Universe Race

Then you're halfway there, which is a good thing. You're already able to view time as a discrete dimension as an outside observer.Now imagine that time is not a circle - rather, it's a ray. It has a beginning, a 0 point, and it stretches outward in one direction. It may have an end, it may not, we simply don't know. What we do know is that there is a T=0, we experience time only in the direction of increasing entropy, and that it is just one of the four dimensions of spacetime.Now, the 0 point of the ray is the North Pole. The other three spacial dimensions are represented as the globe itself. As you move South (the only direction we perceive), the other dimensions get larger.Since you're viewing this from the outside, you can see that there is no "cause" to the expansion of the Universe, per se. The shape of the universe is simply that of the globe - a person inside who could only travel South will perceive the Universe to be expanding, but from the outisde, you simply see that it exists.Because you're not inside of time, causality really doesn't have a lot of meaning for you. Given the state of the Universe in any particular instant (which would be like a teensy slice of the globe), the contents will exist in a certain state. That is, when the physical dimensions are very small approaching T=0, all of the matter of necessity is extremely dense and hot. If you take another snapshot when the dimensions are larger, the Universe is less hot and less dense. When the dimensions are large enough, conditions inside are such that normal baryonic matter forms.There's no "cause" to this expansion, because it's not really expanding: the Universe simply has a certain shape, and our perception of that shape is determined by our being bound inside to a single direction of time. Because of our perception, we call it expansion...but that's really just the closest term we have to describe it in English. In reality, we're just experiencing the shape of the Universe as we move steadily along the dimension of time.

Becasue your circle isnt part of the cosmological model. This isnt about what you like or believe, ICANT. Im not asking you to believe that this is the way it actually works - Im asking you to humor us, for the purpose of the argument, so that we can teach you what the cosmological model is. If you're only going to accept the parts of the model that you like, you wont learn anything about it. This has already been answered: we can't say much at all about T=0, becasue the math breaks down into a singularity there. All we can say is that the spacial dimensions were smaller as you approach T=0, and that the density of the matter in the Universe (both in terms of energy density and mass) increases approaching infinity.Beyond that, we simply don't know yet. We're still looking in to it.But please, let's try to continue with the globe analogy. We're starting to drift away from observing the Universe as a discrete entity, going back into thinking of time the way creatures in time experience it. That won't help us with the cosmological model.Do you understand what has been said with the globe analogy? There is no "cause" for expansion - the expansion itself is more like an illusion, a consequence of our perception of time. The universe exists with a certain shape, and our perception of that shape looks like expansion .

