The direction of the big bang

tyler.durden said:

Hey Doer. I like the way you think, so I'm curious; what is the best model in your opinion and why?

Click to expand...

I put this all out in the Science section for background if you want to read some more of it. I don't really favor anything, at this point, but the Big Bang Theory conforms to the math and to previous observation. But, I'll say why I think that is now un-trustworthy. So, BB is the Theory. If you want to go up against the Theory, the models need some observations we don't have.

But, BB is blown, to me because we know that Space seems to compress and therefore Lens light around large objects in "predictable" ways.

But, consider that even with the model, of Dark Matter; we say that gravity is being affected, we think, by other forms of Matter. That is just a guess. There is no model for what that matter could be. Some proposals. Just educated guesses that it even 'is' matter. The gravitation effect is observable, however. They have mapped our galactic DM cloud, by careful check of the material orbits left from the passing of the much smaller Sagittarius galaxy. But, it has a funny shape. Like a squashed beach ball, from the sides. More mystery.

Dark Energy is a calculation of the extra energy to account of the observation that Space is not only compressible it is filling in somehow.

It is not a lot of energy at all, but on the scale of the universe, accounts for 70% of all Energy. Dark Matter accounts for another 25% of the entire Energy Budget of the universe we can now observably calculate.

That's 5% left for our Reality.

If space is filling, the rate is only known, currently. It was recently discovered. Nothing can be said about the rate of Dark Energy in the past. Maybe it's erratic, or on it's own schedule. We can't assume it is a constant acceleration, as we couldn't assume there was no acceleration. We had to check. And we can be surprised.

If Dark Matter is in control of gravity, and Dark Energy is filling in Space and Space is compressible and de-compressible, then we have lost even the Standard Candle Type A Super Nova, as a measure of vast distance already.

We have no idea what tangled path that light came through to make the universe appear 17 billion years old. We don't know the speed of light in various regions of Space Density. It could be like a traffic jam out there and light is just breaking free into our cooler, less dense region...to paint the pretty picture. We don't know. All bet are off. It could be the Density of Space and the Speed of Light are not constants.

Seedling said:

I find it total irrational to assume that duration (time) could ever start or stop, as duration is not a material object, that would be a clock. Clocks measure time like a meter stick measures a meter.

Click to expand...

No, no, no. That's not right. What is the first duration available to early man? Night/Day. Clocks are not needed. Clocks were not invented. Clocks were invented to split that first duration. If you leave a skin bag dripping you can tell how long till dawn, caveman. Or, look at the Stars. Durations.

That created time to change the look out. Time to get the fire going. Time is the measure of matter crossing space. The duration of that, we called time. Just made it up. It's a tool of the hunt, fingers of Sun above the horizon, brought in the cave for some more peace of mind at night.

The definition of Time is matter crossing space and the crossing of Space takes a Duration. No Space. No Time. The cooling of energy into SpaceTime is what began the ability to have a concept of Time. You have to have Space.

Doer said:

No, no, no. That's not right. What is the first duration available to early man? Night/Day. Clocks are not needed. Clocks were not invented. Clocks were invented to split that first duration.

Click to expand...

I didn't say clocks were needed, I said clocks MEASURE time. Do you understand the difference between what is being measured, and the equipment used to take that measurement? There is duration and there is clocks. Clocks MEASURE duration (time).

Doer said:

If you leave a skin bag dripping you can tell how long till dawn, caveman. Or, look at the Stars. Durations.

Click to expand...

Again, you are using the concept of a clock (dripping skin bag). There is time, and there is clocks to measure time. There need not be a clock (or any measuring device) for time to exist. Even if it were possible that space could be absolutely void of all matter there would still be time. Nobody there to measure it, nothing to measure it with, but there would still be time. Time is a concept, not a physical entity. Same goes with distance. Distance is inevitable. It is impossible for there to NOT be distance. Distance and time always existed, and always will exist. They need not have been created. No answer is required to the question "where did distance and time come from?" because they are inevitable. There is no concept of no distance and time.

