Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
once you find yourself aliveHow can you find yourself anything but alive?
I don't believe there is any irrefutable evidence though that says there was a beginningThere indeed is no irrefutable evidence of it. The big bang theory itself does not preclude it, but neither does it give any meaning to the phrase 'before the big bang'.
I don't assert any new idea.That's true. You assert ideas that were dismissed many years ago because they don't tally with the evidence.
before the Big Bang.A phrase that makes a little sense as "north of the North pole".
My premise is that there was no beginning, i.e., space, time, matter and energy have always existed.Yes, it is very logical.
The current assumption is that time started at the Big Bang, which would make these two assertions incorrect.If we do understand by now that the Space/universe is infinite then it was already infinite before the Big Bang.
I would ask you to confine your assertions to your own topics. You're hijacking this topic, and continued wild assertions will get the posts moved or simply deleted.Dear Halc
If you don't like those questions, then please let me know and I would stop.So far he was very kind and offered excellent answers.
However, now we do understand that the Universe was already infinite before the Big Bang.
Therefore, the time was ticking long before the Big Bang moment.
So, please are you sure that we can bypass the law of physics while the time was already there?
I do recall that just few years ago, Halc claimed that Just after the Big Bang the entire Universe was in the size of a grapefruit. (I specifically remember the word - "grapefruit")Too bad you didn't remember the other important words. It was the visible universe, and it was approximately that size (give or take an order of magnitude or two) after the inflation epoch, which came after the Planck epoch and Grand Unified epoch.
When I have asked about the energy source for the Big Bang, the answer was: As there was no space and no time, there is no need to explain the BBT energy source.I would not have said that. For one, it is unclear if there is any energy since the total energy density of the universe may be zero if you add in the negatives with the positives. But I think if you ask the experts, the concept of total energy density is meaningless. It's all relative, not absolute, so there's only comparisons with other states.
Therefore, the time was ticking long before the Big Bang moment.I would ask you to confine your assertions to your own topics. You're hijacking this topic, and continued wild assertions will get the posts moved or simply deleted.
I already explained that the Big Bang theory already assumes an infinite Universe and it does so without any need for infinite time because it was already infinite in size at the very first moment of time.Dear Kryptid
Don't you agree that our mission is to explain the entire space/universe and not just the part/section that we observe/see which is called observable universe?
I would like to remind you that there was a time when people on earth thought that our planet is flat and if you cross the horizon, you might fall into the open space.
Hence, what we see is not good enough - not for today and not for the past.
Hence, as the real space is infinite then why can't we assume that the real universe is also infinite.
Therefore, why do we insist on 13.8BY as some magic number?
Why do we refuse to accept the simple understanding that infinite space & Universe could exist if the time is also infinite or at least much bigger than this friction of moment (comparing to the infinity)
Therefore, why do we insist on 13.8BY as some magic number?Because that's what the evidence says.
Dear KryptidIf the space is infinite then how the space could expand to the infinity in only 13.8BY?
The size of the observable universe is finite in part because light has only been able to travel for 13.8 billion years and in part because objects beyond a certain distance are recessing away from us too fast to ever be seen.
It's true that you can trace all the matter in our observable universe back to a tiny space, but that doesn't include all the matter that would be outside our observable universe.We first must understand the size of our entire space/universe (yes even all the matter outside our observable universe) and just then try to explain it all with one and single theory.
If the space is infinite then how the space could expand to the infinity in only 13.8BY?
Most models presume space to be infinite.If the space is infinite then how the space could expand to the infinity in only 13.8BY?
current Standard Cosmology, which I understand depicts finite space to be expandingCurrent models do not posit finite space, but neither do they require infinite space. Most models presume space to be infinite.
My question is, does the BB model refer to the action going on at the expanding boundary of the universe as creating space and matter out of nothingness?No viable model posits a boundary to space, not even the ones with finite space.
is it consistent to predict that anti-space or negative space, and anti-matter are building up and exist beyond that expanding universe, in a sort of anti or negative universe?There is no meaningful 'beyond space'. There might be other universes, but there wouldn't be a meaningful say direction in which they might be. If there was, it would just be a different but distant part of the same space. A type-1 multiverse is exactly that: Just locations in our space too distant to measure from Earth.
Returning back to the Original flavour of this OP...I'm not sure ...
The Observable Edge of the Universe is drifting away FTL, Correct?
I've read that in Alot of places.
(FTL - Faster Than Light)
Halc mentioned 3c.
(c - speed of light in a vacuum)QuoteSo if there ever was to be a new BB at the Farthest Edge of the Universe, how would/could We Observe it?I was thinking that one possible sign of a distant BB might be a gamma ray burst.?
But Gamma Rays would travel at (c) speed.
If the distance between Us & Gamma Rays was increasing FTL, then how would They ever reach Us?QuoteIf WE cannot Observe/Measure it & there ain't no Data/Evidence for it, does it then mean it's Not Real?I'd say no, though you do need some evidence to support a theory. But speculation can be fun, lol.
Yes Indeed!
Speculating is Amusing.
Assuming higher dimensions exist, Guessing gravity penetrates thru all of em, using all sorts of calculations to derive an equation which could predict future results with a very high rate of accuracy is quite interesting.
I mean, if it works, then why not!QuoteP.S. - i wonder if the Universe is what We make off of it, based on Our species potential & capacity of Understanding.I guess it is what we make of it, but maybe if we were more brainy we could make more sense of it.
🧠
(human brain emoji)
Yep!
Humans are considered to be at the pinnacle of intellectual intelligence, but that's in comparison to the other species around Us...I'm assuming We are Clever, but not the Cleverest.