Rational and civil debate between members of all religions and world views


Reply to topic
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 1: Sat Mar 02, 2019 2:07 pm
Reply
Two bangs for your buck?

Like this post
One popular theory that gets us to us, is the big bang.
A point in 'space' that gets bored and makes humans and the ice capades.
Now from my limited understanding that's perhaps the first place we can guess about.
What it's moving into may be nonsensical or just unknowable. Perhaps it's a circle or other theoretical ideas postulated at this time.

My question is are there the possibility of more then one big bang event in a given zone? I imagine that the big bang is evidenced enough to be possible in this area for lack of a better term? Why not in multiple different places?
Or would that screw everything up?
If the big bang is only possible once is that a form of special pleading?
If not does it logically follow that the two points would start effecting each other even if viable light is not directly present or absorbed by the two expanding edges of separate or multiple occurances. I suppose gravitational effects of different singularities also could bend the expansion as well.

Now I'm just wondering if the big bang is possible in one place (I guess it's actually necessary if it's true) why not in multiple places spread out through space?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 2: Sat Mar 02, 2019 4:56 pm
Reply
Re: Two bangs for your buck?

Like this post
kcplusdc@yahoo.com wrote:


A point in 'space' that gets bored and makes humans and the ice capades.




I'm curious as to which theory of the Big Bang describes it as a point in space that gets bored?


I've also never heard of it making humans and the ice capades.


Can you document where you get this idea of the Big Bang from?




Tcg

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 3: Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:22 am
Reply
Sure

Like this post
If the big bang is the first cause of this current configuration of now then it is the reason for the ice capades.
Although I was kinda trying to interject a bit of humor in there and was not my point.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 4: Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:52 am
Reply
Re: Two bangs for your buck?

Like this post
kcplusdc@yahoo.com wrote:

Now I'm just wondering if the big bang is possible in one place (I guess it's actually necessary if it's true) why not in multiple places spread out through space?


The problem I see here is that you are thinking in terms of the obsolete ideas of Classical or Newtonian physics.

You appear to be imagining that space already exists everywhere as some sort of absolute stage upon which a big bang expands into. This is not compatible with Modern Physics that has recognized Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

Something that is difficult, if not impossible, for us humans to comprehend is that in the quantum world locations in "space" are ill-defined. And in that sense they are basically non-existent.

Space is created by the Big Bang. So the Big Bang doesn't expand into space, but rather it creates space as it expands.

Again, this may be difficult, or even impossible for our human minds to fully comprehend, but the idea is that you could have two Big Bangs occurring right next to each other (although being "next" to each other is already an assumption that the idea of locations in space have meaning at the quantum level.)

But the point I'm trying to make is that if two Big Bang events occurred right "next" to each other they would never bump into each other no matter how much they "expanded". This is because they aren't actually expanding in that domain. Instead they are creating a fabric of spacetime that perhaps you might even think of as existing in a completely different "space" from the place original domain where the Big Bang started.

Another way of saying this is that if there are multiple universes, they aren't existing "out there" in space. Some massive distance from us. You can't even point to them, much less set out to travel toward one of them.

Instead they would all exist in their own "dimensions". Each one creating its own spacetime dimensions.

I realize that artists draw impressions of multiple universes where each universe is a bubble located in some imagined absolute preexisting space coordinates. But we need to realize two things. First off these are just artiist's impressions, and they too are thinking in terms of absolute space as you have suggested. And secondly to artistically draw the reality of multiple universes existing in their own created dimensions would basically be impossible as there would be no way to draw it.

So multiple universes are most likely not a bunch of bubbles existing in Newton's Absolute Space as depicted in artist's impressions. But instead they would exist in a way that our experience and perceptions won't even allow us to comprehend much less visualize.

But a better way to answer your question would be to simply say that, yes, multiple Big Bangs are not only possible but highly likely. Just drop the idea of them being "spread out in space" because that idea is not applicable. These multiple universes would be separated from each other in some dimensional way that we can't even comprehend. For this reason there could be an infinity of universes with absolutely zero chance of any of them "bumping into" another one. This is because they aren't existing in the same "space".

Another way you might possibly think of this. Note: This is just an idea I'm not saying that this is a correct picture.

But you might think of a Big Bang exploding inward toward it's center. All of the spacetime it creates is within it. It's not getting "bigger". It just appears to be expanding from within.

Once you have this idea you can see why no two universes would ever bump into each other. They are all expanding "inward" creating their own spacetime fabric within.

Like I say, this isn't to say that this is what's actually going on, but it might serve as a useful visual to better understand why there is no need for any preexisting external space.

We humans need to think of things expanding outward because we simply can't imagine a point expanding inward and not getting any bigger on the outside. But that might be more akin to what actually happens.

But yeah, I think it would indeed be extremely strange to think that our universe is the only universe that has ever existed. But then again, I need to also confess that it's equally strange that an infinite number of universes exist as well.

The bottom line for sure, (for both theists and non-theists) is that no matter what scenario we embrace, they are all indeed quite STRANGE.

The fact that anything exists at all is already beyond human comprehension. And this include both a secular or theistic existence. Because after all proposing that a God exists doesn't help one iota. After all, how could a God exist? Proposing a God doesn't move us any closer to a rational explanation.

I realize I offered some additional information there, but I though it followed from your original question. Mr. Green

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 5: Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:25 pm
Reply
Re: Sure

Like this post
kcplusdc@yahoo.com wrote:

If the big bang is the first cause of this current configuration of now then it is the reason for the ice capades.
Although I was kinda trying to interject a bit of humor in there and was not my point.



You also stated that the Big Bang was the result of a point in 'space' getting bored. Was this also meant to be a bit of humor?


I asked because your humor comes across as mocking the very theory you hope to enter into a discussion about. I find it hard to consider this as a true desire for discussion. It seems more like setting up a venue for the Big Bang theory to be mocked, not discussed.


Perhaps I totally misunderstood your intention. If that is the case, perhaps my misunderstanding will help you realize that inviting discussion with humor that can be mistaken for mocking may not be the best approach.


In any case, Divine Insight has responded with a very detailed answer to your question. Having a very weak scientific background, it helped me understand the Big Bang a bit better. Given that, I'm glad you asked this question.




Tcg

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 6: Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:58 am
Reply
Thank you

Like this post
As for my language tripping up my intention of asking this question,forgive my use of humor. I'm not sure what makes a point in space blow up into a universe so "bored"seemed as good as any other term.

The other post really addressed my question and illuminated me. Thank you for taking the time to do so.

My only question is that I was not aware that such a narrow view of space had been determined.
Additionally I typically use the beach ball analysis for trying to understand expansion and I guess imagining two beach balls expanding next to each other would bring each to intersect at some point.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 7: Tue Mar 05, 2019 4:13 pm
Reply
Re: Thank you

Like this post
kcplusdc@yahoo.com wrote:

As for my language tripping up my intention of asking this question,forgive my use of humor.




You certainly don't need to seek forgiveness from me. I'm simply trying to understand the purpose of this thread.


If it is to better understand the Big Bang theory, then I'd be interested in following it.



Tcg

[/list]

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   


Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version