Doer said:

That created time to change the look out. Time to get the fire going. Time is the measure of matter crossing space. The duration of that, we called time. Just made it up. It's a tool of the hunt, fingers of Sun above the horizon, brought in the cave for some more peace of mind at night.

Click to expand...

Time is not made up, a unit of measure of time is what is man made. Time exists with or without man.

Doer said:

The definition of Time is matter crossing space and the crossing of Space takes a Duration. No Space. No Time. The cooling of energy into SpaceTime is what began the ability to have a concept of Time. You have to have Space.

Click to expand...

Again, there you go again. There is no concept of "No Space." Space is volume, period. It is simply impossible for there to NOT be volume. What is contained in that volume is questionable, but space itself (volume) is inevitable.

Seedling said:

I find it total irrational to assume that duration (time) could ever start or stop, as duration is not a material object, that would be a clock. Clocks measure time like a meter stick measures a meter.

Click to expand...

I did not introduce the time/duration dichotomy, or the question of its measurement. I am not sure at what you're getting here. Before the universe existed, could there be time? No. Because time is a property of our universe. We have excellent evidence that the universe unfolded from not-time, not-space to give us the timespace that thoroughly informs us. We have extreme difficulty imagining existences without the presence of its frame, our three-plus-one dimensions.

This is a pure guess on my part, but I suspect you're insisting that time be eternal because you have a visceral, not rational, distaste for the idea of its being limited. cn

high|hgih said:

God my fuckin head hurts..

Durden, you have a link to anything about this? And did you read the link I put up?

Click to expand...

I did read the short article your link pointed to. It's the first I've ever been exposed to this hypothesis, thanks for sharing. My current favorite series for understanding spacetime is Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos series on Nova:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html#

Part 1 is entitled, 'What is Space?', and that episode goes into space expanding and it's objects rushing away from each other identifiable by their red shift. The entire series is amusing and informative with great CGI, so get out the heavy indica and lock yourself into your couch Also, this wiki entry sums it up well - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

cannabineer said:

I did not introduce the time/duration dichotomy, or the question of its measurement. I am not sure at what you're getting here. Before the universe existed, could there be time? No. Because time is a property of our universe. We have excellent evidence that the universe unfolded from not-time, not-space to give us the timespace that thoroughly informs us. We have extreme difficulty imagining existences without the presence of its frame, our three-plus-one dimensions.

Click to expand...

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around what exactly you mean by saying "BEFORE the universe existed?" The term before implies a previous time prior to a later point in time. If I say I created a widget at 11:30, and I ate lunch before I created that widget, what does that mean to you? To me it means that there was a previous time. But you seem to contradict yourself. On one hand you talk about a time before the universe, and in the same breath you say there was no time before the universe. If you say time started then there is no concept of "before" that point, which is totally incorrect.

cannabineer said:

This is a pure guess on my part, but I suspect you're insisting that time be eternal because you have a visceral, not rational, distaste for the idea of its being limited. cn

Click to expand...

Limited compared to what?

Heisenberg said:

I feel a void from the lack of Chief so,

You only accept this because it makes you feel comfortable. You don't want there to be stars in the sky, because you are afraid to look up. If everything was black then you'd have no reason to look up and threaten your materialistic comfort. You only believe dark energy because of your narrow science view, but science can't tell you about things that can not be detected, like mind energy. Also, Tesla.

Click to expand...

LOL! I don't miss him much, I needed a break from irrationality this week. I pretty sure he went back to his home planet...

Seedling said:

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around what exactly you mean by saying "BEFORE the universe existed?" The term before implies a previous time prior to a later point in time. If I say I created a widget at 11:30, and I ate lunch before I created that widget, what does that mean to you? To me it means that there was a previous time. But you seem to contradict yourself. On one hand you talk about a time before the universe, and in the same breath you say there was no time before the universe. If you say time started then there is no concept of "before" that point, which is totally incorrect.



