Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[ratiocinator]

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?

I think you've got the wrong idea. It's unlikely that space has a boundary and hence a shape in that sense.

It's generally assumed that space has constant curvature, which gives basically three options for its geometry: positive curvature, negative curvature, and zero (flat). Its 'shape' depends on the topology, which is not known. We can, however, consider the simplest topology in each case.

If it's positively curved, then one can imagine the simplest topology as the (three-dimensional) surface of a four-dimensional sphere. So space would be finite but without an actual boundary (like the surface of the Earth). I emphasis, however, that that is a way to imagine it, it in no way implies that the fourth spacial dimension actually exists.

If it's flat, the simplest case is just that it's infinite Euclidean space. Although you can imagine other topologies (the surface of a torus, for example) which would make it finite.

If it's negatively curved, then there's no way to imagine it as a shape embedded in a higher dimensional Euclidean space (you can embed it in Minkowski space but that's not much help for the imagination) - you often see a saddle shape in books but that only really represents negative curvature right at the centre. Again, the simple case is that space is infinite.

Observation suggests that the universe is very close to being flat.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I think you've got the wrong idea. It's unlikely that space has a boundary and hence a shape in that sense.

It's generally assumed that space has constant curvature, which gives basically three options for its geometry: positive curvature, negative curvature, and zero (flat). Its 'shape' depends on the topology, which is not known. We can, however, consider the simplest topology in each case.

If it's positively curved, then one can imagine the simplest topology as the (three-dimensional) surface of a four-dimensional sphere. So space would be finite but without an actual boundary (like the surface of the Earth). I emphasis, however, that that is a way to imagine it, it in no way implies that the fourth spacial dimension actually exists.

If it's flat, the simplest case is just that it's infinite Euclidean space. Although you can imagine other topologies (the surface of a torus, for example) which would make it finite.

If it's negatively curved, then there's no way to imagine it as a shape embedded in a higher dimensional Euclidean space (you can embed it in Minkowski space but that's not much help for the imagination) - you often see a saddle shape in books but that only really represents negative curvature right at the centre. Again, the simple case is that space is infinite.

Observation suggests that the universe is very close to being flat.

I get the idea of no boundaries because there is no outside or inside, that's why I am asking what it would look like looking from the starting point outwards in every direction of the expansion, say one minute, or one hour, or one year after the start, would the shape look the same as now? I assume we can agree that space is expanding from a starting point yes?

 

[ratiocinator]

I get the idea of no boundaries because there is no outside or inside, that's why I am asking what it would look like looking from the starting point outwards in every direction of the expansion, say one minute, or one hour, or one year after the start, would the shape look the same as now? I assume we can agree that space is expanding from a starting point yes?

Assuming the cosmological principle of homogeneity and isotropy, then we'd expect the constant curvature to track back to very near the 'start', yes.

When we say space is expanding it means that the points in space are getting further apart, so things that aren't otherwise bound together get further apart. That would only correspond to an overall increase in volume if space is finite. If it's infinite, it's always been infinite and the 'singularity' would refer to density and temperature, rather than a single point.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Space is like nothing, but it is deeply natural amd isn't nothing at all, but it just exist there like it can.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Assuming the cosmological principle of homogeneity and isotropy, then we'd expect the constant curvature to track back to very near the 'start', yes.

When we say space is expanding it means that the points in space are getting further apart, so things that aren't otherwise bound together get further apart. That would only correspond to an overall increase in volume if space is finite. If it's infinite, it's always been infinite and the 'singularity' would refer to density and temperature, rather than a single point.

Thank you ratiocinator.
So if the expansion of space is due to all 'points' in space getting further apart, this expansion process must be happening in every direction, so the volume of space increases in time. In my mind's eye, I can only see the increasing volume of space taking a spherical shape. How can all 'points' in space be getting further apart in time starting from a single point, be any shape other than a sphere centered around the starting point of the big bang.

 

[ratiocinator]

So if the expansion of space is due to all 'points' in space getting further apart, this expansion process must be happening in every direction, so the volume of space increases in time.

Not if it's already infinite.

In my mind's eye, I can only see the volume taking a spherical shape. How can all 'points' in space be getting further apart in time starting from a single point, be any shape other than spherical?

