Universe Race

Not all stars started at the same place because they weren't stars until a relatively long time after the Big Bang. By approaching infinite density.

I think I know why you are confused. Most lay people think matter is solid in the conventional sense. When you are talking about very dense matter like neutron stars and singularities, it helps to stop thinking of them in the conventional sense. The table that holds up your computer isn't really solid. In fact, without even mentioning the subatomic world, most of an atom is just empty space. When I say most, I mean like 99% of it is empty space. Things are not as solid as they seem.Personally, I'd like to have a little piece of neutron in my collection before I die of old age.

Hi cavediver, But if their energy and mass was in that small pea sized universe and began to expand even though they were not formed until several million years later didn't they start at the same place? Just in a different form than we see them today.Would not all the elements be travling at the same rate of expansion and if not expansion would not be true?God Bless,

---

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

Hi CS, Don't black holes have infinite density?God Bless,

---

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

Hi Taz, Taz I was thinking of it being pure energy since they can change forms.God Bless,

---

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

Ask yourself this question. What do you get when you minus infinity by 1? How about by 10? How about by 10000? How about by 10000000000? How about by 100000000000000000000?

Hi Taz, Do you know the answer to the question I asked as your babbling did not come close to a yes or no.The question was, does a black have infinite density?God Bless,

---

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

Uh, you responded to the wrong post.I'm trying to get you to understand the concept of infinity and approaching infinity.

It's easy to become confused when you participate with so many short messages. Taz was responding to your Message 28, which is not the one that asked about black holes. It asked how all the mass and energy of the universe could have been compressed into something the size of a pea. Taz even quoted this above his response, and the message links associated with his reply clearly showed that he was replying to your Message 28. Why don't you give Taz's Message 32 another read with this in mind - you might find it makes more sense when you keep your contexts straight.--Percy

You're still trying to comprehend this as an "explosion," like a bomb. What we've been trying to explain is that the Big Bang was nothing like a conventional explosion. Your "common sense" understanding based on normal explosions isn't going to apply here.The expansion also did not progress at the exact same rate since T=0. In the first moments, the expansion was exponentially more rapid. It slowed down before the first second had ticked by, but current data suggests that the expansion is actually accelerating.Keep thinking about the balloon analogy that we've mentioned several times in this thread. In a normal explosion, matter inside of a given space is basically forced away from itself as its density is forcibly reduced, typically by a very high and sudden increase in temperature. In the Big Bang, density was decreased becasue the space the matter exists in expanded. It's like the causality chain is reversed in the Big Bang versus a normal explosion. In a normal explosion, volume is forcibly increased because density decreases. In the Big Bang, density is decreased because volume increases as space itself expands. Does that help you understand?Now, because this expansion is of space and not simply an explosion of matter, there is no center to anything. It's just like Taz said in his version of the balloon analogy - everything is moving away from everything else, not from some single center location. Just like you'd see with dots painted on an inflating balloon.Stars and galaxies have enough gravitational strength to hold local objects close, but those didnt start to form for millions of years after the initial expansion and formation of baryonic matter. It took a long time for density irregularities in all that matter to result in slow compression towards gravitational centers to form the first stars. These stars burned through their lifecycle and eventually went supernova - a "normal" explosion of incredible force that scattered stellar matter all over the Universe. Basically all elements heavier than Helium are the result of stellar fusion, and were expelled in supernova explosions. Even the stars we see today are made of "leftovers" from that early period.But gravity, the explosive force of the supernovae, and the nature of Universal expansion mean that there is no "center," and we wouldn't expect to see anything like what you or Ichthus are suggesting.

Hi Taz,Sorry I was running in and out of the house trying to please the missus in the yard work. I don't think I have a problem with infinity as I believe in an infinite universe. But maybe I do.God Bless,

---

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

You do realize that there is a difference between approaching infinity and actually being infinity, don't you?And even if black holes have infinite density, that doesn't mean that the singularity was a black hole.You see, apples and firetrucks are both red, but they're not the same thing either.

quote:

---

If all mass and energy was compressed into such a small area, why didn't everything start at the same place?

---

It's really really simple and I already explained it. THere were no stars in that volume. Stars did not exist then. Matter didn't exist then. Stars formed much later.

Hi Rahvin, No I am trying to think of it as baking a cake in a cone type baking pan. A cone is the normal analogy given for the expansion of the big bang.In doing that everything would be in the bottom. But it could only produce so much. It would be limited to the amount of volume of the cake dough in the bottom of the baking pan.Just as the universe would be limited to the volume of pure energy that could be contained in something the size of a pea.The balloon don't fly because everything would be getting farther apart and it is not. Galxayes have colided and are going to colide.I don't think the balloon is a good example at all. It creates too many problems.God Bless,

---

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

I think you're mixing two different analogies together. I haven't heard of the cake analogy, but I have heard of the bread analogy, useful because bread rises (expands fairly uniformly) as it bakes. But maybe cakes do the same thing, shows what I know about baking.Anyway, in the bread analogy the bread dough is usually filled with raisins (or something similar) which separate from one other at a velocity that increases with increasing distance as the bread rises during baking.The cone analogy is different. It matches the cone's apex to T=0 with T increasing as you advance away from the apex. Typically the cone is described as increasing in diameter with distance from the apex in a manner analogous to the rate of expansion of the universe. Expansion is indicated by increasing cone diameter.The balloon analogy is merely a 2-dimensional example that is fairly equivalent to the 3-dimensional bread analogy.--Percy