Much smaller than today’s everywhere.

Nobody I think is suggesting that this was the diameter of the universe shortly after the Big Bang. Scientific knowledge changes – and that includes today’s scientific knowledge too. I don’t understand what the objection to this is. Your ignorance is quite profound I’m not interested in playing a game of argument by insult with you.

Originally Posted by Dishmaster Originally Posted by nimzo256 It only makes sense to say that the universe began everywhere if we define everywhere as ‘the place that the universe occupies or occupied at any given time, either now or in the past’. Like many posters stated the universe 13.7 billion years ago cannot be compared to the current state. We currently think that the universe has a diameter of approximately 78 billion light years. Even if you were to find a coordinate at this exact time. tomorrow that point will describe a plane due to expansion, in which you’d have to redefine a point.Due to the expanding nature of the universe, I think it’s pointless trying to determine the origin of the big bang, since that point changes every second (or every measure of time really) If we could build a model of the universe today where we can run backwards in time and continually squash space until it became a point again, then at that point would we not have the location of the Big Bang?

Like many posters stated the universe 13.7 billion years ago cannot be compared to the current state. Well in that case ‘everywhere’ very shortly after the Big Bang was a very small place indeed. Where did the lump of dough first hit the table? Nope.

But kindly take the trouble to directly address the argument I’ve put been putting forward – something you so far have manifestly failed to do. Originally Posted by nimzo256 Your post also fails to learn from the lessons of history. Even radically different competing theories show excellent agreement on the basics. Much smaller than the ‘everywhere’ of today. That’s what I think anyway, I’m only 17- I wouldn’t really know, but I am going into astrophysics, so… 😀 The universe is the whole thing, regardless of its “size”. “The Big Bang happened everywhere” is just another term for saying that everywhere and everything was generated with the Big Bang.

Even if you were to find a coordinate at this exact time. tomorrow that point will describe a plane due to expansion, in which you’d have to redefine a point.Due to the expanding nature of the universe, I think it’s pointless trying to determine the origin of the big bang, since that point changes every second (or every measure of time really) You are simply demonstrating that you don’t understand that you don’t understand. Reminiscent perhaps of some learned physicist 150 years or so ago, determined to defend come what may notions such as absolute time and the luminiferous ether, pointing to all the evidence that they must be correct, and regarding any attacks on them as ignorant. Originally Posted by DrRocket You response simply demonstrates ignorance of the theory and general incompetence with mathematics and physics.An open mind is not an empty head.It is you, not I that have failed to learn. There was nothing there into which the universe was born and is expanding. It is a property of spacetime that produces the apprent motion of galaxies away from each other in the common era and that produced the apparent motion of particles away from each other in the very early era.

Quite often the expansion of the universe is compared with a lump of dough with raisins in it spreading out on a table top, the dough representing space and the raisins galaxies etc. If you disagree with me then that’s fine. Much smaller than the ‘everywhere’ of today. There is no table. However if you are going to say that the universe was always everywhere then a structure this size is what people will naturally understand by the statement, ‘the Big Bang happened everywhere’.

What in the hell is BHOT ? Try something serious, like The large scale structure of spacetime by Hawking and Ellis.You have no idea what I can conceive.You response simply demonstrates ignorance of the theory and general incompetence with mathematics and physics.Yep, your non-acceptance is irrelevant, the more so since you have no foundation for your rejection of the hypothesis. ‘ Originally Posted by nimzo256 Everywhere’ at the time of the Big Bang was a very small space indeed by all accounts. A 19th century physicist would probably have thought that the concept of absolute time was not ‘open to revision’. Quite often the expansion of the universe is compared with a lump of dough with raisins in it spreading out on a table top, the dough representing space and the raisins galaxies etc. You might find it helpful to read How the Universe got its Spots by Janna Levin.

You don’t understand the basis for the theory and therefore don’t understand which aspects are open to revision and which are not. [quote=”DrRocket”] Originally Posted by nimzo256 I’ve read BHOT. It is not the case that, in general, these things moved through space away from each other.If there was a “big bang” moment, then it happened right here. You don’t understand the basis for the theory and therefore don’t understand which aspects are open to revision and which are not.

Well in that case ‘everywhere’ very shortly after the Big Bang was a very small place indeed. Originally Posted by toonb I think I get what the OP meansIf you have a single theoretical point with nothing around it. if that point were to explode (or implode) and start expanding because of it, then all matter around it would originate from that point.At the time of the explosion (or implosion) the event was everywhere, since the point was everything there was, and the ‘entire’ point was involved.What I think he means though, is where would that point order custom essay online
be in the current state of the universe. would it be possible to determine the exact expansion rate (I think I read somewhere they know that allready) and start working back to find where that point was?So even though the big bang was everywhere 13.7billion years ago. Much smaller than today’s everywhere. And in that case why doesn’t it make sense to ask where that very small place now is within today’s universe? The problem with the answer ‘everywhere’ to the original question is that today’s everywhere is not the same as everywhere 13.7 billion years ago. Originally Posted by PhysBang So you are reiterating Dr.

