[baudrunner]

Hi, all!

It's been some time since I started a new thread. Because of my stubborn logical analytical approach to clearing up some old issues that were never quite resolved I am going to propose that we start a renewed discussion on the origins of the Universe.

Some premises:

1. general consensus has it that there was a "Big Bang", ergo - a beginning. (Big Bang, what have you, I think it was a little more subtle, but being humans as we are we appear to have a propensity for liking to blow things up, in this case - real good)

2. the age of the Universe is generally accepted as being about 14 billion years old, give or take, and this contributes to the idea of a beginning of course.

3. the Universe is expanding, and according to Hubble and his constant, this expansion is uniform, which I take to mean linear and constant, a point which I have illustrated with my famous elastic band demonstration. Ask for it if you are not familiar with it (so much for the accelerating expanding Universe theory, it turns out that that is just an illusion).

Now I will present a conundrum. Believe it or not, it is just a big puzzle to me. Apparently, there is no center to this expanding Universe and it all just kind of started expanding all over the place all at once! Hah! Likely story. But I am just being an ignorant agnostic at this point.

YOU MUST read this -> Here is a prerequisite for anyone who wants to contribute their input:

Please read this easy to read large type text only fast loading web page before contributing.

Thank you for your contributions. I will leave the thread open to all members because I want to read what you have to say, but kindly do not digress from the main theme.

yours respectfully,

baudrunner

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks Baud for this most interesting of topics,how can the universe have no centre?
one could then equally ask that if there is no known centre,then prehaps there is no beginning either,I know it is supposed to have started about 15 billion years ago,but
"they" could be totally wrong in that assumption too.

Prehaps as individuals we are all at a centre of the universe,we just need to point the
finger at ourselves!


regards michael.

[baudrunner]

Our experiences of the past have demonstrated a thorough willingness to attach our beliefs to the untenable. Perhaps this is because so long as their is some inexplicable component to our perceptions then we may be satisfied that there will always be a search for answers. To heck with Ocam's razor.

I personally find it pompous and irresponsible for anyone to even attempt to estimate the age of the Universe. If we compare the entire Universe to this balloon of Eddington's, and it is a valid analogy to explain the relationship of stars in the expansion process, then scale the balloon to the size of this earth, then it might very well be that the entire observable Universe which the Hubble telescope allows us might occupy no more than a cubic inch deep in where would be located the earth's crust in this comparison.

Those who believe in a creator no doubt willingly accept that it is entirely possible that everything can just pop into existence everywhere all at once and begin expanding. But the currently accepted cosmological theory seems to be too much an accommodation to both science and religion, and that is just plain unscientific.

In earlier posts I have suggested that there is a creation front at the periphery which continues for perpetuity. Nothing in observaton or scientific theory refutes that, rather it supports it. I have also written that space is as much a creation as the matter which occupies it. Philip Gibbs says as much in his paper, but he does not pretend to understand it, which is why I consider his contribution to be integral.

An expanding Universe which had a beginning and which continues creating at its periphery and which can only be observed from within, as supported by Gibbs, is naturally one which must have had a starting point. That is logical. But since there was nothing before the beginning it cannot have had an isolated starting point because it could not have had a location, no reference point of origin, otherwise that would describe nothing as having had a place and that can't be.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. This three dimensional reality is strange and in order for it to exist there have to be strange accommodations like relativity, space/time, QM, and a starting point with no location. When it comes down to it, I would rather we blended science with the pragmatic than with the untenable so long as we understand that all those strange accommodations have their place in our practical understanding of reality.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

And what is there in all this to support there not being a center? And, I did read the article... Any initial center would have long ago vanished due to space/matter curvature of galaxie motions and time, would it not? Einstein did believe in curved space, and I do believe in time erasing such initial motion maps, especially with all the inter-galactic space storms. I see no inconsistencies with center, expanding universe, and the homogeneous, isotropic nature of the universe. We know galaxies collide, as your earlier posts pictures show, so this would mean, over time, the nature of space's motions are multidirectional, at best[thermal space storms?]. Such multidirectionalism would certainly disguise any early big bang motions' center. The thermodynamic dual fields of the aether[my conjecture], that everyone wants to keep ignoring, is very complex. May I point out that the hot quantum angular motion and spin aether field, is impossible of producing the cold linear motion aether field___it, by the laws of physics, must exist in its initial infinite ground macro/micro state, along side, within and without, the hot quantum angular motion and spin aether field, otherwise, the universe would experience heat death. Hot motion cannot produce cold motion, but cold motion must produce hot motion___it's its radiation requirement___all motion radiates heat. Such an initial ground state field requires a center, as its matter motion is thermodynamically required to implode, to just such a center, i.e., big bang from initial infinite space thermal matter motions, to a center. Thermodynamics is, by its very nature, the initially imploding uncaused cause of all matter motion___matter motion must exist eternally, by the first law of thermodynamics___conservation of matter/energy. I think Baud, this is much easier to understand, than the foolishness of the big bang coming from nothing, don't you?