It's an analogy, so it's not going to be dead-on. Right. So, if all of the spacial dimensions are represented by the circumference of the latitudes, then as you move South, the spacial dimensions are larger. If you represent matter by dribbling water on the North Pole to simulate everything starting at T=0, and let the water run down the globe, all of the matter gets farther away from each other as they move South, through time. You could also think of matter as being represented by the longitude lines for the same reason. And that's where our analogy stops. The Universe may very well be like that, but we honestly don't know. At the point in time we exist, the Universe has not started to shrink. In fact, it looks like the expansion is increasing. So let's just pretend this globe only has a top half. We have no idea what the rest of it looks like. And again, that's not what we're trying to go for with this analogy. The analogy only works if we assume that we can only experience the surface of the globe, and only move South. If your experience was tied to moving South on the globe, the latitudes would seem to be expanding to you, too. From the outside that's just the shape of the globe, period. If you were a drop of water running down the globe, you'd think "this surface I'm on is getting bigger." Is it "getting bigger?" No - it has a certain shape, and the motion of the water drop makes it seem that the surface is getting bigger.So too with us. Our experience through time makes it seem like the Universe is expanding...and from our perspective, it's accurate to say that it is. But really, we're just experiencing the shape of the Universe the same way the water drop is experiencing the shape of the globe. We see galaxies "moving" apart as the space between increases, just as the water drops move apart from each other as the latitudes increase. Remember, space is part of the Universe...you can't really say that space is expanding inside of the Universe any more than you can say that the walls of a box could expand "within the box."But again, space is expanding from our perspective. If you could see it from the outside, it would just have a certain shape, like our globe example. From our perspective they are. If you look at the Universe from the outside, the galaxies are like the longitudes of our globe. If you are one of those lines, the others are farther apart as you move South. But looking from the outside, you see that the Universe simply exists as a discrete entity with a defined shape. The surface area is different at each latitude, so the objects on the globe exist at different distances depending on how far North or South they are. Basically. "Change" requires time, because you need a "before" and an "after." Outside of time, which follows our analogy because we're outside the globe, there is no "change." Conditions are different on the globe at each coordinate, but "change" only exists to the perspective of someone on the globe travelling South. Slightly off there. It is the universe. You're treating this as if they've told you there's some sort of cosmic "seed" that "contained" the universe. Perhaps it's because peas have pods - but their description was only meant to describe the size of the Universe, nothing more. The Universe, in its entirety (meaning all of the space, matter, energy, etc that makes it up) existed as something the size of a pea. Even smaller, in fact, if you go back farther as Cavediver pointed out. Much like the North Pole in our globe analogy - all of the "stuff" in the Universe, represented by longitude lines, or water, or whatever, is in an incredibly small spot exactly at the North Pole, which represents T=0. And in this case, what you'd "like to think" is correct. That "pea sized object" is the Universe. This is a misconception. There is a singularity at the center of a black hole for the same reason there is a singularity at T=0: the math we use to describe the natural laws of physics stop working in black holes. You can't think of a singularity as an object - it's an idea promoted by scifi liek Star Trek and dumbed-down TV documentaries, but it's inaccurate. A singularity is simply any point where the mathematics physicists use stops making any sense. Singularities could be described as giant signs that say "I can't describe what's going on here." Extreme density will do that. I don't know if your temperature number is accurate, but "really freaking hot" will suffice. Because of the extreme energy density, the base particles that make up what we call matter were vibrating at relativistic velocities - significant fractions of the speed of light. It was that hot...and that's why matter didn't exist in the form we recognize today. The extreme density and temperature is one of teh reasons we have a singularity at T=0. The math breaks down when the numbers get that large. Gravity attracts other matter and bends space, but it has nothing to do with space expanding. Essentially. Which is why we can't describe T=0. Thats why there's a singularity. We can only describe the conditions a moment later. Note also that the universe was not the size of a pea at T=0...that was a moment later. At T=0, it was much smaller. The closer you get to T=0, the more the dimensions all approach 0 as well. The "pea" would be like the arctic circle on our globe. T=0 is the point at the Pole itself. You can't really say "yet" at T=0 either. That's a time=based descriptor. Nothing. That's why it's been expanding for literally all of time. You can't "hold" something without time. What you're saying is identical to taking a photograph of a falling object and asking "what's holding the object up?" The answer, of course, is nothing. It's not being held up at all.But once again we're drifting away from the globe analogy, and we've already acknowledged that you don't quite understand it yet. So let's keep trying - once you understand the model, we can finally start debating it.

...The Big Bang describes the expansion of the Universe. "In" is not a meaningful word in this case. Absolutely false. There is nothing in the scientific model that says the Unvierse was "created." The 3 physical dimensions rapidly expanded from an extremely "small" space to what we see today, and are currently still expanding. There was no point where the Universe did not exist. False. Singularities are not objects. Physics equations reach a singularity at T=0, which means only that the math breaks down and stops making sense. When we say there isa singularity at T=0, we mean "when the Universe is under these conditions, we don't know how to describe it any more. We curently don't know what the state of teh Universe was with any certainty at exactly T=0. Our knowledge begins a fraction of a second later." After T=0, basically yes. But again, "creation" is not an accurate word. Not an accurate number by any stretch. The energy density of the Universe increases as you approach T=0 becasue there simply wasn't any space for it to spread out in. Temperatures rise accordingly, to the point where quarks and gluons can't even hold still long enough to form baryonic matter. False. Desnity increases as you approach T=0, but the density of "nuclear matter" is irrelevant. One of the reasons we have a singularity at T=0 is becasue density approaches the infinite at that point. Protons and neutrons and such aren't even dense enough to describe what we're talking about, so "nuclear matter" doesn't make sense. No. ICANT, you've added a few irrelevant numbers to your concept (numbers you have not been given by Son Goku, Cavediver, or myself), but otherwise we are still very much at square one. Rather than clearing up your misconceptions of the Big Bang model, you've actually managed to add more.If this was a physics class and you managed to add misconceptiopns after the level of patient repeated explanation given to you in this thread, you wouldn't even fail - you'd be asked to leave the physics department and never come back.

