[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Sorry i almost led the Thread astray with that Botty potty post.

Anyways, i have a very Simple question to ask but it will take Aloads of Imagination.


A S S U M E !

We from Earth see a Galaxy at the near End of the Observable Universe.

We are looking back in Time, so it looks Young.
(1 billion age)

If someone in that Galaxy was to look at Us, would Milky Way look alot Younger to Them as well?

I would think so. Time passes at the same rate (I'm guessing whether it is coming or going, so the distance it has to travel between us and them, or them and us, should be essentially the same, barring any unusual circumstance.

!ClimaX!

They seem to be near about at the Edge of our Observable Universe.
We might be at their Edge of O.U.
What if They stopped looking at Us and pointed their Hubble Bubble in the Opposite Direction?

What would They see?
: )
(lol)

If I assume that the "sameness doctrine" mentioned earlier applies, ie., assuming that the infinite universe is the same, on a grand scale no matter which way you look, I don't think they would see anything remarkably different in either direction

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

...
You presume the "sameness doctrine" then?  It sort of contradicts the view you've been pushing of a bang being an explosion of stuff into empty space.

I didn't intend for my words to be taken in exactly that way. A bang being an "explosion" of stuff into surrounding space fits my proposed scenario on the basis that big crunches form here and there, now and then, across all space, as gravity causes accumulations of "stuff" into crunches. The crunches that occur that way, here and there across all space, accumulate surrounding matter and grow to the point that their own gravitational mass causes the atoms they are composed of to fail to be able to maintain their individual space, and they collapse under the force of gravity; that collapse is the start of an great reaction, a local big bang, that is like an "explosion" in space as the matter in the crunch fails to contain the great outward burst/reaction that immediately follows the collapse of the big crunch.

I speculate that these crunch bangs are common events across the infinite universe and have been across all time.

 The observers at the fastest moving outer edge of all that would see stars and galaxies and such in one direction, and nothing in the other (the direction of the empty space into which they were moving).

Not if space is infinite and filled across that infinity with matter and energy; there wouldn't be any outward edge to the infinite universe, just local crunches, banging here and there across the infinite space.

From anywhere in an explosion, there ought to be a way to tell which direction lies the location where the bang took place. Where is that? How would you tell?

The direction should be able to be discerned by the relative motion of distant objects in different directions, but the scale is so large that observations beyond a finite limit are not available due to a natural "speed of light and time it takes for such events to occur and play out..."

250854,

[Zer0]

By the way...

Why do pop sci articles & videos repeatedly say Galaxies at the Far Edge are moving Faster than Speed of Light?

They clearly don't, Right?

Even Space does Not expand at FTL, Correct?

ps - Obviously, Excluding Inflationary Epoch!
: )

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

If space is infinite, and the universe has always existed, I see no reason to believe that the inflationary epoch is unique, and don't see it as being universal, since an infinite universe doesn't inflate. Inflation and the observed expansion smack of a finite era, in a universe that has an infinite history, occupies infinite space, and can accommodate infinite variables.

If there was no beginning, then the true meaning of "infinite and eternal" can take its rightful place, for anyone who buys into that perspective.

That perspective says that what is going on in our local 93 billion light year neighborhood represents only a minute fraction of space and time. If you grant that the universe is infinite and eternal, the thinking might be that, on a grand scale, the universe may have looked and acted essentially the same forever, including an infinite history of bangs and crunches, local expansions and contractions, and repeated spontaneous origin of lifeforms here and there, time and time again.

Those circumstances would mean science and philosophy would have to broaden their perspective to consider new viewpoints, and there must be some thinkers among them who would be willing to entertain such radicalism quietly among themselves, lol.

251847,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I do like talking about "infinite and eternal", but sometimes it seems right to emphasize the infinitesimal as well. When you do, you have to sort out how all of the matter and energy in the known universe, let alone the INFINITE universe, could be contained in the tiny package mentioned when talking about the initial size of the universe, before inflation. Granted, I don't really know much of what Science says on the matter, so I don't claim to be "doing science" along with my rantings, but logic tells me the universe could never have fit in a teacup.