Just imagine the real and most likely conditions at the initial state explosion of a real matter big bang. IMO, it is far from what has been thus far theorized. This was no simple explosion of space and or matter, there would have been no vacuum, at the moment of explosion, as the explosion would have been required to create the finite space vacuum, the temperature outside this dis-equilibriated explosion was most likely absolute zero, the explosion temperture would have most likely been trillions of degrees hotter than what has been theorized, as a practical size of such big bang matter would consist of all the matter, and more, presently in the finite universe, as a considerable sum has radiated away, thus just imagine folding all the universe's galaxies, or at least all their matter, back into one black ball. This would be massive beyond belief, in size, even if we consider an increasing light speed as we go back in time toward the initial event, even though velocity increases mass, and reduces size, it would still have been much more massive than has been so far theorized. Now, consider a many trillions of degrees hot real explosion of real matter, into absolute zero thermal space storms, and the massive initial space storms that such gigantic collisions of matter and energy, in all directions imaginable, would create___this much heat would react so violently against such cold, that it is unimaginable, in our thermal semi-equilibriated universe, to truly comprehend___can you? There would have been massive thunder heads, tornados, hurricanes, twistors, spinors, on and on___unimaginable forces at the initial conditions of such a violent explosion, that it could easily explain all the anomalous multidirections, conditions and spirals of the galactic orders___don't you think? All one needs do is realize how drastic an influence such initial conditions of motions could truly have over time, and I think you can easily see why the initial center would be so disguised, today. Let's put our real thinking caps on, and think about real matter/motion explosions, to try and understand this pragmatically...

regards,

[baudrunner]

I think Baud, this is much easier to understand, than the foolishness of the big bang coming from nothing, don't you?

Outstanding! Thank you for this most stimulating response.

It seems then that the Universe is its own heat exchanger, generating unto itself its own unipolar bi-polarity (English is so limited) and crystallizing into the order-from-chaos and ultimately perfect state where evolution becomes decay. And, as I see it, beginning the process for infinity at the periphery. Dark matter is probably the end of the process.

What a great mind you have, Lloyd. At least we can imagine that there was something before the (a?) Big Bang. The subtlety of what that was is subjective and relative, but it helps us to place ourselves above it so that we can take a better look.

All I can do is appreciate the overall picture in an effort to encapsulate it all into the thought symbol that makes the most sense towards the development of a TOE. Details are distracting. However, there is no doubt in my mind that in the beginning there were many primitive particles that were incompatible with the order of things as we know them today. Particles whose behaviour simply did not fall into the scheme of things, or rather, into some quantum niche that particles occupy today. And what of this aether? Is that not a classical term? Let's just call it space.

The mind boggles.

[michellemfry]

I accept the large picture of expansion, and embarassingly ask about a particle of expansion. All that expansion, and nothing to pin it down to, please don't laugh. I don't know where I get these silly world ideas. Maybe little expanders that open up space. Ok, stop laughing or go get your research on and get rich on me. Hi, Baud.

[baudrunner]

Space knows that it will ultimiately rule. Its "space boson" particles are expanding and time along with it. We are but a phase in its fifteen minutes. Hi Michelle.

[RascalPuff]

As I recal the original balloon analogy is superceded by a modification introduced by Dr. H.P. Robertson, of Cal Tech. He converted the spots on the balloon to glued on raisins so as to dispatch with any misunderstanding that the spots themselves - representing matter - would not be confused with the expanding space. I happen to think that the physical universe is expanding with the spatial universe and the Steady State theory that corresponds with that viewpoint.

I see neither a beginning nor an end to the expanding universe, and, the evidence that the expansion is accelerating continues to stack up on the desks of the editors of the Physical Science journal and Scientific American, etceteras.
An accelerating universe is not a signature of a big bang, but, rather, a signature of a physically and spatially expanding universe, where the center is everywhere. The last sentence in the recommended reading - all of which I did read - says:

Our ignorance about the real answer to the question "Where is the centre of the universe?" is complete.

Thank you, Baud, for posting this important and accumulatively interesting issue.

I think that the abandoned Steady State and Cosmological Constant factors will be reinstated.
Respectfully,
- RP

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Any space or matter shape you can think of, absolutely requires a center___Think about it... You can't logically think any other way...

Lloyd

[mkirkpatrick]

The centre of the universe,is the centre of the self!

regards michael.