No, it does not.I'll repeat that.The fact that singularities are not physical objects does not mean that the Universe "came from an absence of anything." You still don't understand. A singularity is a mathematical artifact - like I've said before, this amounts to a mathematical signpost that says "the equations we're using can't describe this." That's all it is.The Universe exists at T=0, just in a form we can't currently describe. We can describe it a fraction of a second later, and from then until now. Imaginary time is a descriptor for an extra dimension outside of the 4 we experience. Nothing "created" time any more than anything "created" length.You should try to understand what cavediver, Son Goku, and I are telling you about Big Bang cosmology before you even attempt to fathom what Hawking is saying. You're trying to multiply before you know addition.

"Something" would be "the Universe. In its entirety. Simply in a different form from the way it exists today." This something is time and space, and all that they contain. Inapplicable question, since the Universe does exist at T=0, simply in a different form from what we see today.We wouldn't be having this conversation had you understood the globe analogy. I note that you completely ignored my last post on that subject, latching instead on the opportunity to continue to repeat yourself.

Incorrect. No time has passed yet. The dimension we call time exists. Time is a property of the Universe, just like the other three dimensions, or the laws of physics.To bring back the globe analogy that you enjoy ignoring, T=0 is the exact point of the North Pole. The longitude lines represent all matter, and the surface of the globe represents the 3 physical dimensions. Moving South represents the passage of time.At T=0, all of the matter is essencially in the same place, the physical domensions are approaching infinitely smaller than they are at the equator, but everything still exists.We have no idea what state it was in because our math breaks down into a singularity at that point. Beyond this, we really can't say anything with any degree of certainty regarding T=0.But from a very small fraction of a second after T=0, we know the state of the Universe fairly well. As time increases, the spacial dimensions expand. There does not need to be a "cause" for this expansion, it's simply a consequence of the shape of the Universe as a 4-dimensional entity, and our experience of that shape as we move through one of those dimensions in a single direction.We see and understand what you're doing, ICANT. You're trying to justify the conclusion that Genesis 1:1 matches up with Big bang cosmology, or failing that, try to attack the current model. But the current model neither supports nor contradicts (in the strictest sense, anyway) Genesis 1:1. You're perfectly welcome to believe that your god "caused" everything we've been talking about for the past two threads, so long as you understand that this isn't suggested in any way by the science.We've been trying to approach this subject as a learning experience. I've certainly learned a great deal from Son and cavediver as we've discussed this. But you're still not approaching it the same way. You don't seem to be willing to try to understand the Big Bang model, instead preferring to parrot away your "it came from the singularity" or "in an absence of anything" nonsense when you've been told this is wrong repeatedly.Please, ICANT, stop repeating yourself and try to understand. Or at least come up with something new so that cavediver and Son can explain another facet of cosmology to the rest of us.

Not specific enough. He wants us to agree that Genesis 1:1 is accurate - meaning the Christian god exists.

This is a science thread. Your religious Luddite ramblings are inappropriate here.If you'd like to have your "human intelligence is flawed so we can't make any determinations about the world" position demolished, feel free to start a new thread.

