Was Space Present Before the Big Bang or Did It Expand with the Universe?

[4newton]

>I humbly disagree. The 'scientific community' is not blind to any possibility.<

I have seen no sign if interest. What do you think of the concept?

>The math we do know is already so complicated it takes decades to derive even the simplest solutions.<

A clue that an idea has limited scope is if the math is too complicated or you need to use tricks to over come weakness in the math.

>To suggest they have simply missed 'simpler' alternatives appears to be ludicrous.<

It is not ludicrous.
Science has been unable to recognize simple solutions many time in the past. Does the sun go around the Earth or is the Earth flat?

>However, don't let that stop you from exposing their incompetence.<

I have no interest in exposing anything.

Not being able to see simple solutions is not incompetence and I do not intend to show disrespect of their skills and abilities.

It is understandable to follow a thread of an idea and to show resolve in trying to develop the idea. This requires some blindness to any idea but you own. NIH not invented here. It seem the more obscure your concept the more it is accepted. No one wants to let anyone else think that you don’t understand an idea.

What bothers me is an almost total disregard for the test of logic and the idea that if the common person can understand an idea it must be wrong. Understanding and discovery of new concepts is the result of inspiration. It is not the result of formulation.

When working on an idea everyone starts to develop tunnel vision. Did you ever try to proof read you own paper only to have someone else look at it and find the obvious errors? It is necessary to take a step back and criticize you own idea and have others look for obvious errors. That is why I am on here.

Up to this point I am disappointed. I have had no disagreement with the theories but I also have had no positive comments. I have had some good questions that have helped me better express the ideas. The problem may be that the idea is sound in logic but difficult to visualize in common experience. This is the same as trying to understand how the Earth could be round from the view of the people in the dark ages.

Up to this time they have no answers to almost all the basic problems. The professional scientist is unable to see profit in these problems. If they try to develop a concept or an idea and they are proved wrong they suffer loss of stature and maybe even money. New ideas are left to people like me that care only about discovery. If I am wrong I have no problem rethinking my idea in fact I demand it of my self. It has been necessary to do so many times. I will never get recognition for any of these ideas they only go to the members of the club, which is only right. I do think however that I get more reward of discovery.
.

 

[russ_watters]

Science has been unable to recognize simple solutions many time in the past. Does the sun go around the Earth or is the Earth flat?

Those ideas were never part of science.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Russ? The geocentric-heliocentric controversy was never part of science? Copernicus, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Kepler, were they not scientists? For that matter weren't Aristarchus, Hipparchus and Ptolemy scientists in their day? Have you read the Almagest? There are at least two modern translations into English. Warning; it's tough.

 

[Phobos]

The Big Bang (BB) theory states that the universe ... expanded outward in all directions.

BBT does not speak of an outward expansion. It's more like the points in the universe are getting farther apart from each other.

All the contents of the universe are transitioning outward at the same rate and form a sphere with a hollow core.

There's no evidence for a higher dimension of space into which our 3D space is embedded. But your later description of this other dimension as Time sounds better.

The speed of light is the only known limit of the rate of the expansion outward from the BB. This rate is the maximum rate of transition of all things in the universe.

It's the maximum rate of motion through space, not the maximum rate of the expansion of space. (e.g., the early inflationary period)

Because the universe is expanding outward at a transition rate equal to the speed of light

Are you referring to the Hubble Constant (our observed expansion of space) or the expansion of the hypersphere you describe away from its center?

 

[Harveyf]