252040,

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

but logic tells me the universe could never have fit in a teacup.

     The expectation that the early universe was of some finite and tiny size has been adjusted or relaxed  over the recent years.
     Some of this "old Big Bang" theory is retained -->  The universe was denser in early times and if you extrapolate the cosmological models back far enough then you've got some singualrity.
    However, there are two important things to note:
    (i)  We just don't claim that General Relativity (GR) holds this far back so we do NOT attempt to extrapolate all the way back to this sort of singularity.   In modern cosmology,   "the Big Bang"  generally refers to the time period that is often called "the Planck epoch".   This is about  10^-42 seconds after the GR model predicts density would be truly infinite.    Earlier than that you just put your hands in the air and say  "we have no model".

     (ii)     If the universe is infinite today - which is how it seems but we just do not know - then it would have been infinite even in the Planck epoch,  so we don't claim to have any model for a time when the universe wasn't infinite   (and it would never have fitted inside a teacup).

    As regards fitting into teacups:   (i) There were no teacups back then;      (ii)  Even if you take a theoretical or poetic licence and allow a teacup to have existed in the Plank epoch,  we'll assume it still has physical diameter of about 10 cm.   The metric that applied to space at that sort of time in the history of the universe is such that 10 cm of physical length would have been much the same negligible percentage of the size of the universe as it is today.    To say this a different way - everything was smaller back then,  the universe and the teacups,  so you still won't get the universe into a standard teacup sized teacup.    You need to take an extreme theoretical and poetical licence and declare that not only did teacups exist, they were also exempt from having their physical size determined by the metric that applies to everything else in the universe at that time.   I hope you can see just how much of a liberty we are taking.       
     If we re-write the Pop Science descriptions of the Big Bang (where the teacup is not exempt from the metric that applies) then we would be saying the following:  If you have a universe sized teacup in the Planck epoch, then we could get the universe into it.     Only that doesn't sound too impressive does it?   If you have a universe sized teacup then, of course, you can get the universe into it.    So Pop Sci has tended to take a few liberties (like making their teacup the only thing in the universe that you will measure with todays metric and not the metric of that early time).
     I would argue that recognising just how enormous a (modern day metric measured) teacup would have actually been in that early universe is important  BUT  perhaps even that isn't stripping enough layers of poetic licence off these Pop Sci descriptions of the Big Bang.   The liberty that is still being taken is the assumption that teacups could even exist back in this early universe - there were no atoms and no way that the fundamental forces we recognise today could keep atoms intact.   I cannot begin to calculate the size of an actual teacup back in that time because I cannot take account how much the fundamental inter-atomic forces should be able to oppose the contraction of space.   
     (This is important because I don't want you to go away thinking that as our universe is expanding today, that would mean that teacups are expanding with it:  They aren't required to do this because the inter-atomic forces can keep the atoms together, effectively pulling neighbouring atoms through space to maintain a constant distance of separation.   It's only under extreme conditions of expansion where the inter-atomic forces may not be sufficient and we could get a situation sometimes described as "the Big Rip" where molecules and under even more rapid expansion even the individual atoms may be ripped apart by the expansion of space).

Best Wishes.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

... but logic tells me the universe could never have fit in a teacup...

... and for the most part, I don't think that is the consensus, but I could be wrong.

The "tea cup" hypothesis has no place in my rants about the "Infinite and Eternal Universe" concept (maybe multiple tea cups would be closer), and neither does "exponential inflation". Inflation seems to assume a huge void surrounding the matter/energy in the tea cup, and the Big Bang occurring spontaneously with the appearance of the tea cup, which "inflates" to fill what science now recognizes as our expanding universe.


252166,252547,

[Halc]

If space is infinite
...
an infinite universe doesn't inflate.

