Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[gnostic]

Explaining something cosmological in 2D?

I think you already missed the point yourself as a ballon needs something to blow it up in the first place.

The balloon analogy is illustration as to the expansion of the space.

The surface area of the balloon, demonstrated that of deflated balloon and the increase in surface area as the balloon being inflated. If you draw the dots prior to blowing air into the balloon, you would notice that the dots are moving away from each other, the “space” between dots will increase.

Likewise as the expand, galaxies will move away from each other.

And I have asked @paarsurrey and @alsome to focus only on space between the dots, not the air inside the balloon.

If you don’t want to understand the illustration by not being cooperative, then that’s really your problem, not mine.

If you want to talk about myths and not reality, that’s also your problem, not mine.

You keep telling me that I don’t understand the myths, but you should bloody well know there are many possible interpretations of any one myth, so telling me that I don’t understand is just you thinking that yours is the only interpretations that are true. That’s just simply ego.

We disagreed on many things about cosmology, about science and about myths, but I have wasted enough time arguing with you. Go bother someone else.

 

[Native]

As far as the Big Bang model is concern, there nothing outside of the universe.

Oh, I see! So a HUMAN CONCEPT can expand so much that it expand the entire Universe into nothing outside the Universe. Now I much better understand the BB arguments in general.

Nice Science Fictions

 

[Native]

You keep telling me that I don’t understand the myths, but you should bloody well know there are many possible interpretations of any one myth,

Nah nah temper temper, gnostic

In my world, the number of two is not many: The wrong interpretation and the correct interpretation. In your case you can begin with taking astronomical informations in myths seriously.

 

[alsome]

Simplicity: There's a "singularity" before there was nothing else there, just the singularity and nothingness ! Right ?
Or was there a "nothingness" out there with the the singularity in it, like a plasma without direction or inertia, just gravity.
I guess the singularity just expanded into the nothingness trying to fill it up, so it's not full yet, is it ? Still expanding, is it. ?

Into what ??

 

[gnostic]

Simplicity: There's a "singularity" before there was nothing else there, just the singularity and nothingness ! Right ?
Or was there a "nothingness" out there with the the singularity in it, like a plasma without direction or inertia, just gravity.
I guess the singularity just expanded into the nothingness trying to fill it up, so it's not full yet, is it ? Still expanding, is it. ?

Into what ??

Plasma is “something”, not “nothing”.

Are you sure understand what plasma is?

Plasma is one of the four states of matters: gas, liquid, solid and plasma.

What make you think that plasma is “nothingness”?

If there were “nothingness”, there wouldn’t be any mass, energy, density, gravity or temperature, because none of them would exist.

“Nothing” would indicate there would be field, no matters, no energy. “Nothing” cannot be define in any ways. You cannot even use maths to define “nothing”.

The Big Bang model don’t say anything about “nothingness”, and it is why I think you make the same mistake like every other creationists, you have misunderstood the Big Bang cosmology.

The Big Bang model is the study of physical cosmology of THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE! And that would include understanding fields, elementary particles, matters (atoms, elements, molecules, etc), energy, forces, as well as understanding planets, stars and galaxies.

Like it or not, @Native don’t understand that the Big Bang model, not only study how stars and galaxies came into existence, but also the origin of elementary particles (eg Standard Model of Particle Physics) and the interactions of forces with these elementary particles. The Quantum Field Theory is part of Quantum Physics that try to fit gravity or gravitational forces into the Standard Model, eg “Quantum Gravity” and Graviton as a particle.

This is why I don’t think you and paarsurrey and Native don’t understand science.

Just now, Native reply with...

Oh, I see! So a HUMAN CONCEPT can expand so much that it expand the entire Universe into nothing outside the Universe. Now I much better understand the BB arguments in general.

Nice Science Fictions

Like you, Native don’t understand that the Big Bang model don’t include anything outside of the universe. What I highlighted in red in Native’s ranting, is just another example of him trying to go outside the scopes of the Big Bang theory...and it is one of reasons why I chose not to answer him anymore about the Big Bang model, because he refused to understand it.

Both paarsurrey and Native still don’t get it. There are no outside of the universe, the Big Bang model simply doesn’t talk about there being outside of the universe.

The Big Bang model also doesn’t talk about nothingness, doesn’t talk about outside of space or outside of time, don’t talk about cyclical universe or Multiverse, don’t talk about there being alternate dimension or alternate reality, and they certainly don’t talk about there been spiritual dimension or spiritual realm, like the biblical “heaven”.

Have you ever study science at all, alsome?

