what is the big bang and how do i understand it?

How does the expansion stop and the contraction begin? Why, instead of a sphere, wouldn't the model be a cone/hemisphere?Also, as we reached the equator the expansion rate would slow, so is there anyway for us to estimate which latitude we are at? Perhaps compare the expansion rate over a large enough time scale to determine what point of the globe we are at. Since the expansion rate is still increasing, we’d have to be north of 45 degrees latitude. It seems that after the big crunch there would be another big bang. I think the singularity existed for a split second after contraction and immediately began expanding again, it just happens over and over again forever. With this view, you can ask what happened before the big bang. In your earth model, north of north pole would be the south pole of another earth sitting on top of it, and another earth would be south of the south pole too, a whole stack of them, a tall one.Or am I completely wrong?

But the density is decreasing with the expansion, so graity would have less and less of an affect. duh...I was asking why that model was a sphere. ahhhh, horn shape...thats what I was getting at with the cone/hemisphere description. But at time=0, you exist on both earths simultaneously, the south pole of the upper earth is the same point as the north pole of the other, so you could go north, not up, but just on a different sphere.Basically, we're saying the Big Crunch and the spherical space-time model don't work with the increasingly expanding universe we observe from the red-shifts.So, why did cavediver bring it up in the first place?

But he also brought up the Big Crunch. I don't see how the Big Crunch is possible with the horn-shape model. Conversly, if we do consider the Big Crunch, then before the Big Bang is possible.

A couple questions right off the bat:Is the universe finite or infinite?Does the rate of expansion increase with distance?I don't think the Big Crunch can be possible with an increasingly expanding universe, nor with a horn shaped model.My tall stack of earths model depends on the possibility of the Big Crunch. But the ball is slowing down as height is gained. If the expansion of the universe is increasing, then gravity wouldn't be able to "turn-it-around", like earthly gravity does to the ball. If it is the same as the ball, then the universe couldn't be increasingly expanding. yeah, do you mind? Sorry if you think your wasting your time. I appreciate the replies, though. I don't know much about the nature of the singularity. When you say neck, it seems like it'd be more than one point. Why couldn't it be one point?, where the northernmost point of one sphere and the sothernmost point of the other are the same point, singularity. I realize that the closer you get to singularity the more flat the model becomes, and the harder it would be for this point to exist on both spheres, but I don't see that it can't be done.This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 08-15-2005 06:51 PM

Because, if the Big Crunch can happen, then there can be another Big Bang after it, and we would be existing before that big bang. The people after that big bang might say that nothing could exist before it, but what about us? What about the people that existed before the last big bang that we are talking about?

What's your opinion, if you had to pick one? Which one do you like more? understood. Well, if I'm wrong then I'm wrong (Does that mean we can't still explore the idea?). Got any suggestions for a book I should read? I've got the math from getting a B.S. in engineering so it might need to be dumbed down a little, but I would be looking for a book that isn't too simplified. Because it represents the UNIverse, of which there is only one. The other globe is the same universe, just earlier in time. Then we would be in one of many uni(multi)verses. How does the neck concept save the problem? Just because of the overlap of multiple spheres touching at one point?

It would be all the same matter. Or does matter stop existing at singularity too? Thats kinda why I think the singularity would have existed for an infinatlely small amount time, I know i know time ceases to exist, but because its undefined makes me think it didn't really exist as singularity, literally(in reality).Is this question answerable:How long was the universe at singualrity before it began to expand?