The consensus is to treat the universe as spatially infinite, and that infinite universe very much does expand, explaining the continued drop in average mass/energy density over time.

Inflation and the observed expansion smack of a finite era

It doesn't. If it was ever finite, then no amount of doubling the size is going to make it not finite. If it is infinite, then it always was, regardless of expansion.
The sort of universe (a stead state of sort) cannot meaningfully expand, and the average mass density only changes if you posit mass being created where there wasn't any before.

That perspective says that what is going on in our local 93 billion light year neighborhood

A universe that has existed for in infinite amount of time prior to now has no 93 billion light year neighborhood since light has all the time it needed to travel from any arbitrary distance. The 93 figure is an artifact of the consensus model, not of what you're describing.

you have to sort out how all of the matter and energy in the known universe, let alone the INFINITE universe, could be contained in the tiny package mentioned when talking about the initial size of the universe, before inflation.

As stated above, the infinite universe necessarily must always have been infinite and never had any finite size.
ES seems to have deleted his post, but it correctly went on about the dangers of using our size metrics and time metrics to describe the state before inflation.

For the record, the mass/energy that makes up today's observable universe expanded from a very small volume to perhaps the size of a honeydew, in waaaay less time than it would take light to travel from the center of a honeydew to the edge.

logic tells me the universe could never have fit in a teacup.

Mathematics also agrees with you.

The "tea cup" hypothesis has no place in my rants about the "Infinite and Eternal Universe" concept (maybe multiple tea cups would be closer), and neither does "exponential inflation".

Very good. Neither your view nor the consensus one suggests that the universe ever fit in some finite volume, although I assure you that there are plenty of pop websites and videos that say exactly that. They're all wrong.

Inflation seems to assume a huge void surrounding the matter/energy in the tea cup

Inflation theory, or the entire consensus view for that matter, does not in any way suggest anything expanding into a void or into anything else. That would be simple movement, not expansion.

and the Big Bang occurring spontaneously

The big bang theory also does not suggest that. It is merely a theory about the evolution of the universe from its earliest (but still nonzero) times.

[Zer0]

logic tells me the universe could never have fit in a teacup.

Mathematics also agrees with you.

The Observable Universe can Surely fit inside a TeaCup.
Perhaps, the Only terminal condition being the Cup's gotta be BiGGeR than the O.U. & ofcourse Empty!

[Zer0]

Inflation seems to assume a huge void surrounding the matter/energy in the tea cup

Inflation theory, or the entire consensus view for that matter, does not in any way suggest anything expanding into a void or into anything else. That would be simple movement, not expansion.

Perhaps Inflation Theory does not propose any medium of Resistance towards the Flow of Expansion either.

But We do have Observable Evidence on the Rate of Expansion not being a Constant.

[Zer0]

and the Big Bang occurring spontaneously

The big bang theory also does not suggest that. It is merely a theory about the evolution of the universe from its earliest (but still nonzero) times.

Par Excellence!
I truly wish more people could Understand what you said so simply.

The BigBang is a Theory of the Evolution of the Universe.
Not it's Inception!
( : Halc : )

[Zer0]

@Bogie

I don't suppose Anybody else on this forum has a Vivid sense of Imagination, in comparison to Yours.

Hence, imperative i ask...

Have you ever thought of making a separate distinction between the Speed of Light vs Speed of Causality?

Any ponderings whatsoever?

[Zer0]

I truly wish more people could Understand what you said so simply.

The BigBang is a Theory of the Evolution of the Universe.
Not it's Inception!

This similar to Darwin's theory, which is a theory of the evolution of life form from the earliest most primitive forms, but not a theory of inception of life (known as abiogenesis).

You said it using the Simplest of Words, & now you've made it Odd  by extending it.

I think i should be Grateful the Forum does Not have a Theology section.

ps - Thank God!
: )

[Zer0]

The Observable  the Cup's gotta be ..  ofcourse Empty!

