[jasmine]

if the universe was created by the big bang, and it's expanding rapidly, wont d biggest black hole or biggest empty space be the centre?

[dipayankar]

Would it??? Big Bang wasnt probably an explosion.. it would be more of an inflation...

Originally Posted by jasmine if the universe was created by the big bang, and it's expanding rapidly, wont d biggest black hole or biggest empty space be the centre?

[MJA]

Originally Posted by jasmine if the universe was created by the big bang, and it's expanding rapidly, wont d biggest black hole or biggest empty space be the centre?

If that is true Jasmine, we will never find the center because by now it is long gone.

=
MJA

[Rufus]

Originally Posted by jasmine if the universe was created by the big bang, and it's expanding rapidly, wont d biggest black hole or biggest empty space be the centre?

Jasmine

Welcome to toequest!

There would indeed be a big black hole if there was a big bang but BB is just a theory and not a very good one at that. It has been replaced by the BBB (big bang bounce) theory and that one is just as dumb. Where does all this rocky material come from in the first place is what I always ask.

Keep on posting

Rufe

[RascalPuff]

"Where does all this rocky material come from in the first place is what I always ask." - Rufus

The abandoned - tentatively returning - Steady State theory proffers the same question, Rufus. It seems that the human mind demands a beginning and ending to everything and imposes that demand on the existential universe. Hence, the 'big bang' and 'big rip' suppositions.

The Steady State maintains there's no beginning or end, and that all the rocky material didn't come out of nowhere, but has always been here... ('The center is everywhere'; no common center, no 'big bang beginning'. Keeping in mind that the Standard Theory 'big bang' has been 'revised' a lot since it's outset; now incorporating *LCDM - Einstein's 'abandoned' Cosmological Constant' - '*Lambda Cold Dark Matter', and dismissing a common center, which it originally adovcated, under Lemaitre's first introduction.)
____________________________

SteadyState: no 'bang', no 'crunch', no 'rip'.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/help/introduction-physics-philosophy-metaphysics-space.htm

'Center point mass'.

4-D accelerating expansion to macrocosmic infinity.

The same quantity of energy, distributed over an ever increasing space, squared.
(Without infringement on the law of conservation of mass-energy.)

This perspective anticipates a return of the abandoned Steady State universe.
Discarding any need for the 'spontanous creation of Hydrogen' to compensate for what would otherwise be the decreased density of the overall expanding universe.

Whereas, 'cosmic background radiation' is the signature of any expanding universe scenario, where earlier eras of the expanding universe were inevitably more dense.

In the proposed interpretation of matter as a continuously expanding field, there is no 'big bang', 'big crunch', or 'big rip'. The materially and spatially expanding universe maintains the same relative density, from the infinite past to the infinite future, ergo: 'Steady State'.
____________________________

The Standard Theory status is aversive to the concept of 'always been here'.

Meanwhile, the alternative to the infinite residency of matter is that it emerged out of 'nothing'. Contradicting the philosophical axiom by Hume and Locke, that, 'Nothing begets nothing'.

Best regards,
- RP

[sillysally]

Originally Posted by jasmine if the universe was created by the big bang, and it's expanding rapidly, wont d biggest black hole or biggest empty space be the centre?

That's hysterical! Like a donut? Ahahah! Were you eating a donut when you thought of that?

[everymansmedium]

Hello:
Every observer is always at the center. no matter what way you look you are standing on the center that does not exist and looking toward the edge that does not exist. The expansion of the universe that appears to accelerate to the speed of light in all directions does not increase the size of the universe. The point of time that we observe from our center of the universe is NOW. This point is dimensionless as we experience it. But as it extends with space across the universe it requires all the time that there is to be expected in the universe for it to traverse the universe. The space defines the time and the time defines the space. The eternal NOW is the point of creation that never stops creating. We all share one consciousness this is the "I AM". The character that we experience is data. It is a single dimensional memory of the experience of the lives that have been lived within the single track of time that you are given to live within for all time. You will live in the world that you create for yourself within your single track of time that is yours forever. If in this track you create a hell then that is what you will exist within forever. If you create a heaven then you will be blessed with this forever. But have no fear you will keep going until you get it right.

