All of them (or none of them, depending on perspective), according to the generally accepted theories: every point in space is its own centre of "expansion".
The Big Bang: Where Did It Happen?
- Thread starter Aladdin
- Start date
elte
Valued Senior Member
I say that based on how the Milky Way is on a present path even now, and how the energy and matter that is presently our galaxy supposedly came from the relatively sudden inflation of the long-ago singularity that was blown outward from that point. That blow-up, being called the Big Bang, sent everything we see moving away from everything else. Going back in time should be able to converge everything back to the starting point.
Due to gravitational irregularities, it shouldn't be a straight line that it (what is now the Milky Way) took, but the general direction might be determinable. Is this theory no longer the one widely accepted, or have I gotten it wrong? (gotta get offline now)
http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/
When a theory can no longer keep up with the data it needs to be revised.
Maybe you can explain how the BB solves this observational problem. The link will tell you a few dozen other problems.
Your evidence is a some guys home grown website? The few dozen 'problems' are only problems in his mind. Look at some recent information about the 'problems'.
Your 'theory' is in conflict with observation (don't you hate it when that happens). Mini BBs on a galactic level wouldn't produce the observed cosmological redshift, the homogeniety of the CMB, or even the invarience in the laws of physics.
In short, your mini-big bang is a dismal fizzle.
But a point cannot expand, can it? (Unless the point in question is the entire freakin' Universe, I guess
.)I liked Aqueous' post (#29) about how the whole Universe should still be seen as a dimensionless point (if one can see something like that) from an outsider's perspective (that is, an observer from "outside" the Universe, wherever that may be). To me, it conjured an image in which the matter in this Universe is not really expanding (moving outwards), but rather collapsing (moving inwards), falling within itself as if creating new space (into which to fall) by this very movement. 3D as I know it certainly wouldn't be enough for such a feat.
(Aside note: Some people imagine God as existing somewhere outside this Universe, which He created, apparently (that being the reason why He can't be in -- cannot create Himself, can He?)... If so, and if the Universe does indeed look like a dimensionless point from where He's standing then I guess it's kind of understandable why there are no more signs from Him: He can't figure out where the heck are we. Hence His non-intervention ever since Creation (of the Universe).)
So anyway... what shape does Universe has? Is it a sphere or is it something else? (Is there a consensus in this matter? I kind of vaguely remember reading about different possible shapes based on the measurement of some yet not well determined value...?)
'Cause if it's an (approximate) sphere then I guess the whole thing could be rephrased as: Where is the center of this sphere?
It started in New Jersey
It did start in New Jersey and every other place in the universe.
No, the theory does not state there was nothing and then something. Observations leads to the conclusion that the entire universe was all at the same point about 14 1/2 billions years ago.
This is a non-starter because the BB created space and time.
One gets the feeling there are a lot of different ideas regarding the Big Bang and how to explain the Universe size and expansion thereafter. I will not be offering my impression for I honestly don't know, but reading the thread hoping a sensible answer will evolve.
Yes. There is the mainstream, scientifically accepted theory. Then there are the thousands of different "ideas" based on pseudoscience, misunderstanding, lack of knowledge or expertise, pure fantasy and so on.
Yes, but exactly where exactly big bang was created, it had to be in some larger space, I still can't understand how astronomers can explain this, they use complex models but neither really explains that.
Like I said it has to be some space outside the big bang. I don't believe that there wasn't space outside the big bang.
Everything needs outside space to expand.
There's no "correct" answer - merely ideas... such as "God farted", the "Ekpyrotic Universe" and so forth.
There also does not have to be "space" outside the big bang, but that might depend on what you consider "space" to be.
Basically, the only thing we can say is that the universe exists and has certain properties.
I.e. we are just a location on a map, and the means of our "creation" would be the path to get here... which could be any one of an infinite number of possibilities. And we don't even know where the starting position of that journey is... if there ever was one.
But then our conceptions of what is outside the universe is somewhat hindered by our language that is firmly based on spatial and temporal concepts. Verbs indicate the passage of time etc, and nouns generally indicate something that we conceive as having a spatial existence.
So it's difficult to picture what might be outside the universe, where there could be anything, or nothing.
So theories abound, but the more acceptable ones (to science) are those that can explain the universe as we see it, and have used those observations and extrapolated back.
But there is no means of verification... so to accept any such theory as the objective truth would be irrational.
There also does not have to be "space" outside the big bang, but that might depend on what you consider "space" to be.
Basically, the only thing we can say is that the universe exists and has certain properties.
I.e. we are just a location on a map, and the means of our "creation" would be the path to get here... which could be any one of an infinite number of possibilities. And we don't even know where the starting position of that journey is... if there ever was one.
But then our conceptions of what is outside the universe is somewhat hindered by our language that is firmly based on spatial and temporal concepts. Verbs indicate the passage of time etc, and nouns generally indicate something that we conceive as having a spatial existence.
So it's difficult to picture what might be outside the universe, where there could be anything, or nothing.
So theories abound, but the more acceptable ones (to science) are those that can explain the universe as we see it, and have used those observations and extrapolated back.
But there is no means of verification... so to accept any such theory as the objective truth would be irrational.
No it didn't. There was no space outside of the universe.
That is because you are looking for a model that utilizes your everyday experiences and since ALL of your experience is in space you assume space is a prerequisit for everything. It is a natural assumption - but it is wrong.
You of course can believe whatever you want but belief does not make it fact.
The correct statemet is Everything [in the universe] needs outside space to expand.
But if universe is created, it simply isn't everything, everything is uncreated and infinite, if big bang theory is correct (none knows that for sure, since there are some problems with it, like any other theory of the universe),
And answer me how space is not pre-requisit for everything? Everything is created inside the space not outside of it-because there are no dimensions where something would have conditions like dimension (and dimension means space) to start to exist in the first place. You can't create something in dimension-less space.
I still fail to understand this...
What do you mean it isn't everything? It is by definition the universe! "Everything is uncreated and infinite" sounds like philosophy. The point is that the universe (all of existence) is expanding - if you roll the 'film' backwards the entire universe compresses to a single point. This is the essence of the BBT, based on observation.
By problems, you mean that the BBT as it now exists does not answer every aspect of the formation of the universe. True. General Relativity does not answer every aspect of gravity, but I still strongly discourage anyone from testing it by stepping out of a 10th floor window.
That is kind of the point! The universe is not expanding into anything. As you said there is no space outside of the universe. The universe is expanding into nothing. Nothing means no X, Y, Z or time - just 'nuttin'.
Every atom of hydrogen and some helium in this Universe was at one point in time at the exact position of the very center of the original expansion of the event we call the Big Bang. And, in a very real sense, it has never moved, but every other atom of hydrogen has moved in relation to it. And every atom sits in the center of a three dimensional sphere of space/time where it can see everything not bound to it by gravity is moving away from it. EVERY atom will see this. Observationally, we are at the center of the Universe.
Grumpy
Grumpy
Every atom of hydrogen and some helium in this Universe was at one point in time at the exact position of the very center of the original expansion of the event we call the Big Bang. And, in a very real sense, it has never moved, but every other atom of hydrogen has moved in relation to it. And every atom sits in the center of a three dimensional sphere of space/time where it can see everything not bound to it by gravity is moving away from it. EVERY atom will see this. Observationally, we are at the center of the Universe. Grumpy
of course any other being would think the same , in their sphere
and then multiply this by all the galaxies in the Universe , each with a being
well the problem of we being at the center of the Universe becomes paradoxical
Does it? Look at the surface of a ball. Where is the center of that surface?