My goodness, but the forum has suddenly erupted with dialectic on ideas in the expansion of space and hyperspheres. I am humbled by the profundity of thought. Then, too, I almost feel grateful that I cannot visualize the mathematical formulae as applied to the quantum physics required to dialogue on these theorum. I trust you will forgive my limited capacity for comprehending the exactitude of the science behind your ruminations, but I would appreciate continuing in this forum, if only to attempt receiving a glimpse of the far-flung territory you are covering in these debates. As the fledgling of the group, even though fast becoming a septigenarian, It has taken me up to this point in my existence to resolve the ramifications of religious exegesis injected into scientific discovery, to where I've been able to exclude such mythology from the reality of existence, and time and space. Now, I wish to enable my mind to grasp the scope of the universe about me in terms I, a most common denominator; human being, that is, can really understand. Since I am not versed in mathematical explanations, I can only hope for a dialogue replete with comprehensible visualizations. If analogy is the best I can hope for to achieve success towards this goal, I humbly ask of my peers in this forum if they can "come down to my level" in order to assist in my quest for wisdom of this knowledge you can impart. So; fellas and girls, tell me again: What, exactly do you mean a hypersphere as opposed to an "open" universe, and why, if there ever was a BB [like it appears there was], cannot the universal space accomodating it be created simultaneously? If, as you intimate, the "red shift" is indicative of material within the universe increasing its velocity away from the "core" of where a BB might have originated [for whatever reason], what might be the ultimate destiny of matter within this reality - and yes, I realize my manner of questioning appears more philosophical than scientific, but I have to believe there is a window of opportunity for both to be expressed so that even a layman like myself can appreciate the explanations on different levels for the benefit of all. Who knows; if an untested mind like mine can grasp the argument, who is to say that even this mind might not succeed in contributing something new to the equation of the why and wherefor of creation? With repsect, and in friendship.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The universe could have come into existence all at once and the size it has now, but atronomical observation from the time of Hubble in the 1920's up till now shows it is expanding, and we can project the rate of expansion back to find out when zero volume occurred. The fillip that has been added in the last few years is that the rate of expansion is increasing (shown be several lines of investigation). so of course that affects our estimate of the time since zero volume. Current estimate is 13.5 billion years.

 

[Harveyf]

Thank you, selfAdjoint. Thus; given that thirteen and a half billion years is the latest estimate for what you call, "zero volume," I take that to mean that the BB occurred at that moment in time, thrusting from a seemingly central core all of the necessary ingredient material that makes up the universe as we know it. My question then, which I originally postulated was, when this material began its expansion, was the space; the "black" of it, so to speak, already existant, or was it created along with the expanding matter? To put it another way, in using the balloon analogy, the dots upon the surface of the balloon's fabric expand as air is introduced into the balloon...is the fabric itself being created as part of that expansion, or did the space [the balloon's surface or in universal terms, the "empty"] already exist, awaiting matter's introduction into it in the BB?? More importantly, am I missing some absolute in physics which makes my question moot, or am I lacking in a scientific principle which makes my analogy errant? Thanks for your patience.

 

[RingoKid]

John

the other thread is moderated and it wouild seem reserved for uber boffins. I didn't know that or read the instructions before posting it, seems neither did you as your post has now registered 3 times...

thanks for you reply John, I posted one back . It hasn't registered yet but it might. I would repost it but i can't remember what i posted so hopefully it'll turn up in a day or so

cheers

here is the link for anyone interested...

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=40273

 

[RingoKid]

BTW I been posting stuff like this for a while seeking some sort of feedback...

a universe trapped between a leading edge brane and a trailing edge brane thus resembling a universe embedded in a bubble skin 13.7 billion light years thick...ie, seemingly the time it takes for a photon to travel in a straight line beteween the two branes

and if the leading edge is expanding at lightspeed faster than the trailing edge that would give you your impression of a slow moving photon or time moving faster depending on whether you were looking forward or backward, and the impression of the spacetime hypersphere expanding..ie inflation of the universe

but seeing as how we are trapped in our 3d + 1d(time) bubble universe we can never have an accurate frame of reference to measure anything

 

[RingoKid]

and think ripples in a spherical pond for a multiverse

 

[marcus]

"Time before Time" (no formulas)

Olias has just posted link to a new paper about cosmology
which has no formulas. It is by a good writer named Rudi Vaas.

he does Scientific-American-level articles in popular science magazines
in Germany and also some more academic technical stuff. he's good in science and a good journalist as well

this paper "Time before Time" is a little bit more academic and philosophical than Vaas's popular sci. journalism articles, but it
may nevertheless turn out to be useful.
One nice thing about it is that it is free for download

http://arxiv.org/physics/0408111

It talks about the different visions people have had about the beginnings of the universe, including the new LQG vision in which there is no big bang singularity----he gives references to Bojowald and Ashtekar papers.
(but his discussion is entirely un-mathematical)

 

[Harveyf]

Thank you, Marcus, for your consideration; from what I can see, the essay is most informative, and provides much food for thought. Thank you, again.

