Compacting universe before big bang?

[Asmodean Prime]

iplaw, you seem to be afflicted a lot by these double-posts.

what's going on, mate?

darned interesting, discussion, though

[silviakjell]

Darned difficult discussion. Do you beleive that the universe is infinite or finite?

[Aullios]

It's finite.  Just remember, finite can be very big.

If the universe was infinite, and the universe were expanding currently, it would mean the universe had been around for an infinite amount of time as well.  Since matter in the universe is more or less homogenous, any given direction would have a star.  Since the universe had been around for an infinite amount of time, we would be able to see light from every star in the sky.  Therfore, night would be just as bright as day, because the night sky would so dense with stars, you wouldn't be able to discern them.

[Asmodean Prime]

It's finite.  Just remember, finite can be very big.

If the universe was infinite, and the universe was expanding currently, it would mean the universe had been around for an infinite amount of time as well.  Since matter in the universe is more or less homogenous, any given direction would have a star.  Since the universe had been around for an infinite amount of time, we would be able to see light from every star in the sky.  Therfore, night would be just as bright as day, because the night sky would so dense with stars, you wouldn't be able to discern them.

But that's not strictly true, is it?   For one thing, if there are as many black holes as stated in current theory, an awful lot of stars would have ceased to 'exist'.  Also, since galaxies are said to be speeding away, and the further they are away, the faster they are travelling, then the outermost galaxies would no longer be visible, due the the fact that some of them, after such a long time, would be travelling at or beyond the speed of light....and the constant speed of light has supposedly been redefined, if current science is to be believed.

I think, though, that the question of whether the universe is finite or infinite is one we cannot answer.  Both theories seem to come loaded with impossiblities, which we can't get our heads round.

This is one reason I said that as 'men', we should remain humble in the face of facts which we, in our finite state, are incapable of comprehending.

One point for the creationists!

[McQ]

But that's not strictly true, is it?   For one thing, if there are as many black holes as stated in current theory, an awful lot of stars would have ceased to 'exist'.  

Whoa there, big fella! An awful lot of stars HAVE ceased to exist. Did you think there were only a couple thousand stars in the universe? This is where you need to learn a little astronomy. Really, even just a little would have prevented you from saying something so meaningless as that.

Also, since galaxies are said to be speeding away, and the further they are away, the faster they are travelling, then the outermost galaxies would no longer be visible, due the the fact that some of them, after such a long time, would be travelling at or beyond the speed of light....and the constant speed of light has supposedly been redefined, if current science is to be believed.

Again, a little astronomy education would be in order. Ok, admittedly, a lot of education would be in order for this one, but you shouldn't get in over your head when you don't actually know what you're talking about. Did you read this off of a tract or something? Even our Milky Way galaxy is travelling at a speed far less than than the speed of light. FAR less. In fact, it's not travelling at any one speed, but at different speeds relative to other objects in the universe. Here's a tidbit from "Ask the Space Scientist":

"Due to relativity, the speed of the Milky Way varies when compared with different objects in space. For example, I have learned from my research that the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxy are approaching each other with a speed of about 130 km/s (80 miles/sec), however the collision of these two galaxies will not occur for about 5 billion years (AstroFile). Another result I found was that our galaxy and neighbors are moving at 600 km/s (373 miles/sec) in the direction of the constellation Hydra (Scientific American). Finally, I found that the Milky Way moves through space within the cluster of galaxies it is a member of, and this cluster in turn moves through space towards yet another larger cluster of galaxies off in the direction of the constellation Virgo. This speed is approximately 300 km/s (186 miles/sec). Therefore, the speed of the Milky Way galaxy is not a single number, its value is relative to the speed of other objects."

In a billion years or so, we'll be travelling at about 1000 miles per second, still not close to 186,000 miles per second. Additionally, not everything is expanding at the same rate, or at a constant acceleration. The universe isn't smooth, it's "lumpy".

I think, though, that the question of whether the universe is finite or infinite is one we cannot answer.  Both theories seem to come loaded with impossiblities, which we can't get our heads round.

Finally, something that is at least partly true! We do not know for sure if the universe is finite or infinite for certain. But the theories are not loaded with impossibilities. Two things to stress with not knowing the answer to "finite vs. infinite" universe:
   1. That doesn't mean you throw your arms up and say, "We don't know, so we'll never know! Let's just give up looking."
   2. It signifies all the more reason to only make hypotheses and theories based on observation and experimentation, not on conjecture. Especially not based on a book that is not a cosmology textbook, like the Bible.

