''space'' will contract the distance. 

 

I think science forgets it is your observation that is finite.  An observer from an initial point will observe light isotropically around them, to  the shape of a sphere radius , an observer will observe objects moving away to relatively ''contract'' over distance.  the further away the further the contraction to a point of none existence relative to the observer.

Edited November 12, 2015 by xyz

[A-wal]

This is the route of your problem with grasping the closed model. You assume that a finite system must have boundaries. You're imagining an edge where none exists. How best to explain this?

 

I'll give you three descriptions. Hopefully one of them will click.

 

Try the Earth one again. The surface of the Earth represents three dimensional space so the surface itself isn't a boundary. You can travel in any direction on this curved two dimensional surface and you'll never encounter a boundary. If you travel far enough in one direction you'll end up back where started. That exactly describes the closed universe model.

 

Imagine a flat two dimensional circle. Any object object in the circle that reaches the edge will emerge at the opposite side of the circle. Now imagine it from the perspective of that object and move all the other objects instead so that the one that's moving relative to the others is always at the centre of the circle and the others reappear on the opposite side of the circle when they reach an edge.

 

Now imagine yourself at the centre of a sphere. If you travel away from an object in one direction, you move an equal distance towards it in the opposite direction. If the volume of space is 100 light years across then every object is 100 light years way from you if you add up it's distance in both directions. Every object is always in the centre from their own perspective. There is a finite amount of space and no boundaries.

Edited November 12, 2015 by A-wal