So you're trying to squeeze your god into science by replacing (gravity from dark matter) with (god's direct intervention)? Adding a picture from astronomy and being able to say what it's a picture of doesn't change the fact that you never did comprehend the expansion of the Universe despite a few hundred posts attempting to help you learn (the original topic of the thread, of course), you still don't understand even the barest fraction of Big Bang cosmology, and frankly you have no hope of understanding dark matter either if you continue to try to force your religious views into the model.You need to put your faith aside and learn about science by itself, on its own terms before you can start contemplating your god's possible role in any of it. You seem to be 100% unwilling or possibly even incapable of doing that, so the fact is, you're just never going to get it. It's not the length of time that's the problem, ICANT. The problem is that you aren't waiting until you understand one topic before moving to the next. You're expecting us to explain jet engines when you still don't understand the basics of a car engine.

Yes, you're missing something: the scale is not large enough. At the scale where you are looking at the entire Universe, it appears basically homogeneous. At smaller scales, you can see structures like the one's you're mentioning. At much smaller scales, you can see galactic clusters. And so on.Yet again, you don't understand the material you're criticizing. Follow Percy's advice: more research, more questions, less conclusions.

I'm just going to quote Taz from the Humor thread: tesla, if Fractal Wrongness were to be added to an encyclopedia, your face would the at the top of the article. No, tesla, we arent resistant to your ideas. Your ideas are simply wrong, and lack the background knowledge to understand why. You are so far off and so tied to your pet idea that you are Fractally Wrong regarding cosmology - regardless of how general or specific we get, you try to tie it back to your word-salad nonsense.Edited by Rahvin, : Redid basically the whole post.

Jesus christ...you haven't learned a damned thing in this entire thread. A singularity is not a physical object, and neither is it a state of the universe, it's what we call the breakdown of the math. Weve told you this a dozen times in this very thread.Ive come to the conclusion that it isnt worth talking to you regarding any science topics - you arent capable of learning even the most basic definitions, and insist that every hole in your understanding (a list of which would fill libraries) is a major gap in the actual theory.Your face belongs right next to tesla's in the Fractally Wrong entry.