This is much more complicated than you are making it out to be, which is an all-too-common mistake. Do you even know the implications of a finite vs. infinite universe? Do you realize that even in a finite universe, the universe wouldn't have an "edge" or boundary? That no matter where you are in the universe, it always appears that you are at the center?

I'm guessing you don't know the answers to any of these, or their implications. This is observable, testable, science. We've already learned more than you know. Until about 75 years ago, people were convinced the universe was static and unchanging. If you had lived then, you would be saying the same thing you are now, but using the static universe as your reason to just be humble and not ask questions. Well, guess what? People did ask questions and did get answers! We will keep getting answers as long as we keep asking questions and looking.

This is one reason I said that as 'men', we should remain humble in the face of facts which we, in our finite state, are incapable of comprehending.

One point for the creationists!

Sorry! Point taken! I came out of semi-retirement from the forum to answer this one, because it's so full of errors and oversimplified thinking.
We can be humble, but we can humbly ask questions and seek answers to the world and universe in which we live.

(once again, this post not checked for spelling. I'm in a big friggin hurry!)

[Asmodean Prime]

McQ, you were right when you said that you posted this in a hurry.  So did I.  It was meant to provoke research, and discussion.  There is much that is wrong, and over-simplified in what you say, also.

Time constrains me at present on debating this in further detail.  We will go head to head on a future date, ok?

[McQ]

McQ, you were right when you said that you posted this in a hurry.  So did I.  It was meant to provoke research, and discussion.  There is much that is wrong, and over-simplified in what you say, also.

Time constrains me at present on debating this in further detail.  We will go head to head on a future date, ok?

I'm all ears, chief.

[silviakjell]

Yes, i was thinking about that boundary thing. Why does it appear as though we are always in the middle of the universe? is it possible that we could suddenly bump into the edge of the universe, assuming that we had such advanced space technology? or maybe when we reach the edge of this universe, we travel into another?

i know we are rotating, but i never knew we were "moving". is the sun moving too? if we are moving at different rates, then shouldn't we feel when we suddenly get slower, much as when a car suddenly brakes? and if different masses move at different rates, then could a drifting planet move into the sun's gravitational pull, resulting in a 10th planet?

and if the galaxies are rushing together, won't earth have a much higher collision rate?

if black holes are endlessly sucking in light and matter, after a couple of eons, won't there be nothing but black holes left? can black holes suck in black holes? what supposedly happens when you get sucked into a black hole, do you get crushed to a size of an atom, or something like that? if so, won't black holes eventually "fill up?" how is it possible to "get rid" of black holes? can black holes eventually collapse upon themself? do black holes have mass?

and sorry, i don't really have an advanced knowledge in astronomy yet. maybe when i get to college. or high school.

[McQ]

Yes, i was thinking about that boundary thing. Why does it appear as though we are always in the middle of the universe? is it possible that we could suddenly bump into the edge of the universe, assuming that we had such advanced space technology? or maybe when we reach the edge of this universe, we travel into another?

i know we are rotating, but i never knew we were "moving". is the sun moving too? if we are moving at different rates, then shouldn't we feel when we suddenly get slower, much as when a car suddenly brakes? and if different masses move at different rates, then could a drifting planet move into the sun's gravitational pull, resulting in a 10th planet?

and if the galaxies are rushing together, won't earth have a much higher collision rate?

if black holes are endlessly sucking in light and matter, after a couple of eons, won't there be nothing but black holes left? can black holes suck in black holes? what supposedly happens when you get sucked into a black hole, do you get crushed to a size of an atom, or something like that? if so, won't black holes eventually "fill up?" how is it possible to "get rid" of black holes? can black holes eventually collapse upon themself? do black holes have mass?

and sorry, i don't really have an advanced knowledge in astronomy yet. maybe when i get to college. or high school.

In kind of a hurry this morning (so what else is new these days with me? !) All good questions. Easy answers to them. A little heads up on the direction that the answers are going: space is much, much, MUCH bigger than you think it is. Galaxies can pass right through one another without obliterating each other. They will do some massive damage to parts of each, but there's a lot of space in between everything in the universe, and within galaxies.
Black holes is a term used for massive stars that have already collapsed. They have enormous mass.
More to come.