 

[John]

4Newton was saying the universe is like a sphere with a hollow core: an expanding bubble, just like my idea. He made the point that if we could go straight back to the center, it would be a Big Fountain.

The one radian idea was murky. I didn’t bother to understand it. I did ACCEPT IT and pursued a model where light can only travel 60 degrees (or so) around the surface of the expanding bubble. It never really worked in my head, but I didn’t get uptight.

All of his other concepts seemed right on. He answered a lot of the same questions I answered, by using the same expanding shell model. First, light has to curve around the shell. The universe isn’t a solid “loaf of bread” expanding in all directions with us in the center. It just seems that way. But as he said, if it were expanding in all directions (and we weren’t in the center) there would be a preferential direction.

(Assuming we are not in the center) the only way it can appear to everyone, everywhere in the universe, that everything is expanding away from them is if they are on the surface of an expanding bubble, or inside of an expanding shell where light follows the curve of the shell.

As for red shift going to 0 at one radian: I believe light has the ability to go around and around the expanding bubble. But we see light that was given off at an earlier time, which means the bubble was smaller then, so the light has followed a spiral path to get to us. It doesn’t matter how many times it has spiraled around.

I agree with 4 Newton’s approach, and agree that when we try to expose the incompetence of others, that’s not the way to discover things.

If this conversation is good, we can also answer Ringokid's questions, who has a glimpse of the same expanding sphere with a hollow core.

 

[Chronos]

The universe is not spherical. That is an urban legend. There is no observational evidence it is composed of spheres surrounded by spheres, or anything resembling that. If you boil that concept down, you end up asserting there is a preferred reference frame. That is not consistent with current theory.

 

[John]

I think this is another "the Earth is flat" conflict. I can't find any reason why an expanding hollow sphere doesn't work. I just naturally came to that conclusion, and so did two other people right here. And there are no other suspicions here of what it could be, except the expanding loaf and the "Big Fountain". There has to be some reference frame. It has to have some kind of physical shape, right? What does current theory say?

The only thing I have heard is, it is kind of flat (sic), but that is also what an expanding hollow sphere would appear to be. This is very similar to the "earth is round" debates.

 

[RingoKid]

Chronos...current M theory would have universes as rippling bubbles floating and interacting in the 11th dimension

I would also have them inside each other

Imagine, if you will bubbles...
expanding as they float around
bumping into other bubbles
and inside of these bubbles
is another bubble expanding
and so on...

...and if all these bubbles
made a musical note,
as they bumped and merged
and expanded,
they created chords and melodies
and so on...

Here's something to think about assuming we are a sphere within a sphere..etc

What if the universe is expanding faster again by repulsion/attraction of a parallel universe. Does that mean another brane collision is imminent from the leading or trailing edge of our bubble skin and will it open up new dimensions or obliterate our universe ?

will we even be conscious of it if say we are transformed into a higher or lower plane existence...ie the energy powering us/our fundamental string building blocks as individuals gets reconstituted so that in the new post brane collision universe i get transmuted into a rock or an enlightened entity that no longer needs a physical presence to justify it's existence ?

reincarnation, nirvana anybody ?

 

[Phobos]

-- mentor hat --

Let's try to keep this topic based on the Big Bang model (including appropriate modifications such as inflation theory), which was the context of the original question.

Discussions of string/M theory can be held in that forum and you can post a link here to that sidebar discussion.

thanks

 

[Phobos]

My goodness, but the forum has suddenly erupted with dialectic on ideas in the expansion of space and hyperspheres. I am humbled by the profundity of thought. Then, too, I almost feel grateful that I cannot visualize the mathematical formulae as applied to the quantum physics required to dialogue on these theorum. I trust you will forgive my limited capacity for comprehending the exactitude of the science behind your ruminations, but I would appreciate continuing in this forum, if only to attempt receiving a glimpse of the far-flung territory you are covering in these debates.

