Universe Race

If you let an idiot goad you into actions that get you suspended, who's really the idiot?No responses to this message, please.Edited by Admin, : No reason given.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I don't know. If you do please share.

---

All great truths begin as blasphemies

Hi cavediver, OK so you told me there was no force.If there is no force then you should be able to explain how you can get all that energy (mass) in something the size of a pea without having to squeeze it down to fit.That pea has to contain the observable universe, which has a visible mass of about 10^52kg http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=342Please explain how you can get all that in something the size of a pea.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Where else could that energy be?

Dude really??Its been explained, are you doing this out of a need to just be difficult?Are you that kid who was always told he couldn't do something so you now feel the need to challenge everyone on everything?This is getting redundant...

---

All great truths begin as blasphemies

Other more learned cosmologists correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole concept of "force" only valid once the universe actually came into existence?Before the Big Bang, the matter of the universe did not exist, so there could be no force before the big bang, because a force implies matter. A sort of field might have existed, but before the big bang, if even "before" has a precise meaning then, there could be no discernable force.Therefore, it is completely plausible that the Big Bang could have started off at an infinitesimal size, because at t=0, there was no matter, and therefore, no force, and therefore, no absence of force. But at an infinitesimally short period after the singularity, the presence of matter would cause the force to be felt that would have the universe expanding at an unimaginable rate, just as the theory of the Big Bang predicts in the first place.Now, this might be confusing, and it's hard to explain, so I request that more educated cosmologists either substantiate or correct what I say. My main point is that for there to be a force, or even an absence of force, requires a frame of reference: the existence of matter in the first place, and that because at t=0, due to the lack of matter, all of it that came after the bang actually happened could have been condensed to an infinitesimal size.

Do you know what density is?

---

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

I am not a cosmologist. After reading this thread though, I think I understand the very basics of this. Maybe I can dumb it down enough for him and me. This is the real point everyone's been trying to make, I think. The entire "universe" at T=0 was the size of the pea. There was nothing outside of this pea. There was no where else for the "stuff" inside to go, because there was no "outside." No force was necessary to hold the "stuff" inside the universe then, just as no force is required to hold you inside the universe now.Edited by Bluejay, : dbCode ProblemsEdited by Bluejay, : Deleted an entire nosensical, redundant and uneducated paragraph.

---

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

quote:

---

Now that math will only work if you can produce a force that is capable of squeezing the energy required to produce the universe into the space you say you can get it into.

​

If you can produce such a force to accomplish that.

​

Then for the Big Bang to happen you have to find a force strong enough to overcome the squeezing force.

---

Since the "experts" don't seem to be in a big hurry, I'll give you the old answer. I must emphasize that it's very old and they probably have replaced it with something even sillier.The reason everything could be contained in such a small volume is because it had no choice. There was no space outside of the pea (or pointmass or Planck thingy). Space itself was limited to the size of the bangseed.Part of your problem with communicating is that you need to use a term like "protomatter" or just "stuff". Otherwise, rather than attempting to help, they can waste time trying to belittle you for not knowing that their myth features explanations (pardon my loose usage of the term) for the origin of matter as we know it, and these imagined events occurred during the initial expansion.Were any of them truly knowledgeable and helpful, they might point out the fact that in order to accommodate "dark energy", it is current practice to claim that the Law of Conservation of Energy does not apply on "cosmological scales". They need an exemption to one of the best established laws in physical science (actually several, but after 1 or 2 some of us nonbelievers tend to stop counting).In order to understand the balloon analogy, you have to understand that it's a representation of 4+ dimensions, and our 3 dimensions are represented by the 2-dimensional surface. It's impossible to build an accurate model of imaginary extra dimensions when the model is confined to the 3 real dimensions. If the extra dimensions actually existed, there would be no problem building 4D, 5D, etc. models. Extra dimensions are easy to construct mathematically and/or using computers; but real world models are restricted to reality.As long as I'm letting cats out of bags, here are a couple more great questions:
1) How much did the universe expand during the first phase?
2) What keeps dark energy from ripping apart galaxies, clusters, & even our solar system?
3) What's the difference between an aether and a fabric of space?I'd provide the answers, but if I did they'd just call me uninformed or dishonest. I probably need to go find a wiki on the CoE exemption so they can badmouth wiki as well as myself. At least then they won't be accusing me of making it up (as if I could). Well, most of them won't.Now here's something I actually can make up/put 2 & 2 together. If they're sticking to the old answer to your question, and space itself was limited to the size of the bangseed (size varies from model to model), they actually have a dud on their hands. Space isn't just space; it's "spacetime". With time confined, no bang could occur.

quote:

---

and these imagined events occurred during the initial expansion.

---

CTD, you lamer, you should have said "during or soon after". You're so uneducated. Why don't you shut up and leave it to the ordained priests um, I mean qualified experts?

I thought it was the point that current mathematics broke down when approaching T=0. So we don't actually reach the T=0 spot but get close to it, and in the closest point we get, its the size of a pea.