[Asmodean Prime]

McQ, when you say that 'we are always in the middle', do you mean you agree that space is somehow curved, as on the outside of a balloon, in a 2 dimensional sense, from which we can't escape?...and so end up back on ourselves no matter how far we travel?

And do you agree that space itself is expanding, much like a lump of dough containing currants (which represent stars and galaxies), in which the whole lump, along with the stars, etc, is expanding?  And that space is expanding too?

[McQ]

McQ, when you say that 'we are always in the middle', do you mean you agree that space is somehow curved, as on the outside of a balloon, in a 2 dimensional sense, from which we can't escape?...and so end up back on ourselves no matter how far we travel?

1. You say there is "much" wrong and "over-simplified" with what I posted. Tell me what. And if I over-simplified, it was because I'm trying to gear my answers to the correct knowledge level of the people I'm talking to.

2. I didn't say that we WERE at the center of the universe. I said (if you re-read my post, you'll see), that it APPEARS that you are at the center of the universe, no matter where you are located in the universe. But, essentially, even the closed universe has no edge or boundary, so there is no center. At the same time, since it has no bundaries, then everything IS in the center to all appearences. All points see the rest of the universe the same way. I'm sorry if you don't understand this, but it's the way it is. And it appears this way regardless of it being finite, infinite, open, closed, flat, etc. Here's a link that might help:

http://www.science.ca/askascientist/vie ... php?qID=14

3. The balloon analogy is used a lot, and is a simple analogy to START people off with understanding the shape of the universe, among other things. I don't like using it much, for the very reason that we are having to discuss it here: many people never get beyond it, and you need to get beyond it to have an accurate understanding of the structure and action of the universe. It is not an accurate analogy for the shape of the universe. It is also not a 2D depiction. It is a 3D depiction.

4. The shape of the universe is open to debate, because so is the fact of whether it is finite or infinite. As stated before, even if it is finite, it would appear "virtually" infinite, because of it's shape. Consider the analogy of a torus. Even a mobius strip gives you an idea of how a simple figure could appear infinitely large, or have a counterintuitive number of sides.

5. Hope this helps. I'm just afraid that I'm wasting my time because instead of starting with what is observable and testable and going from there, you are starting with a pre-supposed view of how none of this can be true and you'll argue against it in the face of the evidence. That argument, I will not enter. It is pointless.

[silviakjell]

Yes i know that the universe is big, and that black holes are stars wich have collapsed upon themself. My knowledge in astronomy is not that limited. What i was thinking with the black holes, if they have such enormus mass, won't they eventually collapse upon themselves? and what are white holes and how are they formed?

[McQ]

Yes i know that the universe is big, and that black holes are stars wich have collapsed upon themself. My knowledge in astronomy is not that limited. What i was thinking with the black holes, if they have such enormus mass, won't they eventually collapse upon themselves? and what are white holes and how are they formed?

Hey, I'm just trying to answer the questions you asked. Your questions indicated that you don't have a grasp of the size of the Universe. I'm trying to be specific to the questions as they were worded. Maybe a good web site will help more.

Here's a site to get you on your way:

http://library.advanced.org/27930/

[Aullios]

Why do we always appear in the middle of the universe?

Because we are in the middle of the observable universe.  The universe, however, is much bigger than just what we can see.  We can only see 14.5 billion light years in any direction.

And do you agree that space itself is expanding, much like a lump of dough containing currants (which represent stars and galaxies), in which the whole lump, along with the stars, etc, is expanding? And that space is expanding too?  
 

Yes, this is a more or less accurate analogy.  

Yes i know that the universe is big, and that black holes are stars wich have collapsed upon themself. My knowledge in astronomy is not that limited. What i was thinking with the black holes, if they have such enormus mass, won't they eventually collapse upon themselves? and what are white holes and how are they formed?

Black holes cannot collapse upon themselves because they are already defined as a singularity -- that is, all their mass is at one point with infinite spacetime curvature.

As for white holes, I'm not completely sure what that term even means...  I'm not familiar with anything described as a "white hole" in astronomy.

[McQ]

And do you agree that space itself is expanding, much like a lump of dough containing currants (which represent stars and galaxies), in which the whole lump, along with the stars, etc, is expanding? And that space is expanding too?  
 

Yes, this is a more or less accurate analogy.

With the exception that the lump of dough, in the analogy, is expanding outwardinto existing space. The Universe is not expanding into anything. All space is contained within it. Important caveat, or the analogy fails.