A Big Bang Misconception

Cool site. Looks like I'm not going to be very productive at work today I think I have a good understanding of the BB from typing with cavediver, if you haven't typed with him then your missing out 'cause he kicks ass.So, I don't want you to think that I'm arguing for a point-model of the BB but I do wanna discuss it. Infinite density, eh? Defining density as mass/volume, we can have infinite density with either infinite mass or zero volume. Sounds like finite mass with zero volume to me. What do you call something that has zero volume? I call it a point.Its my understanding that the problem with a point-model is the breakdown of the physics as we get closer to a point. And the more well defined the point gets, the blurrier it gets, so to speak type.So, even if the model doesn't include a point for a beginning, it seems to me that the beginning was very point-like.

With the universe being all of space and time, do you think it could exist before a time when time was created?Using our time as the reference for before and after, how can we refer to a point in time before the reference?The old analogy of the globe as a model of the universe starting at the north pole and moving towards the equator as time passes, space expands with the lines of latitude. If we trace back in time, go north, when we get to the beginning we are at the north pole. To go farther back in time would be to go north. How do you go north of the north pole? Its the same for time before the Big Bang.There's other models of course, look through that link in the OP.Also, there's a lot of Big Bang threads here that answer your question, and probably your others. Just search for Big Bang and start reading.

If you have a reference, even if it is the point of origin, then it isn't absolute motion, right? Having a reference makes it not absolute, I think. No, the speeds of things could change by the things interacting with each other.

emphasis addedIts my understanding that if the motion is relative to something then it is not absolute. You seem to have contradicted yourself. Call the direction of the expansion away from the point "y" and direction perpindicular to that "x". Gravity could move objects in the x direction while those objects maintain there momentum in the y direction and this could cause those objects to collide. Once stuff starts colliding, you can imagine this causing other collision causeing others and so on without causeing the expansion to stop. I don't think it has to overcome the expansion force to change the path. If your driving your car straight and start making a turn, you don't have to have any acceleration in the reverse direction. Think of 2 planets expanding on near perpindicular paths being attracted to each other in a direction perpindicular to the direction of expansion. That force of attraction would not have to overcome the expansion force, no?

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"

I don't think we can determine the actual point of the singularity, though. Also, doesn't putting that point as the point of absolute rest assume that the expansion is equal in all directions? Does it have to be?But anyways, lets assume that your argument is correct and that the point can be used as a point of absolute rest. What does classical physics say is the consequence of the existence of absolute motion? We would still have relative motion to deal with, no? Does calling the point of singularity a point of absulte rest allow us to actually determine the absolute motion of something? What is it then? Einstein could still be correct that we can't determine the absolute motion, even if we say that it is theoretically possible, I don't know. That's not true. It would have to be more powerful if the force was in the opposite direction of expansion, but if the force was in a direction perpindicular, or closer, to the same direction, then it would not have to be more powerful. Yeah, a lot of us are saying that, although it is a common misconception. Its not like a bomb went off. I don't think that is the expansion that they are talking about. Can you provide a source for this claim?I looked at the link in Message 31, look at this line from it, under the Is Brooklyn Expanding? section:

quote:

---

People often assume that as space expands, everything in it expands as well. But this is not true.

---

Well, we're gonna have to get past that part before moving on. Not only is it ongoing, but the rate is increasing. That isn't obvious to me. Why do you say that we aren't cool enough yet? Well, when fusion starts kicking in, shit goes haywire, yeah? I don't suppose that the clumping of mass occurred at the initial expansion event, it was some time after that. instead of using [quote'] you can use [qs'] for shaded quotes and you can put [qs=whoever'] to have there name in the shaded quote, but you'll have to take out the apostrophies ' I used [qs=msg 32'] above where it says: at the bottom right of a message is a button called "peek" that will show you how everything was typed in so you can see the formatting.

Maybe I don't have anything better to do Well hold it....how can we even begin to theorize about something that happened SOOOOO long ago?Also, what's the point?

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"

In the mean time you could repond to my Message 43.

I’d like to read your explanation of the disconnect, please. Perhaps we could learn a lot from each other. I don’t think the lack of hindrance demands equal expansion. What if the singularity was not homogeneous? Well, the singularity was not just densely packed matter . it was all of space-time.And, therefore, nothing within the boundary of the space at that time was able to prevent it either. So, I think, yes. It’s not that the dots don’t move, its that the dots, themselves, don’t get bigger, only the space between them exands while they, themselves, do not expand. So your motive is to find a boon to science?I think if you are using the entire universe as your reference, then any point can be chosen to be at absolute rest, while observing the rest of the universe moving relative to that point. Still though, this will not allow us to determine the absolute motion of anything. The space between the clumps of matter could expand without expanding the clumps themselves. I think scientists are quite comfortable in answering “We don’t know.” The universe was quite difference at times close to the singularity so it is hard to speculate just what the hell was going on.Perhaps the singularity was never static. Maybe the universe was collapsing up to the singularity, which existed only for an infinitely small amount of time, and then immediately began expanding. We have no information about what happened before the singularity so who knows.You can also use Earth as a model for the Big Bang where you start at singularity at the north pole and moving south is forward in time and the widening of the planet represents the expansion of space-time with a Big Crunch at the south pole. Then when people ask what happened before the singularity, you respond with what is north of the north pole, which is a nonsense question to ask, just like what is before the singularity.Check out Message 6 where I presented another analogy. Actually, go through the thread, you might learn a lot. I don’t know what “the power of space expansion” is. I can guess at what you mean though, that the cause of the expansion must be stronger than the resistance to expansion or nothing would expand and if it is stronger then how can matter remain together? Is that about what you’re asking? Well, I don’t really know the answer except I could oint out that the expansion is not just of matter, but of all of space-time, so you can really say that the “force” is the same on space and matter. But the space between the locals could expand. Like I said typed, the expansion is happening in between the galaxies, they could be moving farther apart from each other, while not moving farther apart as themselves, yeah? Let’s not get into dark stuff yet. I don’t really think there is an expansion force, so to speak type, that must be overcome to prevent matter from ripping apart. There’s something else going on that I don’t really understand well enough, or remember enough about, to explain properly right now. Fundamental Force . ..Relative Strength
Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . ........... . . .1
Weak Interaction . . . . . ... . . . . . 10^25
Electromagnetic . . . . . ... . . . . . 10^36
Strong Interaction . . . . . .. . . . . . 10^38 sourceSo yeah, gravity is really really not-strong. You’re welcome Well that theory certainly isn’t going to help the confusion.So, you’re trying to find a boon to science because you think the devil is tricking them? You think that there is evidence contrary to the biblical creation story because we are being tricked and not because it isn’t true? If that was true, then doesn’t that turn god into Loki, the trickster god? I mean, why would he make something apparent that isn’t true?, or even allow the devil to do it (which is the same as doing it)? . ..Actually, all these questions are off topic so keep the replies them short and sweet, if at all, and focus on the rest of the message instead.