Don't even worry about it. Physics Forums is open to anyone of any technical level who wishes to discuss scientific topics. Our members include high school students with casual interests in science as well as college professors and professional scientists/engineers. Welcome.

 

[4newton]

Phobos Thank you, for responding

BBT does not speak of an outward expansion. It's more like the points in the universe are getting farther apart from each other.

If you accept the idea of a Big Bang and we accept the Big Bang as a fact based on the background radiation. You then observe all the points of the universe moving away from each other. Distant objects = points and red shift = moving away, then you must reconcile the mechanisms that results in the two sets of facts.

It is then possible to make an intuitive leap from other observation in nature.

In an explosion, something like a Big Bang, it is noted that all the material in the explosion is sent out in all direction from the center of the explosion. It is also noted that the various components of the explosion form a sphere as they move out from the center and the components have increasing distance between them as they move out.

It is then reasonable to accept this as the mechanism of the universe BB. Checking this idea with the facts we find no conflict. This then adds support to the BB theory and the concept of all the components of the BB moving outward in all directions and forming a spherical construct of the resulting components.

Having at this time no extended understanding of dimensions we question our knowledge of a spherical surface and our universe. We find a conflict with the two. The spherical surface is two-dimensional and the universe is three-dimensional. The solution was simple. We just allow three-dimensional surfaces. This is a hypersphere with all the components, objects in the universe, moving out from the BB resulting in points getting farther apart.

description of this other dimension as Time sounds better.

You are right. I did not intend to give the idea that the expansion outward from the BB was a spatial dimension. My intent was to state that the dimension of the expansion outward from the BB was a different dimension and then later show that this dimension fits the observation of time and the time dimension.

It's the maximum rate of motion through space, not the maximum rate of the expansion of space. (e.g., the early inflationary period)

I agree that the only observation to date is the maximum transition in the spatial dimension. I did not go into inflation at this time and I think it is best to address this at a later time.

Are you referring to the Hubble Constant (our observed expansion of space) or the expansion of the hypersphere you describe away from its center?

I am referring to the expansion outward from the BB not (our observed expansion of space)

The expansion outward from the BB is of course related to expansion of space. Just as the distance from the center of a balloon to the surface is related to the distance around the balloon. In the same way there is no material of the balloon at the center of the balloon just as there is no material of our universe back at the center where the universe started.

This relationship tells us that the transition outward from the center of the BB cannot exceed the rate of any transition observed in the sphere of the universe.

 

[4newton]

Harveyf thank you for your response. I am now finding your posting and the posting of many others the exchange of ideas I had hoped for on this forum.

I've been able to exclude such (religious interpretation) mythology from the reality of existence, and time and space.

If you stay around for many of the ideas you may need to change you mind.

I have found that free will is the first law of nature. To prove this just talk to anyone and you will find that it is natural to believe against facts. You will also find that no overwhelming fact will convince anyone of the existence or non-existence of God. You will find however that if you believe you will find support and if you don’t have faith you will also find support in physics. Who but God could design a universe that allows this freedom. Of course you may reject that idea.

if there ever was a BB [like it appears there was], cannot the universal space accommodating it be created simultaneously?

Yes your thought is a possibility, but because the number of possibilities are infinite without some thread of connection to reality it will lead no where.

The only relationship I can see to this as a part of creation is in the negative. If physics and nature has told us anything about God and creation is that he does not do direct creation on the large scale. All things seem to flow from a grand plan.

If, as you intimate, the "red shift" is indicative of material within the universe increasing its velocity away from the "core" of where a BB might have originated [for whatever reason], what might be the ultimate destiny of matter within this reality

Because of the direction you are coming from it may help if you think of the process in this manner.
From the eternal ALL the Creator, God, induces an energy differential. This may have been one pulse or it could be a continuing number of cycles. We at this time have no way of knowing. We only know that there was at least one pulse.

The reason may be as simple as God wanting us to (Know, Love, and serve God.). This I see you doing by being on this forum. If you learn about God’s creation you are trying to know Him. You seem to have a mild and kind manner. Which could indicate that you love God. The first two indicate that you are doing the last.

