A Big Bang Misconception

The only misconception is what existed before the big bang. It is a misconception and a leap of faith to assume that the event that triggered the expansion that we see all around us in all directions did not have some initial velocity within its own relative frame of reference and that it therefore did not come into expansion within a larger pocket of space/time. All we see is that which is relative to us and within the realm of our current scientific precision. We perceive our space time and all that we are capable of detecting both inwards and outwards with such a closed mind. Think about it, think about the number of stars in our known universe yet a very large percentage of our population has doubts as to whether there is life on other planets. The same reasons that make so many relatively intelligent people question the certainty that there exists other habitable planets with life on them in our known universe is the same set of reasons that our science has been unable to propose the likely hood that our known universe, our pocket of space/time is one of an infinite number of such pockets of space/time or POSTs that have existed for an infinite length of time and will continue to do so.

quote:

---

The only misconception is what existed before the big bang. It is a misconception and a leap of faith to assume that the event that triggered the expansion that we see all around us in all directions did not have some initial velocity within its own relative frame of reference and that it therefore did not come into expansion within a larger pocket of space/time.

---

Actually, it's a leap of faith (and perhaps a misconception) that there was an event that "triggered the expansion". It could very well be that the universe simply began to exist, and it began in a very small, very dense, very hot, and expanding state.

---

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

Very briefly visiting... hopefully back properly soon. Sometimes, not always. To get a black hole you need to have sufficient matter concentrated within a volume, surrounded by space of much lower density, usually vacuum. Even then, there are several requirements. This is not the situation with the early universe. There you have uniform density of matter throughout space. These two situations give rise to wholly different space-time solutions.As Chirop very rightly said in answer to the original question (what force was powerful to overtake all that gravity in order to get the universe to spread out?) it's just General Relativity. GR is non-linear. That means that you cannot extrapolate one situation and hope to get anything resembling some other situation. That's what makes exploring GR so exciting... you never know what you are going to find.Also, be careful of thinking too three-dimensionally. GR is a 4d theory and only really makes sense when viewed in 4d, especially the dynamics of the big bang/early universe. Our everyday idea of gravitation as gravity - the force between massive objects - does not extrapolate well up to the universe as a whole. No, not at all. Inflation is merely there as a suggested way of explaining some residual oddities. The Big Bang is entirely GR where-as inflation is GR+QFT, venturing into semi-classical gravity. Just as an aside, you don't need solid matter to have angular momentum. Space-time itself can posses ang mom. The Kerr solution is an entire universe that spins, but has no mass. Very non-Machian.Will keep an eye out for any replies but rapid responses can't be promised... sorry.

Ooh! Ooh! Yes, of course! Thank you for this explanation! And a spinning singularity is a possibility, too, I assume?My mention of the absence of solid matter at the time of the Big Bang was addressing where Eledhan said, "...objects that break off of the original object all spin the same direction."--Percy

Yes. We usually regard the singularity of the Kerr solution (it's a black hole) as the source of the ang mom. But the singularity itself is very weird: it's in the shape of a ring. However, if you pass through the ring, you end up somwhere different than if you just go round the outside! You have to go round twice to get back to where you started from Ahh, yes, I see now.

the ring-shaped singularity?any relation to the blackhole type that could hypothetically be used for wormhole travel?mind explaining it a little further when you get some time?

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

OT here. If you or someone wants to start a thread on a black hole q&a then I probably won't be able to resist putting some time in.But for now: yes it is related but not because of the ring nature of the singularity, but becasue of the dual "charges" of the black hole: "mass" and ang. mom. - yes, I know I said the Kerr solution has zero mass, but this is a different "mass"

quote:

---

I don’t know what “the power of space expansion” is.

---

It isn't the space that is expanding -- it is the radiation that is displaced as an entropy effect that forces the radiation to decrease its energy towards equilibrium.
It is the same law of nature for electrodynamics (lightwaves) and hydrodynamics (waterwaves) and aerodynamics (soundwaves).
See the experiments at The Unified Theory of Physics
-Edited by Ingvar, : No reason given.