Limited compared to what?

Click to expand...

Yes; the "before" is paradoxical. Our imaginations insist that the Cosmos emerged into an existing stream of time. I was tolerating a defect in our thoroughly temporal use of language in order to keep my point compact.

The question "limited compared to what?" can only be answered by resorting to abstractions, like the infinite scalar of numbers. As others have mentioned, the only likely comparison for time is space, even though they are quite different. But they're inextricably linked.

The bit that our animal intuitions have much trouble grasping (since they are woven onto the loom of time and space) is that when there was no Universe, there was no space, no time. There was almost certainly a hyperspace/hypertime manifold from which the Cosmos "precipitated" in the Big Bang event. But (and here the language bites me again) "before" it precipitated, there was only nullity from our perspective. Less than nullity even, since without space and time there could be no observing it. cn

cannabineer said:

But (and here the language bites me again) "before" it precipitated, there was only nullity from our perspective. Less than nullity even, since without space and time there could be no observing it. cn

Click to expand...

That's not a language problem that's a concept problem. You have a concept of there being no time BEFORE the universe was created. That is nonsensical.

If I let you slide on the term "before" will you tell me your concept of there being no space? Does that mean there was no volume? No vacuum? No distance?

Heisenberg said:

Also, Tesla.

Click to expand...

I actually laughed really loudly at this remark. Heh.

Seedling said:

That's not a language problem that's a concept problem. You have a concept of there being no time BEFORE the universe was created. That is nonsensical.

If I let you slide on the term "before" will you tell me your concept of there being no space? Does that mean there was no volume? No vacuum? No distance?

Click to expand...

SpaceTime is Relative, Einstein, said. If you have no reference it's void. Even the concept of void, is not it. It is void, of even that. I don't mean biblical void, I don't mean Zero. There is no before, before.

No Spacetime, no volume, no vacuum, no direction, no distance. No Reference. No Relativity. No Time. Times is this tool of convenience in the macro world.

What you are imagining, I think is something else. NOW. We can imagine it is now everywhere. We can imagine the same now is forever, across vast distance. Regardless of Causality or Relativity we can imagine Now in a context where the universe is not. Why? No constraints. No information is exchanged. And when I delve into the concepts of Quantum non-causality that can be proven experimentally, I understand that Now is all that is possible.

Doer said:

SpaceTime is Relative, Einstein, said. If you have no reference it's void. Even the concept of void, is not it. It is void, of even that. I don't mean biblical void, I don't mean Zero. There is no before, before.

No Spacetime, no volume, no vacuum, no direction, no distance. No Reference. No Relativity. No Time. Times is this tool of convenience in the macro world.

Click to expand...

You've made yourself believe that it's possible for there to be "nothing." What makes you believe such a strange concept? You believe that it's possible for there to be no volume? Describe to me a lack of volume, in your own words. I'm looking forward to hearing this tale of yours.

Seedling said:

That's not a language problem that's a concept problem. You have a concept of there being no time BEFORE the universe was created. That is nonsensical.

If I let you slide on the term "before" will you tell me your concept of there being no space? Does that mean there was no volume? No vacuum? No distance?

Click to expand...

If there was no cosmos, there was no time, space, distance, volume, duration or anything else that requires our spatiotemporal environment to inform the term with meaning. The Big Bang was a singularity in all senses of the word. After it, the term "after" acquired meaning. That is how I understand it.

If you are championing the opposed position, that time was in place before any of the other framing members of existence ... how might you illustrate or otherwise substantiate the idea? cn

welyou need to go trip again cause i dont think you ever came down. life is pure chance and the development of specialized organs to generate the materials needed to procreate took a long fuckn time. at first ther was no genetic code, only as you put, biomass. this biomass continued to collect break apart evolve and this led to allkinds of life devolping there was no directed action or more of the species on this planet would have more similar origins. lots of aquatic animals appear as if they have never im the time of this planet had any relation to one another as far as origin. i mean you just cant tell me jellyfish and regular fish have the same origin, but you could tell me that mushrooms and jellyfish do.