The ultimate destiny is for the energy to fade away into the ALL and to last forever with a record of out deeds.

who is to say that even this mind might not succeed in contributing something new to the equation of the why and wherefore of creation? With respect, and in friendship.

I think you have much more to contribute then you realize. You already have my respect and I do extend my friendship.

 

[4newton]

John thanks you for your response.

The one-radian idea was murky. I didn’t bother to understand it. I did ACCEPT IT and pursued a model where light can only travel 60 degrees (or so) around the surface of the expanding bubble. It never really worked in my head, but I didn’t get uptight.

If you consider the concept in its simple form you may eliminate all but two dimensions and look at a circle. An expanding circle has a radius that is increasing as the circumference is also increasing. Two points on the circle one-radian apart are increasing their distance at the same rate as the radius is increasing.

Redshift is an indicator of the rate of change between two points. If the radius is increasing at a rate equal to the speed of light then two points on the circle that are one-radian apart will be moving apart at a rate equal to the speed of light. Any light going between the two points will never arrive because they a separating at the same rate that the light is traveling. Also the redshift of the light going between the two points has a frequency shift down to zero. You therefore are unable to see anything beyond one-radian around the circle or in the case of the universe one-radian in any direction.

As for red shift going to 0 at one radian: I believe light has the ability to go around and around the expanding bubble. But we see light that was given off at an earlier time, which means the bubble was smaller then, so the light has followed a spiral path to get to us. It doesn’t matter how many times it has spiraled around.

If the transition outward from the BB is at a rate equal to the speed of light, as stated above, then the light from distant objects can only be seen up to one-radian. Observation indicates that redshift for distant objects are in the range close to the speed of light and the z for the background radiation is equal to about 1100. Also if light could go around and around many times you would see the background radiation repeat at a lower frequency each time it went around.

Your observation of the light traveling in a spiral is correct and is the current cause for the dark energy theory. The cause of the redshift not being linear with increasing distance is because the light must travel the circumference of the sphere of the universe compared to the straight line of the transition outward from the BB. This is being interpreted as an accelerating expansion of the universe instead of a correction of the geometry.

 

[4newton]

RingoKid

universe trapped between a leading edge brane and a trailing edge brane thus resembling a universe embedded in a bubble skin 13.7 billion light years thick...ie, seemingly the time it takes for a photon to travel in a straight line between the two branes

Strings and super strings are only a question of dimensional view of matter, forces, and energy and I don’t think they warrant being extended to branes and the construct of the universe. I think this should be a topic of (mass, gravity, and charge) and belongs in the physics area.

 

[John]

In this thread we think it is expanding like a balloon that is being blown up. And science knows the galaxies are accelerating away from each other. I think I can show it is expanding like a balloon, due to the fact the expansion is speeding up.

If you draw galaxies on a balloon, and blow it up at a slightly decelerating rate, as if gravity is gradually slowing it down: you have a picture of how we used to think the universe was expanding.

The galaxies you draw on the balloon would all be getting farther away from each other at the proper rate as you blow up the balloon. It all works smoothly and simply, but a problem is, the galaxies you drew on the balloon would also be getting bigger in size as the balloon expands. If you were to keep erasing the galaxies and making them smaller as the balloon expands, so that the galaxies you drew remain the same size on the surface of the expanding balloon, then you are adding space at a faster rate than the balloon is expanding.

Now the galaxies would be accelerating away from each other.

(I don't think the universe is expanding at the speed of light.)

If a galaxy gives off its light and the light chases around the expanding balloon of space, it might miss us several times, or we see it in a different place, then we see the galaxy's light after it has spiraled around several times, and it has a greater red shift because it is father away in time. Actually we have accelerated away from the light of that galaxy. We are going faster now relative to when it gave off its light.

 

[John]

This model brings up some interesting points on the original question of, What is space?

Is space just there? Or is it a vibrant thing like the surface of an expanding balloon? If the galaxies are accelerating, that says space is a thing that is expanding along with them, but at a slightly different rate.