Because it would seem that you are following the same path as Native and paarsurrey, arguing about the existence of “nothingness” - which pardon my pun - “nothingness” has nothing to do with the Big Bang model.

 

[gnostic]

@alsome

Here are some examples of plasma:

• Lightning
• Stars are made of ionized gases, hence plasma.

Here is the clue about plasma...they involved ionized atoms, charged particles.

Look them up...look up plasma and the examples I have given you. Do some reading and research. Learn and understand what plasma is.

Do you think lightning are “nothing”? Do you think plasma in stars are “nothing”?

Try learn something, before posting what you don’t understand. Try asking questions or asking for help, if you don’t understand particular subjects.

 

[Miken]

Ok BBangers, if this study is correct, how does this affect current BB models and what do you think is causing it?

It is the average temperature of matter that is increasing, a natural consequence of gravity collapsing structures. For example, clouds of gas and dust collapse under gravitational attraction forming stars that heat up their surroundings via fusion reactions. This is not related to the BB or the CMB.. While space itself expands, concentrations of mass reverse that trend locally. The fact that the temperature of the matter in the universe is greater than it used to be points to an evolution process going on. The present is not like the past. This suggests a beginning to this process.

 

[paarsurrey]

The balloon analogy is illustration as to the expansion of the space.

The surface area of the balloon, demonstrated that of deflated balloon and the increase in surface area as the balloon being inflated. If you draw the dots prior to blowing air into the balloon, you would notice that the dots are moving away from each other, the “space” between dots will increase.

Likewise as the expand, galaxies will move away from each other.

And I have asked @paarsurrey and @alsome to focus only on space between the dots, not the air inside the balloon.

If you don’t want to understand the illustration by not being cooperative, then that’s really your problem, not mine.

If you want to talk about myths and not reality, that’s also your problem, not mine.

You keep telling me that I don’t understand the myths, but you should bloody well know there are many possible interpretations of any one myth, so telling me that I don’t understand is just you thinking that yours is the only interpretations that are true. That’s just simply ego.

We disagreed on many things about cosmology, about science and about myths, but I have wasted enough time arguing with you. Go bother someone else.

I understand it is a petty matter for an ordinary man in the street. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You seem to be stuck in the 19th century. Why do you think it needs to be into anything? What could space possibly expand into? Space might be infinite anyway. The expansion is to do with what is happening to distances between points within it or objects that are not bound together by gravity.

I get universal space expanding into empty space, but the creation of space where there was no space

Plasma is “something”, not “nothing”.

Are you sure understand what plasma is?

Plasma is one of the four states of matters: gas, liquid, solid and plasma.

What make you think that plasma is “nothingness”?

If there were “nothingness”, there wouldn’t be any mass, energy, density, gravity or temperature, because none of them would exist.

“Nothing” would indicate there would be field, no matters, no energy. “Nothing” cannot be define in any ways. You cannot even use maths to define “nothing”.

The Big Bang model don’t say anything about “nothingness”, and it is why I think you make the same mistake like every other creationists, you have misunderstood the Big Bang cosmology.

The Big Bang model is the study of physical cosmology of THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE! And that would include understanding fields, elementary particles, matters (atoms, elements, molecules, etc), energy, forces, as well as understanding planets, stars and galaxies.

Like it or not, @Native don’t understand that the Big Bang model, not only study how stars and galaxies came into existence, but also the origin of elementary particles (eg Standard Model of Particle Physics) and the interactions of forces with these elementary particles. The Quantum Field Theory is part of Quantum Physics that try to fit gravity or gravitational forces into the Standard Model, eg “Quantum Gravity” and Graviton as a particle.

This is why I don’t think you and paarsurrey and Native don’t understand science.

Just now, Native reply with...



Like you, Native don’t understand that the Big Bang model don’t include anything outside of the universe. What I highlighted in red in Native’s ranting, is just another example of him trying to go outside the scopes of the Big Bang theory...and it is one of reasons why I chose not to answer him anymore about the Big Bang model, because he refused to understand it.

Both paarsurrey and Native still don’t get it. There are no outside of the universe, the Big Bang model simply doesn’t talk about there being outside of the universe.

The Big Bang model also doesn’t talk about nothingness, doesn’t talk about outside of space or outside of time, don’t talk about cyclical universe or Multiverse, don’t talk about there being alternate dimension or alternate reality, and they certainly don’t talk about there been spiritual dimension or spiritual realm, like the biblical “heaven”.

Have you ever study science at all, alsome?

Because it would seem that you are following the same path as Native and paarsurrey, arguing about the existence of “nothingness” - which pardon my pun - “nothingness” has nothing to do with the Big Bang model.

