Universe Race

You are lousy at understanding analogies (Or may be you are just being intentionally dificult?).Let me help. The north-south direction in the globe is an analogy for the time direction in the four-dimensional universe. Moving from the north southward is an analogy for time going by. As you move southward things change (there is the movement you asked about). One of the things that change as you move southward is the radius of the other dimension(s) (the ones orthogonal to the north-south (time) direction). That's the analogy for the expansion of the universe. There. I hope that helped.

That's literally the same question as "what casued the expansion." Time is just another dimention like length and width, the only difference being that our consciousness is of necessity limited to experiencing the time dimension in a single direction. You're having trouble becasue of human perception.Time simply is, just like the other dimensions. At different coordinates of time, the other dimensions have different corresponding values - that is, length and width and height increase as time increases.But there's no "cause." It simply is.Perhaps this will be something you can understand. Mark it on your calendar, because I'm going to use God in an analogy.Let's pretend that you get to see the Universe from God's perspective. He is supposed to be eternal, and not bound by time or the space of this Universe, since He created all of it, right? So how would the Universe appear to a being from the outside, not bound by the dimensions that make it up?The Universe would exist as a single, discrete entity floating in whatever super-dimension God exists in. Let's just say the Universe looks like a globe, and the North/South axis is time. The other two dimensions represent the three spacial dimensions we're used to. The whole Universe simply exists. You and I each exist for a certain length of the North/South axis. God sees the whole thing, including the coordinates of time you and I are and are not present for, as a single discrete object.Certain coordinated of time have a larger circumference than others. To those of us inside the Universe experiencing time as a sequence of events, it appears that the Universe is expanding. But to God, it's not really. It just is, and it has a certain shape. To God, the concept of "time" is meaningless - he sees it as simply traveling from North to South in the globe.Now, we mere humans, being trapped inside the Universe, can't directly observe the Universe the way God can. Instead, we observe the properties of the Universe, describe them in what we call the laws of physics, and use our model of reality to make infrences about those coordinates of time for which we were not present.We see that, as we go farther towards the North pole of the globe of the Universe (back in time), the other three dimensions of teh Universe are smaller. Mathematically, we begin to see what God sees - the real shape of the Universe. So far we have determined the shape from now all the way back to just scant millimeters from the actual North Pole, where our model finally breaks down into a singularity.When you ask what came "before" the Universe, it makes no sense - the globe that is the Universe is inclusive of time. For the purpose of this visualization, time literally is the North Pole, and there isn't any such thing as farther North than that.If you asked God what "started" time, He'd say "Nothing started it. I made the whole thing, including what you'd call the past, the present, and the future. I made all of time just like I made all of length and width."If you asked God what caused the Universe to expand, He'd point to the globe and say "It didn't. It just has a certain shape. You see it expanding because you are tied to time, but the reality is you can't look at it from the perspective of someone inside the Universe if you want to see what the Universe is."Those like cavediver who have done the math are now trying to explain it to you through a series of easy-to-understand analogies.Does that help?

I would say from this post and your other one that you have an excellent understanding - enjoying your explanations

Hi fallacycop, Nope. Everything was lifeless nothing was moving.There was no time, no space. Just something not even the size of a pea. This something all by itself started to expand at some point and is still expanding.I want you to go get in your car put the key in the ignition. Do not turn the key. Do not press a remote start button. I want you to sit in that car until it starts by itself.This is exactly what you and everyone else is telling me happened with that smaller than a pea thingamajig the universe came from.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 Rahvin, I will not address anything below this statement other than to say if you would like to discuss those things start a topic.I could ask you to define "it" and we would probably have different meanings.So I will assume you are saying "Time simply is"We are talking about a point that the only thing that exists is the less than pea sized universe.At what point is "Time simply is". Time did have a start.
Movement did have a start.And it was going at light speed.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."

...those things are this topic. Could you please show me the respect of reading my explanation, and giving it a good-faith examination? We're all trying very hard to help you understand what we're talking about.The topic regards the expansion of the Universe, ICANT. Can we please talk about my previous post a bit to see if you're understanding what we're saying? Leave aside arguing for a moment, put aside debate. Stop trying to poke holes and save it for just a bit later. Try to understand what the actual position of science is. After you understand what we're talking about, you can feel free to criticize all you'd like...but if you're going to simply dismiss entire posts and repeat yourself, there's no reason for this thread to continue.