Seedling said:

You've made yourself believe that it's possible for there to be "nothing." What makes you believe such a strange concept? You believe that it's possible for there to be no volume? Describe to me a lack of volume, in your own words. I'm looking forward to hearing this tale of yours.

Click to expand...

You seem to be trying to laugh at me. But, I assure you this is exactly what is proposed by Big Bang Theory. Void of the concept of nothing. Void of description. Void. It's not even lack. Void lacks the concept for lack. It's not something I believe. It's the math. There is no reference. It's not belief.

If you really want to know where I get this, go over the Science section and see. I've posted plenty. I'm done some homework. I know where you get the common view of time. I'm not making this up. And I have documented enough for you to see it. But, I don't care if you agree. I'm not trying to stretch your world view, if it can't.

Seedling said:

I find it total irrational to assume that duration (time) could ever start or stop, as duration is not a material object, that would be a clock. Clocks measure time like a meter stick measures a meter.

Click to expand...

what is time except for the measurement of change. We have the concept from sci-fi and fantasy of time standing still, we can appreciate that means nothing in the universe is progressing. What about at the end of the universe, when all atoms have been ripped apart and the temperature has reach near absolute zero. The only 'existence' is the quantum foam with random particles flitting in and out of esistence. With such a universe, there is nothing to measure time against. There is literally no change in anything, time loses all meaning. Isn't this the same as having no time? Isn't it identical to time standing still?

mindphuk said:

what is time except for the measurement of change. We have the concept from sci-fi and fantasy of time standing still, we can appreciate that means nothing in the universe is progressing. What about at the end of the universe, when all atoms have been ripped apart and the temperature has reach near absolute zero. The only 'existence' is the quantum foam with random particles flitting in and out of esistence. With such a universe, there is nothing to measure time against. There is literally no change in anything, time loses all meaning. Isn't this the same as having no time? Isn't it identical to time standing still?

Click to expand...

We might know in time. ~giggling, ducking~ cn

mindphuk said:

what is time except for the measurement of change. We have the concept from sci-fi and fantasy of time standing still, we can appreciate that means nothing in the universe is progressing. What about at the end of the universe, when all atoms have been ripped apart and the temperature has reach near absolute zero. The only 'existence' is the quantum foam with random particles flitting in and out of esistence. With such a universe, there is nothing to measure time against. There is literally no change in anything, time loses all meaning. Isn't this the same as having no time? Isn't it identical to time standing still?

Click to expand...

One mathematical next step has been proposed: Because all possible change has occurred, there is no more entropy possible. Information constraints are gone because all relativity is washed out "It's" all filled in and smooth energy is all that's left, no fundamental forces, yet,...No Spacetime, no volume, no vacuum, no direction, no distance. No Reference. No Relativity. No Time.

No SIZE is possible.

The math says that without these constraint an instantaneous (in the Now) phase change can occur. That which has expanded, at last, into smooth quantum fluctuations is NOW void. And the phase change is the Big Bang. From all position, to none, to some. Wait for it.....BANG.

What a load of crap!

It is impossible for there to be no distance or no volume. Just because there is no matter in space doesn't mean there isn't space. Get a grip on yourself man, Einstein was the biggest BS artist of all time.

"If an outsider perceives 'something wrong' with a core scientific model, the humble and justified response of that curious outsider should be to ask 'what mistake am I making?' before assuming 100% of the experts are wrong." - David Brin


The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination. In short, this fallacy is invoked when someone simply says, “I don’t believe that” and leaves the rebuttal there. This is an indication the argument amounts to little more than the inability to understand complexity.