I don't see what the big deal is in denying there is nothing outside the big bang. Saying the big bang model doesn't talk about outside of space isn't a denial of there being something or nothing outside of the big bang space.. Forgetting a multiverse, you only have two choices, there is either something or nothing besides the existence of our big bang universe. Even if there were a spaceless nothing in which the big bang exists, logically the big bang is expanding into it. Sure there is a difference between the concept of an infinite empty space nothing and a total absence of space nothing, but if the big bang universe in expanding, it is expanding into one or the other.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It is the average temperature of matter that is increasing, a natural consequence of gravity collapsing structures. For example, clouds of gas and dust collapse under gravitational attraction forming stars that heat up their surroundings via fusion reactions. This is not related to the BB or the CMB.. While space itself expands, concentrations of mass reverse that trend locally. The fact that the temperature of the matter in the universe is greater than it used to be points to an evolution process going on. The present is not like the past. This suggests a beginning to this process.

I suspect there is more to it Miken, but it is a very thoughtful answer.

From the article, "As Chiang summarized, the Universe is warming because of the natural process of galaxy and structure formation,"

There is a lot of life in this young universe yet..

 

[Miken]

I suspect there is more to it Miken, but it is a very thoughtful answer.

On what grounds do you think there is more? I was only presenting what the article said.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

On what grounds do you think there is more? I was only presenting what the article said.

On the grounds that scientific understanding improves over time, I always keep an open mind and rarely take what I read from any scientific paper as gospel.

 

[Miken]

On the grounds that scientific understanding improves over time, I always keep an open mind and rarely take what I read from any scientific paper as gospel.

So you don't think there is an increase of the temperature of the universe as the article says? Or that you do not believe that this is a confirmation of what Jim Peebles said should have happened? Which one are you doubting and why?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So you don't think there is an increase of the temperature of the universe as the article says? Or that you do not believe that this is a confirmation of what Jim Peebles said should have happened? Which one are you doubting and why?

At this stage I would like to see the paper considered by experts and see how it holds up, but in the mean time since I presume the paper was peer reviewed, I take it there probably has been heating. As to the cause of the heating, it is possible there may be other factors as well as the gravitational collapse heating.

 

[alsome]

Hey @gnostic,
How do I state this; I try to get the opponent's viewpoint a lot. I try to get them to defend their point of view. And there are some of the misunderstandings like this one.

I believe there was no beginning and no end into forever, that man will ever know of. Re-read some of my posts again please.

edit: Or not. I like your posts, and usually agree.

 

[alsome]

I don't believe in idols or gods of any sort.
We will never know the origins of the Cosmos.
The Cosmos is infinitely multi-directional.
There is no such thing as "time", is was a memory of history.
And on and on

 

[Native]

gnostic said: ↑
As far as the Big Bang model is concern, there nothing outside of the universe.

I replied

Oh, I see! So a HUMAN CONCEPT can expand so much that it expand the entire Universe into nothing outside the Universe. Now I much better understand the BB arguments in general.

Nice Science Fictions

One thing is that you don´t understand the myths, another thing is that you don´t understand irony and sarcasm and the third thing is that you don´t know what you´re writing when stating: "there (is) nothing outside of the universe" as an expansion have to expand in space which isn´t "nothing outside the Universe".

You´re reciting lots of scientific dogmas which you don´t understand yourself so don´t be so cocky about what you think other debaters don´t know. In fact you have basically nothing to have all your dogmatic arguments in as long as your clever consensus scientists fails to find a TOE which logically can explain everything.

 

[Native]

Here are some examples of plasma:

• Lightning
• Stars are made of ionized gases, hence plasma.

Here is the clue about plasma...they involved ionized atoms, charged particles.

Look them up...look up plasma and the examples I have given you. Do some reading and research. Learn and understand what plasma is.

Do you think lightning are “nothing”? Do you think plasma in stars are “nothing”?

Interesting indeed. I otherwise thought you took everything electric in the Universe to be mumbo jumbo woe made by cranks!?

Follow your own advices here:

Try learn something, before posting what you don’t understand. Try asking questions or asking for help, if you don’t understand particular subjects.

It seems that you´ve have opposed an electric universe for a long time without knowing what you´ve posted.

 

[alsome]

The thinking on this thread is like a diamond plasmaing, even then, it would be dust like the chalk, who said carbon ?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ok, back to the big bang!

Can anyone here tell me the shape of the post big bang beginning relative to the very start of time. Iow, if one imagines to be an observer at the starting point, what is the shape of the big bang expanding volume of space one would see?

My own guess is that the volume would be spherical as it creates more space in time, any takers?