Maybe the edge of the universe is at absolute zero. Where all motion including light come to a stop in the Bose-Einstein Condensation. The light that reaches that point becomes as matter then the matter becomes the condensate that light travels through at about 15 mph. Will this put the universe in a shell composed of a B.E. condensate of matter?
Would we be able to see it if it was there? Does it reflect light back into the universe?
It appears as another event horizon not only of maximum space but also of minimum temperature. This being the opposite of the black hole that is likely to be at maximum heat and minimum space. Both of these bring the speed of light to a halt in an inexcessable space. There is no doubt in my mind that this is the result of intelligent design.
When ever you try to understand beyond the limits that have been set by the event horizons, all logic, common sense, and understanding is removed.
John.

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by Rufus Jasmine Welcome to toequest! There would indeed be a big black hole if there was a big bang but BB is just a theory and not a very good one at that. It has been replaced by the BBB (big bang bounce) theory and that one is just as dumb. Where does all this rocky material come from in the first place is what I always ask. Keep on posting Rufe

This is not correct. The Big Bang theory says nothing about the universe being a black hole, and nothing about there being a black hole in the "centre of the universe." In fact, standard cosmology does not allow for such a place as the "centre of the universe."

Rufus, why are such theories dumb? All this "rocky material" i.e. matter, comes from the initial vacuum fluctuations, or the decay of the cosmological constant that drove inflation, at the end of inflation.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by everymansmedium Hello: Every observer is always at the center. no matter what way you look you are standing on the center that does not exist and looking toward the edge that does not exist. The expansion of the universe that appears to accelerate to the speed of light in all directions does not increase the size of the universe. The point of time that we observe from our center of the universe is NOW. This point is dimensionless as we experience it. But as it extends with space across the universe it requires all the time that there is to be expected in the universe for it to traverse the universe. The space defines the time and the time defines the space. The eternal NOW is the point of creation that never stops creating. We all share one consciousness this is the "I AM". The character that we experience is data. It is a single dimensional memory of the experience of the lives that have been lived within the single track of time that you are given to live within for all time. You will live in the world that you create for yourself within your single track of time that is yours forever. If in this track you create a hell then that is what you will exist within forever. If you create a heaven then you will be blessed with this forever. But have no fear you will keep going until you get it right. Maybe the edge of the universe is at absolute zero. Where all motion including light come to a stop in the Bose-Einstein Condensation. The light that reaches that point becomes as matter then the matter becomes the condensate that light travels through at about 15 mph. Will this put the universe in a shell composed of a B.E. condensate of matter? Would we be able to see it if it was there? Does it reflect light back into the universe? It appears as another event horizon not only of maximum space but also of minimum temperature. This being the opposite of the black hole that is likely to be at maximum heat and minimum space. Both of these bring the speed of light to a halt in an inexcessable space. There is no doubt in my mind that this is the result of intelligent design. When ever you try to understand beyond the limits that have been set by the event horizons, all logic, common sense, and understanding is removed. John.

____________________________

Dear everymansmedium:

Do you find any parallels with your proposal in the following post?
---------------------------------------------------

Motion Spectrum Enigma: opposite extremes = the same result.


Timelessness is said to result with absence of all motion - such as in a (so far unobserved, unachieved) condition of 'Absolute Zero' (-273o C. -459o F.)

Timelessness is also said to result if and when any physical entity moves at the speed of light (C = 186,282 mps).

In this consideration it seems that two opposites - the absence of motion (at microcosmic infinity), and ultimate motion at the speed of light (macrocosmic infinity) - equal timelessness.

It is also noteworthy, until further notice, that neither of these two extreme conditions have been attained in experimental physics. That is to say, cyclotron speeds approach but do not equal that of light, and cryogenic experiments (Bose-Einstein condensations; etc) approach but do not equal that of Absolute Zero. Opposite ends of the motion spectrum establish 'timelessness' (cessation of all motion): established by maximum motion and zero motion.

That these two antithetical considerations of maximum and minimum motion should both result in timelessness, draws attention to itself.

I call it the 'motion spectrum enigma', and submit that there are yet to be recognized solutions here - solutions which may evoke more advanced questions and answers.

