radius of the universe

In article , snipped-for-privacy@comic.com says...>

Now *YOU* sound like the creationist. ;-) Who cares if there was one, or more than one "big bang"? Such things are unknowable thus unimportant. Who says there is only one universe? Who cares?

Can't reach us, or it isn't a "big bang". Again, you're setting yourself up as the creationist because *you* can't see the other universes, yet believe they exist (or don't).

That simply means the bang wasn't perfectly "uniform".

Why?

If there are other Big Bangs they won't be connected with our universe in any way -- anything that is connected or in communication (in the physics sense) with our universe is defined to be part of the same single universe.

There's pretty good evidence that the results of the Big Bang produced a fairly uniform universe, symmetrical and homogeneous on the largest observable scales. This would not be the case had the Big Bang been asymmetric or had vairious interacting centers of expansion.

Since the Big Bang evolved space itself, there's no 'there' there to be elsewhere, if you know what I mean. In other words, there's no location outside of the Big Bang in which to view it, no 'outside'.

The problem is that there was no 'distance away' from the Big Bang. It involved all there was and is, all at once. This is what is being referred to when people say that the universe has no center; the Big Bang didn't take place at some location in space, it was an expansion of space itself, and every point of it is where the Big Bang took place, and every point was at the first instant the same location (no distance betwixt and between).

It's my exercise in imagining the unprovable based on some observation.

I think if the creationists are totally swamped with many unprovable alternative ideas it'll deflate any single creation theory. Flying spaghetti monster is one. Invisible pink unicorn is another. Mine is what I call the 'popcorn universe' with all the big bangs. It's evidenceless bullshit but it doesn't hurt to try to imagine what the next new evidence could suggest.

I suppose I just want to go 'Aha! I guessed that in 2008!'..

D from BC myrealaddress(at)comic(dot)com British Columbia Canada

I think of empty space as the absence of matter or energy.

Are you saying the big bang also created space? Space being defined as the absence of matter or energy. The big bang create matter and nonmatter? Nonmatter meaning empty space.

If so...it's wonderful.

D from BC myrealaddress(at)comic(dot)com British Columbia Canada

The further we look in any direction, the older the objects are, and if they are as old as the universe, they were part of the big bang, where space-time was in its most contracted state. Thus, although we appear to be in the center of a spherical universe, we actually are looking at the center when we look in any direction. So, in a sense, we (or any observer) are located on the inside surface of an expanding sphere, and we cannot look outside of this sphere (as it is undefined future space-time into which the universe is expanding).

All light from the time of the big bang and thereafter is contained within this sphere and is gravitationally bent so that other elements of the universe located on other points of the sphere appear to be located at specific points in space-time which we can quantify by three-dimensional spatial vectors as well as the time vector. This contributes to the distortion, so that the oldest objects appear to be furthest apart (in spatial sense), while they are at their closest proximity to each other in time.

Otherwise, there is the paradox that two objects in deepest space, but spatially opposite each other, would appear to be separated by twice the light-years of the age of the universe, so they would have had to exceed the speed of light to be located where they appear. But they are actually in close proximity to each other and are simply seen where they were at the beginning of space-time, but gravitational lensing creates the distortion that makes them appear to be impossibly far apart.

At least that's my philosophical view of things...

Paul

The further we look out... the further back in time we peer to younger and younger objects.

Thus, although we appear to be

Every point is just as much the center as any other point.

No Center

........ ahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA.....

wrote:

hanson wrote: ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... Thanks for the laughs, guys! ahahaha... ahahahanson

Yup.

Indeed!

So you mock "creationists" by making up silly stories with even less internal consistency, history, or teaching?

Of which you made up out of whole cloth.

Perhaps it doesn't hurt, but it certainly help no one either.

...and that would be useful how?

--
Keith

Reading from news:sci.physics, RichD posted:

What makes you think that the "surface" of spacetime is 2-D? space-time curvature is caused by infinite 3D space "stuffed" inside a finite space, the confining effects of which are referred to as the "expanding universe" or the remaining effects of the "big bang" if you like to entertain that theory in the scheme of it all. That's why atoms vibrate. They're "quivering" as if being held together by a force. Well, that "force" is the effect of the big bang. For all I know, that could be what causes gravity, itself. Infinity compression. Compress infinity at all and it's infinitely compressed. So we won't experience true infinity until the universe stops expanding, at which point it will be infinity UNconfined.

Then we'll see what happens to atoms and internal particle smearing. Up until then, it'll be mysteries solved as we go forward.

Damaeus

--
Damaeus - Damon M.

Maybe the universe is 2D

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

ime

e,

se"

t

is the

avity,

nfinitely

stops

=A0Up

org/- A UK political party

Our= podcasts on weird stuff

Good grief, perhaps the radius of your last turd would have more meaning.

Why the hell don't you at least focus on the Great Attractor, that we're supposedly headed for at 6.111e3 km/s.

~ BG

Unless you can figure out how to move physical matter much faster than c, there's no objective way of telling how old or how large this universe actually is.

~ BG

What makes you think it has a center? It clearly doesn't have one in 3 space. If you are on the 'balloon', and it is expanding, you see space being created where you stand, ie, your legs get pulled apart. You don't go anywhere when this happens. So, I always say that the big bang happened wherever I currently am. It isn't false.

As to measuring the distance in another dimension, since the 4th dimension is time, you would measure the distance in years from the big bang. Everybody is approximately the same 'distance' from then, give or take a few gravitational anomalies.

Regards, Bob Monsen

2D

UK

A UK political party Our podcasts on weird stuff

So, I assume you have refuted the Bekenstein Limit eh?

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

1. No sense!

1. Standard crap.

1. Foundations of totally wrong theory.

1. More of same.

Universe is 4-D hypersphere WITH a center and diameter of approximately 500 million light years.

1. gullible idiot.

-time

ace,

erse"

hat

re

e" is the

gravity,

infinitely

e stops

=A0Up

.org/-A UK political party

= podcasts on weird stuff

org/- A UK political party

Our= podcasts on weird stuff

Thanks anyway, but I'd have to look that one up. =93Bekenstein bound=94 doesn=92t seem to apply here. Why did you bring this =93Bekenstein Limit=94 into this topic?

For the most part gravity sucks, and lots of cosmic stuff from all directions is oddly headed for the GA (including us).

From the core of this GA, the universe is pretty much in blueshift. As galaxies arrive from all directions, there an unavoidable retrograde merging of all things cosmic. Of course we=92re a good 250 million years away from knowing the outcome of those galaxies arriving first. So, for all we know, this cosmic hypersphere GA eye of God may have already vanished.

A couple of many white papers on this hypersphere universe of ours:

Itemid=3D53

Earth is kind of a localized hypersphere, whereas the thin crust of our otherwise 98.5% fluid Earth is where we happen to coexist. The cosmic crust of the forever expanding hypersphere is perhaps 20 billion light years thick (God only knows how big around), within which our known universe exist.

In other words, "You are More than You Know"

~ BG

the

infinitely

2D

party

podcasts on weird stuff

Because it is an illustration that the amount of information in a volume of space is a function of area ie 2D and not 3D Hence its connection to Holographic Universe theory.

Well, there's nothing to say that our universe is not part of a larger affair where our small bit underwent a blast of inflation 13.7 GY ago.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

This elaborates that we can locate no center in our observable 3-D universe. It tells nothing about whether a center exists in some 4th spatial dimension, in which our universe is embedded.

-- Rich