In Summation...The expansion of the Universe does not resemble the model in the OP in any way. While galaxies do move, that is not what is spoken of when referring to the expansion of the Universe. This makes the topic extremely difficult for many people to grasp - at the scale in which we live, such expansion is compeltely counterintuitive, and only Newtonian physics make instinctual sense to us.But that doesn't mean it isn't happening. There is a mountain of evidence suggesting the Universe is expanding, from the redshift of galaxies to the cosmic microwave background. Every model that we run of the observed processes of the cosmos predicts that the Universe is expanding from a much hotter, much denser state. When we run models that start from such a state, we are able to make predictions that are then testable and verifiable - like the cosmic microwave background. The expansion fo the Universe from a much smaller, much more dense, much hotter state in the past is considered to be as rock-solid as the Theory of Gravity or other such virtually-proven models because of the shear weight of supporting evidence and verified predictions from the model.Where we run into problems here is in the explanations to laypeople, particularly laypeople with no physics training whatsoever, and most especially with laypeople who have no physics education and have a predetermined cosmological view based on their religion.The real meat of the Big Bang model can only be conveyed with mathematics - which would not be understood by any layperson (including me - it makes me want to go back to school again). We are left instead with using very imperfect analogies tro try to explain a very, very counterintuitive model to a layperson without the use of math - difficult even for a receptive student, and nearly impossible for someone who, at the core, wants to squeeze theology into the discussion.The best analogy we were able to come up with is the globe analogy - the Universe simply exists (there isn't much of a "why" to science - until such time as we can examine the mechanism, if any, that resulted in the Universe existing, science will remain mute on the actual origin) and it posesses a particular 4-dimensional shape. We only really see three dimentions, because we perceive time only in a single direction (which is the real reason all of this is so counterintuitive).Looking at the Universe from the outisde as a single 4-dimensional entity, you could say that it looks like the top half of a globe, with the dimension Time being represented by the North-South axis, and the three spacial dimensions being represented by the surface of the globe. T=0 would be the North Pole, and the surface "expands" as you move farther South. If you model matter in the Universe by pouring water over the globe, then as the water moves from T=0, the drops will move farther and farther apart as they move South - but this is not due to "real" motion with inertia and force the way objects react at smaller, in-Universe scales. Instead, the actual space between the matter (not the distance, but the space itself) is expanding, like the surface of a balloon. There isn't a "cause" for this expansion per se - the Universe simply has a certain shape, and our perception of that shape is dictated by our experience of time as a sequence of events in a single direction instead of being able to look from the outside. In this analogy, nothing needs to "start" the expansion - the universe only exists in a certain shape. Our experience of time is what gives us the concept of causality, and that's virtually thown aside when looking at time as just another dimension like length and width.We know next to nothing about the exact moment where T=0. The mathematical models we currently use break down into a singularity at that point. Note that a singularity is not a physical object, nor is it a state of the Universe. The word "singularity" is used to denote a special case where our current mathematics simply don't work - that's all. It has nothing to do with "singular energy" liek what another poster keeps insisting, and neither is it necessary to "prove" that the Universe has a singularity at T=0. Such a statement wouldn't even make sense - by saying there is a singularty at T=0, all we are saying is that none of our math right now can tell us anything about T=0. All we know is that the spacial dimentions get smaller, the Universe becomes more dense, and it becomes hotter as you approach T=0 until the dimensions are so small, the Universe is so dense, and it is so hot that we no longer know how to model the conditions of the Universe, and we call this moment of uncertainty a singularity. It's just like a black hole - unlike what Star Trek would have you believe, there is no physical objectcalled a singularity in the center. Conditions inside of a black hole are so different from the rest of the Universe, and gravity becomes so incredibly strong, that our mathematical models stop working, and we call that uncertainty a singularity. A singularity is just a special case where we can't use any of our current models. Someday, hopefully, with additional research and new technologies, we'll be able to come up with a model that doesn't break down and that can give us additional information. Until that time, T=0 is a great unknown beyond the basic "it was really dense, it was really hot, and the spacial dimentions were tiny compared to today, or even compared to the size of a pea."Some posters have latched onto the "pea sized Universe" and started syaing nonsense like "you say this pea sized universe existed and that it caused the universe we see today." Such statemnets show that they are missing the point - the pea-sized Unvierse is this Universe, simply at an earlier location in time. Such statements are like saying that "ice causes water." Ice is water, simply in a different state.The expansion of the Universe is a fact. We can observe it in the redshift of galaxies, and every model we use featuring that expansion results in a Universe that looks just like ours. Extrapolating that expansion backwards through the process of logical inference, we predict that the Universe used to be smaller as you go backwards in time. Some will say that this is "not objective, empirical evidence," but the evidence it is based on IS. Logical inference is a perfectly rational method - it's what helps the police catch criminals from the evidence left at the crime scene, it's even what tells you that I exist even though you have never directly observed me. Logical inference told us there were additional planets in our Solar System - and when we looked where our models suggested we should look, we found exactly what the models predicted. So too with Big Bang cosmology - it makes a series of predictions, and we have observed many of the things predicted by that model (like the cosmic microwave background). We have never observed anything that contradicts the model.So the problem in this thread has not been the science. It's been the silly insistence by some posters on trying to prove that science is based on faith just as much as religion, and so their religious beliefs should be just as valid as the scientific model. While they are welcome to their opinions, in reality they amount to complete and utter bullshit. Science takes exactly one thing on faith: that what we observe is actually what is happening. We take on faith that, when we look at the moon at night, we're actually looking at the moon and not trapped inside of the Matrix.If this thread has shown us one thing, it's that scientific principles are extremely difficult, and maybe even impossible to learn if an individual insists on maintaining a pre-existing belief or tries while learning to prove that science is based on something just as flimsy as their own faith. The strength of science, the very reason if continues to give us ever more accurate models of the Universe and produce real-world applications like computers, medicine, and everything else we use every day is that sciencits are not tied to a specific belief, and they are not personally invested in any particular model. They are concerned only with the evidence and the greatest degree of accuracy possible, which allows models to be changed or even thrown out altogether to incorporate new evidence.The Big Bang model has shown through observable, testable evidence to be extremely accurate. That many people cannot understand this evidence is irrelevant.PS - thank you very much, cavediver and Son Goku, for all of your contributions. I learned quite a bit from both of you, even if some people didn't learn anything at all.