Are you still here??? No reply to Message 25? I left you with plenty of questions... oh, I forgot, you don't answer questions, do you... might damage your credibility Current? There is no global law of conservation of energy in General Relativity, and that was published in, oh, 1915. Once again, you seem to have a problem with being around 100 years out of date. By this, I take it you mean: "I really don't understand General Relativity, so I'll just try to pretend it's an 'exemption' to those bits of physics of which I do have a meagre grasp."Perhaps you would care to explain how you could have a global conservation of energy in General Relativity? No, it is a representation of the 4 dimensions of space-time, and our 3 "spatial" dimensions are represented by the 1-dimensional circumferences of the balloon, the 2nd dimension of the 2d surface of the balloon being time. So, you are either suggesting that1) when extra dimensions are suggested by speculative physics, you are ignorant of the fact that these dimensions would obviously be at a sub-scale to be unobservable without massive effort.2) you are deliberately misrepresenting what you do know about these speculative extra dimensions, and just Lying for Jesus.Which is it, CTD? Yes, all good questions with fascinating answers. What's your take on these? Oh, you're not goint to answer? What a surprise. You seem to have a record of that here at EvC, don't you... What was that about refusing to provide an ID hypothesis, despite knowing full well what it was??? Really? Oh, this could be good... waiting... oh, it is good You really have no clue, do you... please keep this up, as I'm sure it's not just me that is gaining great delight from your little gems. What really makes them, is the way you say them with such authority and confidence. I can just picture you in a jester's outfit, ringing your bells as you think them up.When we are talking about the size of the space around the big bang, we are talking about SPACE. Not space-time. Time runs 'orthoganally' (in a psuedo-Lorentzian sense for nit-pickers) to this space, from T=0 into the future. HOW CAN YOU NOT KNOW THIS? Either you are,1) totally ignorant of this blatently simple point,or2) deliberately misrepresenting what you do know about this, and just Lying for Jesus.Which is it, CTD?

Nicely put Although, as Zucadragon correctly points out, we are being a bit loose with T=0 here, and are really talking about T>~0. Son Goku (a fellow cosmologist) brought up the size-of-a-pea in an earlier explanation to ICANT, and ICANT has stuck with this.

So technically we are close to T=0 but we aren't sure exactly how close, seeing as math only goes back to a certain point... Doesn't that mean that the time span between T=0 and where we end up with current math might be a very very long period of time ?

quote:

---

Really? The CP essentially states that we are not priviledged observers, our place in the Universe is not special. This is observationally confirmed at just about every astronomical/cosmological length scale you care to imagine, not just our place in the Solar System (the origination of the name 'Copernican Principle for obvious reasons.)

---

"We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!" A Brief History of Time.
Page 25. Take it up with the author, or present evidence.I understand with very, very few exceptions all other galaxies are observed to be moving away from us. This is true no matter which direction one looks. In a 3D universe, that's consistent with us being at the center.The only workaround is to claim there is no center. But all finite objects have a center. For some objects, more than one place can be called the center, depending on how one calculates. But it's only due to the circumstance that the boundaries of the universe are unknown that allows the claim of no center. Were the boundaries known, there would be a center. If the boundary lies 10% or 300% beyond what's been seen, we're right smack in the middle.It could turn out that a boundary lies 10% out in one direction and 300% in the opposite direction, but this probably wouldn't be reported in any hurry for obvious reasons.There may or may not be parts of the universe that have not been observed. The part that's been observed is the part with us in the middle.

quote:

---

The big bang has NEVER involved a physical explosion, despite all of the popular misrepresentations. I suggest being more familiar with the actual science before you start making such proclamations.

---

That's uncalled-for. If you were handy I'd invite you to accompany me to the local library & we'd see just how many "science" books feature a "physical" big bang. These books are not yet extinct, and it's common knowledge.As you're not handy, I'll stop wasting time.

quote:

---

CTD, from your language, attitude, and arrogance expressed in your post, you seem to want to portray yourself as someone with some knowledge of cosmology. I'm afraid I have to tell you that your knowledge is at best woefully inadequate, and in the main is simply wrong. Might I suggest that next time you try to pass yourself as knowledgable in a subject, you do so in the absence of professionals of that subject?

---

Arrogance? Hmm? Is rejecting a story that violates well-established laws of science arrogant? Is rejecting a story that includes multiple things which cannot be observed arrogant? Or is it rather somewhat more arrogant to accept and promote such a story just because it fits well with godless philosophies? How arrogant is it to belittle anyone and everyone who rejects such a story?Here's an analogy. An architect walks into a town in the old west and enters a building with a three-story false front. He examines the interior and finds the building much smaller than the false front indicated. There isn't even a stairway. He exits and circles the building, plainly seeing that it's a one-story, 2-room job. He then proceeds to argue with anyone he can find that the building is indeed a three-story building. And some are actually convinced that there are invisible parts of the building which don't support weight or in any way interact with objects just because he's and architect.Edited by Admin, : Fix long link.