If you're fitting all the mass/energy of the current OU into a volume of a teacup, I don't think 0.1 kg of tea is going to make any difference.

All bout Perspective, isn't it?

An Ant's footlong would differ from an Elephant's.

Ponder, that which is Infinite for Our species, what if it's just around the corner for Another.

Wonder, that which is Eternal for Us, what if it's just dawn to dusk for the Others.

ps - Death is Not extinguishing the Light!
It's simply blowing off the Lamp,
Because the dawn has Arrived.
(Tagore)

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

@Bogie

I don't suppose Anybody else on this forum has a Vivid sense of Imagination, in comparison to Yours.

Lol

Hence, imperative i ask...

Have you ever thought of making a separate distinction between the Speed of Light vs Speed of Causality?

Any ponderings whatsoever?

No, sorry, I haven't. But I think generally that the speed of light is faster.



254204,

[Zer0]

@Bogie

I don't suppose Anybody else on this forum has a Vivid sense of Imagination, in comparison to Yours.

Lol

That was meant to be a Compliment!
: )

Hence, imperative i ask...

Have you ever thought of making a separate distinction between the Speed of Light vs Speed of Causality?

Any ponderings whatsoever?

No, sorry, I haven't. But I think generally that the speed of light is faster.

Yes indeed!
But " what if " something around you was occuring at FtSoLiaV?
(faster than speed of light in a vacuum)

A light beam could go around the Earth like 6 or 7 times, isn't it?

The Naked Eye might miss it in just a Blink!


254204,

ps - Any idea what measuring instruments could be used for an analysis?

254623

[Zer0]

A light beam could go around the Earth like 6 or 7 times, isn't it?

With quality mirrors, it could go around hundreds of times.

Pfft!

I was so busy overprocessing the FtSoLiaV aspect that i completely forgot about the per/sec thingy.

ps - duh!
: (

[Zer0]

In the not so long ago past, i thought of Time to be Cyclical.

Confession!
I thought that if we could make the Earth stop spinning, n make it turn the other way around, Time would be Reversed.
(lol)

Atleast now i feel Time isn't just Linear, but Relative!

Anyways, for discussion sake,
" what if " the Speed of Causality is 6.2e+17 ?
(random number)

What sort of instruments or equipments could be used for meaningful experimentation?

ps - a swan seems to be effortlessly floating around in utmost elegance.
but Only the Swan knows of the turbulent Chaos beneath it's feet.

[Zer0]

@Bogie

If Universes are bubbles, which collectively make up the Multiverse...

What then does one call, or refer to the Space between these Bubbles?

MultiSpace!
: )

& all these supposed Bubbles have different timescales of blowing up & going PoP!

MultiTime?
: )

ps - one thing is for sure, Somebody whoos really dirty n muddy seems to be having a Great Long Bath.

Imagine the Size of their GodDamm Tub!
& their floating rubber Duck!
Chuck(he he heh)les.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

@Bogie

If Universes are bubbles, which collectively make up the Multiverse...

Well, my amateur view is that there is only one universe, but I am willing to discuss any aspect and comment on different points of view ...

What then does one call, or refer to the Space between these Bubbles?

Ok, if there are, in fact, those bubbles you are talking about, obviously the space between them is soapless.
Soapless space ...

I'm sorry to moderators and members, but the thread seems to have become trivial.

MultiSpace!
: )

Ok, I can accept that ...

& all these supposed Bubbles have different timescales of blowing up & going PoP!

MultiTime?
: )

That could make sense ...


So, where I'm at now cosmologically, is that there is one universe, and within that universe there have been and will continue to be multiple big bangs, the bangs will expand spherically and overlap, whereupon big crunches will form in the overlaps, and whereupon those crunches will collapse and bang into expanding patches of matter and energy, intersecting with adjacent expanding bangs, and you get a continuous multiple big bang universe.

258609,258624,419345,