If it's finite it might be "closed in on itself" like the (2-dimensional) surface of the Earth but in 3 dimensions, so basically if you travelled far enough you'd come back to where you started.

You seem to be stuck in the idea of some stuff expanding into some surrounding emptiness, which is the wrong idea.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You seem to be stuck in the idea of some stuff expanding into some surrounding emptiness, which is the wrong idea.

I am considering the two possibilities, one that space is being created by the 'points' in space becoming further apart, the other is that infinite empty space exists and the big bang spacetime is expanding in it through the same process, ie. points in space becoming further apart.

 

[wellwisher]

One of the problems that astral physics faces is we infer the universe primary via the energy signals we receive, instead of from matter from which the energy came. This limitation; second hand evidence, creates the affect, that Einstein called relative motion. Relative motion has the practical problem of not always allowing a proper universal energy balance. It can add or take away energy from the universe if the wrong relative reference is used.

As a simple example, say we have a man at a train station. He is waiting for a train that is moving toward the station. The man plays a mind game and decides to assume relative motion. He assumes he is the one who is moving and the train is stationary. This assumption can be supported by visual and even audio evidence; light and sound waves, connected to relative motion.

Where the problem lies is a moving train has more mass and therefore more kinetic energy than a moving man, if both use the same relative velocity. Although the visual evidence will support relative motion and the man's choice of reference, this assumption altered the energy balance of the man plus train system.

The moving man assumption, from the relative motion assumption, does not account for all the energy that was available. Energy is lost because of his assumption, even if that assumption appears visually correct. The mass energy lost is not easily defined by sight or sound, alone. The eyes and collective bias can fool you.

In terms of science, relative reference has resulted in the theorizing of dark matter and dark energy, neither of which have ever been seen in the lab. They are needed to close the relative reference energy balance, due to other evidence, that is not consistent with the relative reference energy balance.

Something unseen; dark matter and dark energy, were added to close the energy balance. It is like the man being told 2000 liters of fuel were burned to reach this relative motion. The man realizes this is more energy that he needs for his relative reference visual assumptions. To keep his assumption alive, he needs to dump this fuel, somewhere, like in an imaginary hole. If everyone goes along, the blind can lead the blind.

The universe should have always had a center of gravity. The illusions from relative reference do not allow for this. The visual illusion of relative reference has no center. It is hard to comment based on magic trick evidence since I do not accept the trick as fact.

 

[ratiocinator]

I am considering the two possibilities, one that space is being created by the 'points' in space becoming further apart, the other is that infinite empty space exists and the big bang spacetime is expanding in it through the same process, ie. points in space becoming further apart.

No, you're still not getting it. Imagine infinite space. Nothing is expanding into it but if you place two objects in it, far enough apart that they don't interact in any significant way, and they get further apart because space itself is expanding - the actual distance between them gets longer without them actually moving.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, you're still not getting it. Imagine infinite space. Nothing is expanding into it but if you place two objects in it, far enough apart that they don't interact in any significant way, and they get further apart because space itself is expanding - the actual distance between them gets longer without them actually moving.

So if two objects in the given infinite space placed sufficiently apart that they don't interact, and the distance between them increases, that implies that infinite space is expanding. Yes?

 

[ratiocinator]

So if two objects in the given infinite space placed sufficiently apart that they don't interact, and the distance between them increases, that implies that infinite space is expanding. Yes?

Yes.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes.

Thank you ratiocinator, I will reflect on our exchange for now and see what gives.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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?

Since it expands out in all directions equally, that would make a sphere.

 

[Native]

Something unseen; dark matter and dark energy, were added to close the energy balance. . . . To keep his assumption alive, he needs to dump this fuel, somewhere, like in an imaginary hole. If everyone goes along, the blind can lead the blind.

Agreed in this. Different blind cosmological assumptions occurs when scientists don´t understand what is going on, and and this have lead modern cosmology astray into all kinds of blind speculations.

Just the fact that every macro cosmological observations are judged and compared to the cosmological assumptions of the Solar System formation, is a huge scientific problem as, for instants, "dark matter" is required in the galactic rotation of which the Solar System itself is an integrated part that theoretically do not require "dark matter".

Modern cosmology is really Earth centered in its theories and that also goes for the idea of a Big Bang where the distance measuring methods of "redshift" and cosmological super nova candles" obviously are wrong.