 

[Harveyf]

When I began to think along these lines which John is alluding to [the fabric of space itself being created, but at a different rate of expansion than the material contained within it], I thought [almost sixty summers ago] the process itself as so outrageous a concept that the suggestion of spatial expansion, and material expansion simultaneously became an intellectually acceptable hypothesis. When you initially consider a "spatial container" of "empty," if you will, "waiting" for that "pulse" of matter to explode within it, "meaning" of "empty" loses relevance, but if you opt for not "empty," but " nothing" [no thing], rather than "empty" as existent [meaning, that you cannot express the "no thing" in rational terms - for "empty" connotes potential], it becomes "fairly" reasonable to begin the hypothesis with "there was this nothing," which cannot be defined nor expressed, from which "something" became; what this "something" was, was a spatial "empty" containing the prerequisites for a BB, which eventually became matter with which to fill the big "empty." As the matter expanded, so did the big "empty" to accommodate its expansion...but not like the balloon analogy which, as was correctly pointed out, would have the dots [galaxies] requiring erasure and reconstruction to fit the model [or balloon's peripheral surface]. And having just read my submission over, I think I need a headache powder...

 

[John]

60 summers was a long time ago to start thinking about that!

I asked a similar question sometime in the mid-eighties, What if space is made of literal points? What if things move from point to point? The points had to have distance between them, and by manipulating the distance between points you could curve, compress, and stretch space; causing objects to curve, slow down, or speed up, which is what gravity does to objects. The problem was, the points with distance between them could only line up in six directions. I became aware of string theory and it has six underlying spatial dimensions. String theory makes sure points never touch each other. My points that had distance between them could only line up in six directions. I knew at that time my ideas were right.

By that time I had constructed a lot of scenarios for what space is. Everything seemed to work. Now we have discovered the galaxies are acellerating away from each other. Scientist have a few theories that throw the classic ideas of mass and momentum out the window and introduce vacuum bubbles and a lot of other stuff. How else could they be accelerating?

My idea that space is something which is expanding, and the galaxies are something else that is expanding easily gives us galaxies that are accelerating away from each other without changing the laws of momentum, since they are both expanding according to the same laws of momentum but they have different mass qualities. Space is much lighter so it would slow down sooner, causing the galaxies to appear to be accelerating.

 

[Harveyf]

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but it appears we're [sort of] in agreement on simultaneous spatial expansion and galactic expansion; n'est pas?

 

[4newton]

Chronos

The universe is not spherical. That is an urban legend. There is no observational evidence it is composed of spheres surrounded by spheres, or anything resembling that. If you boil that concept down, you end up asserting there is a preferred reference frame. That is not consistent with current theory.

You seem to ignore a lot of observations.

It would help if you explain how you disregard the Big Bang and expansion.

I don’t think that there is any question that if there was a BB then you have a reference point for the rest of the universe. True you have no absolute location for the BB.

However if the BB is point zero you may then state that the Earth is a measurable distance from the BB.

If the expansion outward from the BB is time and the expansion is equal to the speed of light then the units may be years and in this case is the same as light years. Again remember this is not a spatial dimension.

You may then pick any two objects with a line drawn between them as reference zero. All location can then be stated as time T from the BB and angle from the two objects. A line drawn between the two objects is used as an angle reference. The location of any objects can be stated as T, the distance outward from the BB, and angel 0-360 perpendicular and 0-360 parallel to the line drawn between the two objects.

Our physical senses tell us when we are in the zero reference frame of acceleration. I don’t know anyone that can not tell the difference.

Current theory does not state that there is no zero reference frame for velocity it just says that you may not be able to know when you are at zero velocity.

 

[Chronos]

The most polite response I can give is, bull. Your 'reference frame' does not exist. You are ignoring the most fundamental laws of physics, and have no clue about the math involved. Get a textbook, learn basic physics, and I will be glad to discuss your questions. Till then, don't try to impress us with your lack of knowledge.

 

[John]

I started working on an "absolute reference frame" model in about 1984, and was surprised when I learned about string theory to find the whole thing was just like string theory, which I was too dumb to know about when I started thinking about a hard, absolute physical model. Now, whenever I tell learned people about all the correlations, they are unimpressed and they all give the same answer. There is no reference frame.

