Horizon-To infinty and beyond

[the_lone_wolf]

Originally Posted by sinbad

I think the idea that it could be viewed from outside stems from the way the big-bang is described as the creation of "The Universe". If it is actually the creation of all the debris we call galaxies within the universe then that is different, and the universe existed before the big-bang and is of course far bigger than the furthest reaches of the explosion.

I don't think that's how it's currently understood, the Big Bang wasn't just an explosion within the confines of a pre-existing container

The Big Bang is the point at which all the energy in the Universe was contained in a zero volume, and then expanded - that's about as much as we can say, but as before, when you're dealing with zeros the maths to explain exactly what's occurring in the physical system doesn't exist yet, and it becomes a singularity

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

I don't think that's how it's currently understood, the Big Bang wasn't just an explosion within the confines of a pre-existing container

What if infinity is us filling a pre-existing contaier like a Bonsai Kitten eventually it'll fill the container and the collapose in on it's self, i.e. Stephen Hawkins prediciton of the big cruch ?

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

I don't think that's how it's currently understood, the Big Bang wasn't just an explosion within the confines of a pre-existing container

I'm not saying it was, but if you watch documentaries on it they'll all say how "The Universe" was created, how out of nothing came this point and from that everything we know was flung outwards. The big bang theory offers no explanation of how and why or what came before. It's just "the start", so if absolutely nothing existed before, then why should the void we call space even be there?

I should add that I don't believe that to be true, just playing devil's advocate on the "expansion into what?" argument.

Originally Posted by Sudoxe

What if infinity is us filling a pre-existing contaier like a Bonsai Kitten eventually it'll fill the container and the collapose in on it's self, i.e. Stephen Hawkins prediciton of the big cruch ?

I watched a program recently which suggested that expansion is not and will not decelerate, all the stars will die and the universe will be a lifeless mass of blackholes. How bleak.

[the_lone_wolf]

Originally Posted by sinbad

The big bang theory offers no explanation of how and why or what came before.

But it isn't supposed to, it's a theory that offers an explanation as to how the Universe came into existence that is consistent with the observed evidence so far - the "why" is a philosophical question and what came before is beyond the scope of the physical laws that govern "our" universe

The other question is why does anything need to come before? Quantum fluctuations allow for violations of energy and momentum conservation, the universe may just be the biggest damn quantum fluctuation you ever saw, and it billions of years it'll cancel itself out and return the borrowed energy back to the void

Not picking at your arguments at all mate, at the end of the day "I dunno" is as valid explanation as pretty much anything, we're getting away from proper science and entering the wooly world of philosophy...

[the_lone_wolf]

Originally Posted by sinbad

I watched a program recently which suggested that expansion is not and will not decelerate, all the stars will die and the universe will be a lifeless mass of blackholes. How bleak.

Thermodynamics means that the trend will be towards a uniform distribution of energy, so no cold space and incredibly hot stars, just a uniformly dense distribution of matter with uniformly distributed energy and nothing standing out as being at all different from the blandness surrounding it


Bit like Milton Keynes

But how could it al go to nothing? As in no energy as it can neither be created or destroyed. To make a black a hole, a star has to go supernova then the collaspe on its self due to gravity.

Also we don't understand what balck holes are either, this is a theory of white holes in which matter/enegery comes out of. Also could they not form worm holes? If that is the case, then its just a matter getting out alive...

The other thing is mult-universe theory, that quatam mechines allows for this to be possiable, so if there are multi-universes that co-exist all at the same time would that occour within the one universe, that we just can't prove they are there?

Also if the speed of light isn't constant, how it would it be possiable to have intersella travel, not to mention the power requierments and the changes is mass and way space time passes.

[the_lone_wolf]

Originally Posted by metalmonkey

But how could it al go to nothing? As in no energy as it can neither be created or destroyed.

Quantum vacuum fluctuations violate conservation of energy, see Hawking radiation for an observed example

Originally Posted by metalmonkey

Also we don't understand what balck holes are either...

We know exactly what black holes are, we just don't have mathematics that can describe the physical situation at the singularity where the density tends towards infinity

Originally Posted by metalmonkey

Also if the speed of light isn't constant...

The speed of light in a vacuum is constant, not only that, it's constant for all observers in different inertial frames of reference, that's one of the basic tenets of relativity and is one of the biggest scientific realisations of all time

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

Quantum vacuum fluctuations violate conservation of energy, see Hawking radiation for an observed example

I have a look at that, thx.


We know exactly what black holes are, we just don't have mathematics that can describe the physical situation at the singularity where the density tends towards infinity


The speed of light in a vacuum is constant, not only that, it's constant for all observers in different inertial frames of reference, that's one of the basic tenets of relativity and is one of the biggest scientific realisations of all time

It appears what I read was the wrong thing! So if you at point A me Point B same distance from each other and a star, the light should reach us both at the same time?

[the_lone_wolf]

Originally Posted by metalmonkey

It appears what I read was the wrong thing! So if you at point A me Point B same distance from each other and a star, the light should reach us both at the same time?

I said the speed of light was the same for all inertial frames of reference...


Without knowing more on the velocities of you, me and the star would be impossible to say

If you want to bend your head go look through the wikipedia entry on relativity