This measuring method was latest contradicted by the discovery of MACS0647-JD galaxy to which the Hubble Team commented: “The discovery of MACS0647-JD was a great surprise to us, as our earlier work had suggested that such bright galaxies should not exist so early in the Universe”.

Obviously the convensus cosmology are having all kinds of formational problems and illogical time-distance perceptions.

 

[alsome]

Ho well:
Given a void containing a singularity:
Everything that existed then, before the expansion, inside the void, is the singularity of existing solid carbon or a less dense version of it ? Could it be a vaporous plasma held fast by a center point of "gravity", housed by more, more dense applying to diamond hardness and beyond ? Applying it's own gravity to itself ? And the singularity is minuscule in size, wasn't it ? Where from, came the "gravity" that was the "causality" of the fiasco ? And expands it does, doesn't it ?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes.

Ok, this is the question that now arises, is that primordial 'substance' which comes into existence in the big bang and which eventually differentiates into matter centers whose distance between them increases because infinite space is expanding, limited or unlimited? Who is to say that the primordial substance is not still 'pouring' into existence at the point of the big bang?

 

[ratiocinator]

Ok, this is the question that now arises, is that primordial 'substance' which comes into existence in the big bang and which eventually differentiates into matter centers whose distance between them increases because infinite space is expanding, limited or unlimited? Who is to say that the primordial substance is not still 'pouring' into existence at the point of the big bang?

To answer the second part first, we know nothing is pouring into existence at the point of the big bang because there is no point of the big bang. More accurately everywhere is the point of the big bang. If you run things backwards from the point of view of our two objects, they will get closer and, at the big bang, they will be in the same place. Neither of them has literally moved "through space", it's that the two points in space have ended up being coincident.

On the first point, there is much that is still unknown but here is a reasonable summary of our current ideas from wiki: Chronology of the universe - The very early universe.

 

[ratiocinator]

Given a void containing a singularity:

As I've been explaining to ben, this is a misunderstanding of the theory. There was never a singularity in a void.

Everything that existed then, before the expansion, inside the void, is the singularity of existing solid carbon or a less dense version of it ?

The density approaches infinity as we go backwards (actually indicating that the theory breaks down at some point before we get there), so way too dense for atoms of any sort. We get densities far greater than atoms in the universe today (neutron stars). Carbon didn't come until much later, it was produced by nuclear reactions in stars.

 

[rational experiences]

As a human not living in any status space, yet gases own more space and less energy than the stone from which an inventor abstracts from......knowingly.

To own and want a thesis first, to design abstraction from the body upon which they live....what you all abstract self from, natural and natural self advice that exists first.

Your thinking ability does not exist first, natural does. And a human who cannot express thinking is observed. So you cannot claim that you are not advised.

What coercive lying is as a human in the sciences.

You cannot talk science unless you personally own an idea of how to abstract conditions from the planet upon which you stand first.

So consciousness quotes...I live in a non God mass atmosphere a gas mass spatial higher form. Yet God O the planet owned the release from inside of its owned history, a hot dense state. Where the mind in science first placed its ideals of knowledge hot dense state.

If that situation was not real, then first the machine, abstracted from Earth minerals into a melt to own the metal substances would not be inferred.

As God the Earth is a huge powerful mass body...yet it is not any machine for invention to react for scientific laws of observation just for a machine owned controlled reaction.

Therefore when a human is consciousness in a non mass conscious expressive living condition, all themes you place are upon a reaction that the body of God the mass had already been forced to process. As cold fused held body mass into a changed space of cold mass at a point of a hot radiation activation.

All theoried before the natural mass has even been changed. To discuss the relativity of your own human science invented spatial expansion as mass changes themes.

How can you discuss what you claim is relativity when life/Earth/atmosphere does not naturally own what you claim you are discussing, being inventive human sciences?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

To answer the second part first, we know nothing is pouring into existence at the point of the big bang because there is no point of the big bang. More accurately everywhere is the point of the big bang. If you run things backwards from the point of view of our two objects, they will get closer and, at the big bang, they will be in the same place. Neither of them has literally moved "through space", it's that the two points in space have ended up being coincident.

On the first point, there is much that is still unknown but here is a reasonable summary of our current ideas from wiki: Chronology of the universe - The very early universe.

I understand, thank you.