May the Reader please draw and express their own conclusions.

Please lemme know what you think of this proposed ('coincidental') enigma, Mr. emm.

Best regards,
- RP

[everymansmedium]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff ____________________________ Dear everymansmedium: Do you find any parallels with your proposal in the following post? --------------------------------------------------- Motion Spectrum Enigma: opposite extremes = the same result. Timelessness is said to result with absence of all motion - such as in a (so far unobserved, unachieved) condition of 'Absolute Zero' (-273o C. -459o F.) Timelessness is also said to result if and when any physical entity moves at the speed of light (C = 186,282 mps). In this consideration it seems that two opposites - the absence of motion (at microcosmic infinity), and ultimate motion at the speed of light (macrocosmic infinity) - equal timelessness. It is also noteworthy, until further notice, that neither of these two extreme conditions have been attained in experimental physics. That is to say, cyclotron speeds approach but do not equal that of light, and cryogenic experiments (Bose-Einstein condensations; etc) approach but do not equal that of Absolute Zero. Opposite ends of the motion spectrum establish 'timelessness' (cessation of all motion): established by maximum motion and zero motion. That these two antithetical considerations of maximum and minimum motion should both result in timelessness, draws attention to itself. I call it the 'motion spectrum enigma', and submit that there are yet to be recognized solutions here - solutions which may evoke more advanced questions and answers. May the Reader please draw and express their own conclusions. Please lemme know what you think of this proposed ('coincidental') enigma, Mr. emm. Best regards, - RP

When using the tools of science, I have never been able to determine any reasonable information from beyond any of the event horizons. It seems the only thing that is able to penetrate beyond the event horizons is our imagination. This coupled with our free will is the tool of creation itself. To go beyond the event horizons it seems that a leap of faith is required. This is the only tool that we have that may be capable of bridging this gap. We must use our reason and logic to go as far is it is possible to go and fill the smallest gap that we can be left with, by using our imagination. I do not see any other way.
When one looks at the overall picture of our existence medium that is contained by and defined within the event horizons. It becomes obvious to me that we are the result of creation. There can be no other way at random that we would be so contained or confined by the walls generated by the event horizons.


The only way that I was ever able to make any sense out of these facts was to imagine time and space to be the result of separate poles of a primary force. Then one can imagine a reversal of the poles at the event horizons.
These event horizons are the points that connect our present existence medium with that of a total reversal. I was able to imagine a membrane that contains both existence mediums. The membrane appears as if shaped like a Mobius strip with a single twist. Thus putting these existence mediums in a one after the other series arraignment while at the same time they are back to back in a parallel configuration. This being a peculiar arraignment the result of the membrane shaped as a Mobius strip. The direction that time travels on this strip is always in a linear manner. This is as if there is some stationary force that is responsible for both space and time. As the position on the membrane indicates the direction of the poles will reverse as the twist is crossed. I made a model of this so I could look at it and picture the relativity of different points on the membrane. The model is made as follows. A single strip of paper about 10 or 11 inches long and about 1 inch wide. On one side of the paper I write the word “Eden” then I put and arrow from the first letter in the word pointing away from the word as “  Eden” . Then turn the paper end to end keeping the same top edge. Then on the opposite side of Eden write the word “Elsewhen”. Now put a twist of 180 degrees in the paper and tape it together this way. Now find the arrow in front of Eden and continue to indicate this direction with arrows all the way around until you put the last one pointing at the n in Eden. Now you can follow the arrows infinitely in the same direction. So you see that Eden and Elsewhen are in series. But when you look through the paper you can see that they are also in parallel to one another. You will also note that the arrows indicate the direction of flow of time. There is only this one direction that you can travel in. If you think about this no matter what direction that you face you are always looking toward the macro/red shift. This I think is indicative of the more basic direction on the membrane as the arrows indicate. All motion is always in the direction of the arrows. It is also always going in the same direction as time travels. As you travel with time it does not pass you. The time that does not pass you remains as a single strand of space. This results with the very same as SR. Though the explanation and idea is somewhat different, the math and the result is the same as SR. In this thought you will find an explanation of all things. This is the environment that I am trying to create in software as an environment for my AI.
John