Compacting universe before big bang?

[Aullios]

Yeah... I knew that, but people have a hard time grasping the "nothing" that space isn't expanding into, so I think it's simpler to just ignore it.  Most people think of air around them not being there, so they leave out that piece of the analogy.

And wow, I butchered those quotes, didn't I?  Lemme go fix 'em.

[Asmodean Prime]

McQ, you said:

'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.'

McQ, can you clarify this a little, please, as at one point it seems you are saying it is expanding into EXISTING space, - then, that ALL space is contained within it.  If it is EXISTING space, then space must have been present before the 'big bang' for it to expand into.

Don't get me wrong, this is not a trick question.  I know that none of us can explain fully what we see in the universe.  I'm just after picking your brain regarding your thoughts on this issue, that's all.

[Whitney]

McQ (sorry if I get this wrong, I'm not an expert) was saying that the universe contains all space and as it expands it is expanding into nothing.

[Asmodean Prime]

McQ wrote:

 "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. "

Of course not, McQ, I know, according to the latest theories, that there are at least 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone, and at least  100 billion galaxies in the observable universe.   In other words, there are at least as many stars in the observable universe as there are grains of sand on every beach in all the world.

Awesome, eh?

One of the points I'm making here is that we should all be a little more humble, and civilised towards one another, -a s supposedly thinking, civilised people, - otherwise we would be no better than the religious extremists who are willing to kill and maim one another because they think they have a monopoly on truth.

This is a fascinating subject for debate, I think.

[McQ]

McQ, you said:

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

McQ, can you clarify this a little, please, as at one point it seems you are saying it is expanding into EXISTING space, - then, that ALL space is contained within it.  If it is EXISTING space, then space must have been present before the 'big bang' for it to expand into.

Don't get me wrong, this is not a trick question.  I know that none of us can explain fully what we see in the universe.  I'm just after picking your brain regarding your thoughts on this issue, that's all.

I said that the lump of dough is expanding outward into existing space. I never said the universe was, because it isn't. There is nothing "outside" of the universe, because there is no "outside".

This is why I don't like the dough analogy very much (and why I made my comment to Aullios' post) because people can't get beyond it. You're thinking of the universe a a ball of dough, or a balloon, expanding into the space that surrounds it. A balloon does expand to fill up the space that surrounds it. So does a ball of dough. But there is no "space" for the universe to expand into, or fill up. It's not analogous to a balloon, which has a surface, and an inside, and an outside.

[McQ]

McQ wrote:

 "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. "

Of course not, McQ, I know, according to the latest theories, that there are at least 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone, and at least  100 billion galaxies in the observable universe.   In other words, there are at least as many stars in the observable universe as there are grains of sand on every beach in all the world.

Awesome, eh?

What? That you know that bit of information? Yes, that is awesome. That you said it was according to the latest theories is atrocious. Try this: because it's according to observation, which proved the hypotheses that astronomers put forth.

One of the points I'm making here is that we should all be a little more humble, and civilised towards one another, -a s supposedly thinking, civilised people, - otherwise we would be no better than the religious extremists who are willing to kill and maim one another because they think they have a monopoly on truth.

Just because I call you out on your mis-information doesn't mean I'm not humble or civil. I have been very civil with you. I am also becoming impatient with your lack of acknowledging that you are mistaken. That I know and can teach astronomy is not hubris. That you refuse to learn anything is.

Do not equate me with religious zealots for pointing out the holes in your arguments. Once again, I never claimed to have a monopoly on the truth. But I do have a superior knowledge of astronomy and cosmology over you. That much is evident.

This is a fascinating subject for debate, I think.

It would be, if you knew which points were and weren't debatable. If anyone is showing a lack of humility it is you, by claiming to have the truth (of creation and evolution) and then ignoring the evidence presented.

AND, by the way, onlyme...

I've just re-read this entire thread from beginning to end. You have not yet answered my posts, including the ones you said you would, going back as far as the first page. You've also not told me, even though I asked in one of my posts, what is "much wrong" in what I've said. You told me that there was, so tell me what you think is wrong. This is why I have become impatient with you. Show a little courtesy by answering posts and maybe you'll get more yourself.

[Aullios]

[quote="McQ]This is why I don't like the dough analogy very much (and why I made my comment to Aullios' post) because people can't get beyond it. You're thinking of the universe a a ball of dough, or a balloon, expanding into the space that surrounds it. A balloon does expand to fill up the space that surrounds it. So does a ball of dough. But there is no "space" for the universe to expand into, or fill up. It's not analogous to a balloon, which has a surface, and an inside, and an outside.[/quote]

So that's why you got nitpicky.... I've never taught the stuff, so I don't know how other people react to the information.  Thanks.

[Asmodean Prime]

McQ, I think you misquoted me there.  I didn't claim that YOU had a monopoly on the truth.

Superior knowledge? Maybe.   But the current estimate of 100 billion (stars, galaxies) is put forward by eminent astrologers.  Not you, not me.  But it is only that - an estimate.  A rough guess.  In other words, the universe is SERIOUSLY BIG.

why are you now getting uncivilised with me, McQ?