Hi Rahvin, Rahvin I did read your analogy and I would like to talk about it but I would want to use references and say a lot of things that should not be in this thread. Therefore I will not address them here.I am sorry but I would be way off topic.I would like to discuss the problem at hand that being.Something that is smaller than a pea that exists somewhere in the middle of the absence of anything. Nothing exists but this less than pea sized universe.All of a sudden it begins to expand at light speed.What trigered this expansion?What propelled this expansion from zero to 186,282.397 MPH instantly?Either there is an answer to those questions or there is no answer.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."

ICANT, why are we bothering saying anything to you when you do not listen to what you are being told?Several posts back: And yet here you are, repeating this rubbish: Can you explain this?THE RATE OF EXPANSION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SPEED OF LIGHT

Becasue you'd bring the Bible into it, I'm sure. And you're right, that's off-topic - but it also compeltely misses the point of using ananalogy. I'm not trying to get you to buy into a cencept of God. You already have one of those. What I'm trying to do is help you look at the Universe from the outside, the way physics models help us see it. You're having trouble grasping time as cosmologists see it, and that's perfectly understandable - we don't experience time that way, so it's counterintuitive.Everything else in your response is tied to your misunderstanding of this basic premise, ICANT. Until you can view time as just another dimension, you won't understand this. We're basically working outside of causality at this point - causality requires a sequence of events in time, and without a "before" for the Universe, we really can't examine "causes." The whole concept breaks down at this point. It's yet another part of the reason modern physics reach a singularity at T=0: nothing makes sense at that point under our current models.Please, try to follow us here. We've given you a few dozen analogies, but it really seems like you're too focused on either taking the analogies farther than we intend, or picking them apart without understanding them first. Let's try to use this as an educational thread - right now, you don't understand the Big Bang model. You think you do, but experts like cavediver are telling you that you do not. Let's trust them, and try to learn first. Until you understand, any model you argue against is just a strawman. We know you dont understand becasue you suggest such things as the Universe expanding at the speed of light - the model doesn't say that.So let's keep trying. Go back to my God example, and take it as I meant you to: look at the Universe as an outside observer would see it, an observer who is outside of time. Again, until you understand the model, there's no point continuing.

Personally, cd, I think you should take Admin's advice. Ignore him. If you want, use his comments if it inspires you to write a further explanation or clarification that will edify the readers on some point, but basically realize that you are not really speaking with ICANT. Hell, I'm not even sure anymore that he isn't really trolling.And if you really can't think of anything to say that hasn't been repeated several times already, then just ignore him. Let his inane posts rot on the vine.

---

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

Hi cavediver,We did a 400+ thread on the origin of the pea or less than the size of a pea that contains the universe.Am I safe to say that at T=O this less than the size of a pea thing that contained the entire universe was present?If yes is it safe to say this less than the size of a pea thing that contained the entire universe was not expanding?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."

No, that's what you've been telling us. That's your understanding of the Big Bang. we've been telling you that this is not the right way to look at it. We've been telling you that many of your questions are ill posed. for instance, you said These words seem to imply that you believe that the Big Bang theory assumes that there was a period of no expanssion preciding the expansion, and that all of a suden, for no reason, the thing started expanding by it self. That's the wrong way to look at it.You keep asking what happened before the expansion, but there was no before the expansion for anything to happen there. that's where the Earth's northpole analogy comes handy. There is no place northward from the northpole for anything to happen there. The question "what causes the expansion of the Big Bang" makes as much sense as the question "how do I go northward from the northpole".The north pole is simply the starting point of our system of coordinates. Note that that does not mean that the northpole is the begining of the Earth.

or the question makes no sense

Hi Rahvin, I view time different than most people I have met.I will give you my description of how I view time.Take a piece of paper and draw a circle on it.Label the circle eternity.Make a mark on the circle at 12 o'clock, label this beginning of time as we know it.Make a mark on the circle at 12:05 label this the end of time as we know it.Compared to eternity that 5 minutes is too long but it makes it easier to make the marks.I believe God sees it all at one time. It is all present time to Him.To me it is not imaginary time.It is real.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."

No, it is not safe to say that. Exactly the oposite. It was expandingEdited by fallacycop, : got to fix them boxes