You are simply demonstrating that you don’t understand that you don’t understand. Your ignorance is quite profound.[/i] BHOT stands for brief history of time- stephen hawking, just guessing Much smaller than today’s everywhere. There was nothing there into which the universe was born and is expanding.

You can make “right here” be where ever you want, since every point in the universe took part in this spacetime property. I’ll try and put my point in another way:-I think that the answer ‘everywhere’ is confusing because it’s used inconsistently. An open mind is not an empty head.It is you, not I that have failed to learn. Rocket’s point that you are indeed ignorant and you haven’t learned anything from any answers provided.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek Yup, very shortly after the Big Bang, everywhere was a very small place indeed. And because that’s the case we should be able to say where this smaller everywhere was. Originally Posted by nimzo256 Everywhere’ at the time of the Big Bang was a very small space indeed by all accounts. I think I get what the OP meansIf you have a single theoretical point with nothing around it. if that point were to explode (or implode) and start expanding because of it, then all matter around it would originate from that point.At the time of the explosion (or implosion) the event was everywhere, since the point was everything there was, and the ‘entire’ point was involved.What I think he means though, is where would that point be in the current state of the universe. would it be possible to determine the exact expansion rate (I think I read somewhere they know that allready) and start working back to find where that point was?So even though the big bang was everywhere 13.7billion years ago.

Originally Posted by DrRocket What in the hell is BHOT ? Brief History of Time as recommended by you. Originally Posted by nimzo256 If we could build a model of the universe today where we can run backwards in time and continually squash space until it became a point again, then at that point would we not have the location of the Big Bang? So you are reiterating Dr.

Originally Posted by DrRocket Wrong. So not everywhere. What in the hell is BHOT ? i think Doc… So not everywhere. The subject matter should interest you and you might learn some valuable lessons about yourself. Irrelevant as far as the analogy is concerned.

Even radically different competing theories show excellent agreement on the basics. Well, the theory is that at the time of the big bang- or at afterwards- the universe itself (space and time) was packed into a ‘space’ of a volume much less than a grain of sand, the whole universe was in this tiny space and so the big bang happened here- thus it happened everywhere, but everywhere was very small.As for what ‘everywhere’ is today, well, I’d say that it’s just the whole universe (however big it is) again- just expanded out very very far, the everywhere today is pretty much the same as the everywhere back then, just bigger. Einstein himself struggled at first.Your whole approach seems similar to the one of a university lecturer who, on meeting his students for the first time, tells them how ignorant they are, hands them a booklist, and then instructs them to come back once he deems them worthy of listening to him. Where exactly would that point of ‘everywhere’ be today ?That’s what I think he meansThe question though I think is irrelevant. Scientific knowledge changes – and that includes today’s scientific knowledge too.

Where exactly would that point of ‘everywhere’ be today ?That’s what I think he means Thanks. There are some significant gaps in our knowledge, but they involve the first 10^-33 seconds, the very distant future, the topology of space, and the existence and nature of dark energy and dark matter. Where did the lump of dough first hit the table? Originally Posted by DrRocket Nope. Wrong.

And because that’s the case we should be able to say where this smaller everywhere was. Originally Posted by nimzo256 I’ve read BHOT. Along with most of the scientic community, you might be happy to accept something physical that you can’t actually conceive, but I’m not – irrelevant though my non-acceptance may be. The universe is the whole thing, regardless of its “size”. “The Big Bang happened everywhere” is just another term for saying that everywhere and everything was generated with the Big Bang.

Reminiscent perhaps of some learned physicist 150 years or so ago, determined to defend come what may notions such as absolute time and the luminiferous ether, pointing to all the evidence that they must be correct, and regarding any attacks on them as ignorant. That’s exactly what I mean – better expressed than I managed too. There are some significant gaps in our knowledge, but they involve the first 10^-33 seconds, the very distant future, the topology of space, and the existence and nature of dark energy and dark matter.

There is no table.Y Originally Posted by nimzo256 our post also fails to learn from the lessons of history. I’m happy with saying that the Big Bang happened everywhere there was at the time, and this everywhere expanded to form today’s everywhere. Originally Posted by toonb The question though I think is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by nimzo256 It only makes sense to say that the universe began everywhere if we define everywhere as ‘the place that the universe occupies or occupied at any given time, either now or in the past’. Scientific knowledge changes – and that includes today’s scientific knowledge too. A bit of humility might not go amiss.

Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Powered by WordPress