You know yourself that on a forum, which requires typing, that a person's points cannot be put accross adequately, since so much typing, and time, is involved.  In person you can not shut me up, and I love to debate what I said earlier is a fascinating subject.

Again, I ask, why are you now being uncivilised with me?

[McQ]

[

Aullios, it's ok. But that is the reason I get nitpicky. It's because when people have inadequate perceptions of something, such as evolution or let's just say science in general, then we have problems. We end up with ID/Evolution trials in Dover, Pennsylvania. We get Kansas school boards that don't know jack shit. We get people who think centrifugal force is a real force (this is bound to open up a new thread for sure!).

I like analogies. I use them all the time. But you have to make sure that the analogies are accurate, which the ball of dough is as a starter, and then you have to go beyond the analogies, or use more accurate ones.

The biggest crappy analogy still in use is the Bohr Model of the atom. Nice little electrons, spinning in orbit around the nucleus. Aaaaagh!!!  :bang:

It's not a miniature solar system! LOL!

Anyway, that is why this topic of the Big Bang is so hard. Mostly because the majority of the people engaging in it don't know "Big Bang" from "Big Gulp" (that's a drink at a convenience store). So I get a little frustrated when people are trying to argue the nuances of something when they don't know the basics of something, which onlyme is doing (you paying attention, onlyme?). That's like worrying about how to fly the Space Shuttle without ever having even flown a paper airplane (see, an analogy...how fun was that! LOL!).

Anyway, it's cool, but yes, that is why I pick at nits.

[Asmodean Prime]

I'm paying attention, McQ

So you ARE a nitpicker?  No offence meant.  It's your own words.

But there is no serious, incontrovertible proof that black holes even EXIST, for a start.  And what of 'dark matter'?

I'm not trying to provoke you into hostility, it's just that in a forum, with my  typing ability, it's hard to have a head to head discussion with anyone on any subject.

And yes, I DID say that there is no incontrivertible proof that black holes exist.

[McQ]

McQ, I think you misquoted me there.  I didn't claim that YOU had a monopoly on the truth.

I didn't misquote you. You implied that I was being uncivilized toward you. You tried to equate that to religious fanatics who kill one another. I have already responded to this question. I was not uncivil toward you.  

Superior knowledge? Maybe.  

No. Definitely. Add biology, physics and chemistry to that as well.

But the current estimate of 100 billion (stars, galaxies) is put forward by eminent astrologers.  Not you, not me.  But it is only that - an estimate.  A rough guess.  In other words, the universe is SERIOUSLY BIG.

Wrong again. It was put forth by astronomers, not astrologers. And what is your point with that statement anyway? I already know it's big.

why are you now getting uncivilised with me, McQ?

I'm not. But I would be justified for being so in the future because of your lack of courtesy in answering direct questions and posts that I took the time to make.

You know yourself that on a forum, which requires typing, that a person's points cannot be put accross adequately, since so much typing, and time, is involved.  In person you can not shut me up, and I love to debate what I said earlier is a fascinating subject.

Again, I ask, why are you now being uncivilised with me?

Already answered. Now you try going back and try answering the posts and questions and then please be so kind as to tell me why you are being discourteous to someone who welcomed you to the board, took your part, and tried to engage in civil debate with you?

[Asmodean Prime]

McQ, and what of the speed of light, supposedly being both a particle and a wave, when it suits it?  Strange, eh?   I don't have the answer, do you?

And what of atoms?  According to my latest research, an atom can never be 'observed' regarding it's current position and direction, (even with electron microscopes) since, to observe a single atom, at least ONE photon of light must shine upon it, which itself is travelling at the speed of light, therefore 'knocking off course' the atom that it is observing.

These things are perplexing at best.  I admit I'm still a searcher.  Are you?

[McQ]

I'm paying attention, McQ

So you ARE a nitpicker?  No offence meant.  It's your own words.

But there is no serious, incontrovertible proof that black holes even EXIST, for a start.  And what of 'dark matter'?

I'm not trying to provoke you into hostility, it's just that in a forum, with my  typing ability, it's hard to have a head to head discussion with anyone on any subject.

And yes, I DID say that there is no incontrivertible proof that black holes exist.

I'm done answering your questions, onlyme until you answer mine. And I don't take offense at being precise. I used the term "nitpicking" because Aullios used it. I'm proud of the fact that I'm accurate in describing things in detail.

P.S.: Three of my children can answer your last insipid questions. If you had bothered to even use the correct terminology in the questions themselves.
LOL!

[Asmodean Prime]

It seems I can't compete with such a superior intellect as yours, McQ

I will wait on the sidelines til all be revealed

[Whitney]

onlyme....will you please answer McQ's questions....part of participating in a civil debate is not sidestepping questions to only ask new ones.  McQ is not here to teach you.  If you want to debate, fine offer something that can be debated rather than more questions.