True, there is not one reference frame, there are two. There is the reference frame that the reference fame was built on, like a Big Bang that exploded points out and made space, you have it expanding outward from a particular point. Then we have the reference frame in which a hollow expanding shell of points appears to be a vast empty space.

I think scholars don't like the fact that God was making it look one way but it really looked a different way. They have to get to their answers in one step. When that doesn't happen, they say, "If you are smart you realize there is no reference frame", which is very similar to saying "Pure logic doesn't work, and there is no God creating or pulling levers."

But there is the universe as seen from God's point of view, and the one we're inside seen from our point of view. String theory mathematically solves the riddle that connects the two, and the mystery answer is points that have distance between them.

You can imagine a space made of infinite points where you can go from point to point in infinite diretions. But if you create a physical space made of actual physical points that have distance between their centers, because they are physical things, like stacking cannon balls, they can only line up in six directions. You can go in any direction, but the points inside of you have to zigzag through the underlying structure, which is why we and everything physical are made of point particles flying around.

 

[4newton]

Chronos

The most polite response I can give is, bull. Your 'reference frame' does not exist. You are ignoring the most fundamental laws of physics, and have no clue about the math involved. Get a textbook, learn basic physics, and I will be glad to discuss your questions. Till then, don't try to impress us with your lack of knowledge.

I am sorry if you are lost in any of these concepts.

If the textbooks you have answer all the questions under consideration please let me know where I am wrong.

You have the advantage. I do not know the Chronos laws of physics, religion, or what ever.

As anyone can see there is nothing here to impress anyone. I present only a concept and I am looking for honest criticism. No way do I think I have all the answers. If you have some idea that better explains the observations or if you think the line of logic is faulty please state so. If you know that the concept is not in line with observation I look forward to you correcting my mistakes. I have no problem revising any idea.

Don’t get so up tight.

 

[Chronos]

Chronos


I am sorry if you are lost in any of these concepts.

If the textbooks you have answer all the questions under consideration please let me know where I am wrong.

You have the advantage. I do not know the Chronos laws of physics, religion, or what ever.

As anyone can see there is nothing here to impress anyone. I present only a concept and I am looking for honest criticism. No way do I think I have all the answers. If you have some idea that better explains the observations or if you think the line of logic is faulty please state so. If you know that the concept is not in line with observation I look forward to you correcting my mistakes. I have no problem revising any idea.

Don’t get so up tight.

Apologies. My comments were rude and really unwarranted. I get impatient at times. There are no answers, just questions. I will gladly discuss those with you and try my best to keep it dignified.

 

[RingoKid]

OK so I read the first post and here's my answer

Nothing is perfect
in the space where nothing exists
will one find perfection
the perfect nothing

seek

It implies the search for space, nothing, creation, evolution and the rlation between them all and it's something i came up with quite a few years ago

along with this

Accept NOTHING as fact
question everything
determine your own truth
define YOUR own reality

but on the understanding that absolute truth and reality lies outside of our direct comprehension

On topic...

personally i don't have a problem with post Planck size big bang theory as being the process by which the universe attained it's current size if it works. I don't have a problem with a variation of steady state banging away at the leading edge creating spacetime and coverting "the negaverse'" to matter/energy either. I don't have a problem visualising the edges of the hypersphere as branes of a bubble skin expanding at different rates and separting alternate universes

I don't see where the conflict lies in trying to keep cosmology theories in their respective compartments, perhaps it would help if i knew what i was talking about beyond a laymans understanding but I actually find it helps inspire others thoughts more if i don't know what I'm on about, and as such do not feel constrained to conform to current physics dogma.

cheers

BTW I am not Peter Lynds but I am from New Zealand

 

[Chronos]

Ringo, I owe you an apology as well. My physics come from observation and what I think is physics. I am mathematically contained by the Lorentz invariant part of Einstein's version of relativity. His math is compelling... would you not agree? Propose an experiment that violates relativity. Einstein, himself, tossed that guantlet down to to the scientific community. Relativity has withstood every test devised to dispute it.

 

[turbo]

Since this thread has veered into philosophical grounds a few times I thought you participants would appreciate this link. Just scroll to the bottom of the page for the links to papers regarding physics.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/view/subjects/