ChatterBank1 min ago
Is The Universe Hollow?
52 Answers
If we accept that the big bang happened and everything is still travelling outward from its origin, should we expect that there would be a region of space completely empty of matter, and for this void to be getting bigger all the time? If not, then the only explanation I can think of is that I am being a bit naïve in expecting the big bang to have happened 'somewhere', but it's all my poor brain can manage.
Thanks,
CS
Thanks,
CS
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Captain Spod. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I never said it did revolve around me. But for crying out loud the conversation drifted toward me and I wasn't even here yet!
If in future I'm mentioned as someone you ought to listen to why not just ignore it rather than respond in the way you did? It's not an unreasonable request. It's just impolite to talk aboutppeople in the third person in the manner you did. I can't control what other people do say about me but I can at least ask that it not happen in the way it did. Precious it is not. Just reasonable.
If in future I'm mentioned as someone you ought to listen to why not just ignore it rather than respond in the way you did? It's not an unreasonable request. It's just impolite to talk aboutppeople in the third person in the manner you did. I can't control what other people do say about me but I can at least ask that it not happen in the way it did. Precious it is not. Just reasonable.
Jim, for heaven’s sake! It is not reasonable to expect people to pussyfoot around you. I didn’t start a conversation about you – in fact there was no ‘conversation’ about you. When PP TOLD me I didn’t want to hear from mibs when it was clear that I did, I said three words to put him straight. I wanted to hear from mibs! Now, please, let's get out of the playground and on with the discussion.
"only a 0.4 percent margin of error"
That's a massive margin when one is trying to prove absolutely flat. To me it suggests a very large universe instead.
I have also come across the universe is a black hole theory although I don't recall the details. I'm sure someone can Google it. But I suspect it is connected to the fact that the places singularities are found is in the centre of black holes, and at the start of our universe, implying a connection ?
That's a massive margin when one is trying to prove absolutely flat. To me it suggests a very large universe instead.
I have also come across the universe is a black hole theory although I don't recall the details. I'm sure someone can Google it. But I suspect it is connected to the fact that the places singularities are found is in the centre of black holes, and at the start of our universe, implying a connection ?
Let me try to be clear: Peter Pedant shouldn't have been so aggressive in encouraging you to listen to me. It's nice that he values my opinion so highly but still, it's just ended up turning a thread sour and effectively has now made this discussion revolve around me. I don't want that. I am here to discuss science.
I do wish you hadn't said what you had said but, well, you do tend to be rather blunter than I'd like so I guess I should be used to it by now. But what I was trying to do was to ask people in general and Peter in particular not to bring me up in conversation all the time. It's just turned this thread sour.
I didn't have any part in that and I wish it weren't so. As it happened I was interested in what mibn was going to say about that too, as I don't know enough about it myself beyond already being aware of the theory. In that sense PP was not only too keen to encourage you to listen to me, he was also wrong.
I didn't want to end up in an argument with you again. Your perceived bluntness, meant that way or not, was in my view something that emerged because someone else brought me up. I know that you wouldn't ever walk into a thread and say "thank god jim's not here I can get some peace now", and while yes it would have been nicer if you hadn't said anything as, like anyone else, I'd rather read gushing comments about me than curt dismissals, you didn't bring me into the conversation so it wasn't really your fault.
Now let's stop there and discuss the science.
I do wish you hadn't said what you had said but, well, you do tend to be rather blunter than I'd like so I guess I should be used to it by now. But what I was trying to do was to ask people in general and Peter in particular not to bring me up in conversation all the time. It's just turned this thread sour.
I didn't have any part in that and I wish it weren't so. As it happened I was interested in what mibn was going to say about that too, as I don't know enough about it myself beyond already being aware of the theory. In that sense PP was not only too keen to encourage you to listen to me, he was also wrong.
I didn't want to end up in an argument with you again. Your perceived bluntness, meant that way or not, was in my view something that emerged because someone else brought me up. I know that you wouldn't ever walk into a thread and say "thank god jim's not here I can get some peace now", and while yes it would have been nicer if you hadn't said anything as, like anyone else, I'd rather read gushing comments about me than curt dismissals, you didn't bring me into the conversation so it wasn't really your fault.
Now let's stop there and discuss the science.
I know you decide what you write. I'm still allowed to have an opinion on it, and ask that you not say certain things. You are at liberty to ignore them but it doesn't mean I'm not entitled to ask, and it's certainly not cheeky to do so.
I wasn't sure whether or not to have addressed what you and PP had said. Perhaps I shouldn't have. Too late now.
I wasn't sure whether or not to have addressed what you and PP had said. Perhaps I shouldn't have. Too late now.
@Captain Spod
I can see where you're coming from and have probably thought along similar lines myself. I could be mistaken but think the common conception is of the big bang being something which occurred 'somewhere in space', that is a space which already existed.
The tricky concept to grasp is there was no space. A Sci-Fi writer might refer to it as "un-space" but scientists would regard that as a meaningless term.
Anyway, picture an X,Y,Z three-dimensional graph, where the axes start at zero size (the singularity) and shoot outwards, as the big bang occurs. Coordinates 0,0,0 must exist but knowing our own coordinates, relative to that point is not straightforward.
I've seen computer-animated 3-D maps of the structure of the known universe. The distribution of matter is uneven and does show gigantic voids, giving an overall structure like froth. For the record, our galaxy is nowhere near the centre.
From our knowledge of everyday things, explosions blast outwards and any void left behind is instantly refilled by air. For me, the expansion of the universe is more like expanding foam - thin films of matter (galaxies) around expanding voids.
As for *why* space expands, I haven't a clue. I still haven't encountered the explanation for 'acceleration' in the rate of expansion. (Red shifts have been studied for close to a century, so how fast can the rate of change be?)
I can see where you're coming from and have probably thought along similar lines myself. I could be mistaken but think the common conception is of the big bang being something which occurred 'somewhere in space', that is a space which already existed.
The tricky concept to grasp is there was no space. A Sci-Fi writer might refer to it as "un-space" but scientists would regard that as a meaningless term.
Anyway, picture an X,Y,Z three-dimensional graph, where the axes start at zero size (the singularity) and shoot outwards, as the big bang occurs. Coordinates 0,0,0 must exist but knowing our own coordinates, relative to that point is not straightforward.
I've seen computer-animated 3-D maps of the structure of the known universe. The distribution of matter is uneven and does show gigantic voids, giving an overall structure like froth. For the record, our galaxy is nowhere near the centre.
From our knowledge of everyday things, explosions blast outwards and any void left behind is instantly refilled by air. For me, the expansion of the universe is more like expanding foam - thin films of matter (galaxies) around expanding voids.
As for *why* space expands, I haven't a clue. I still haven't encountered the explanation for 'acceleration' in the rate of expansion. (Red shifts have been studied for close to a century, so how fast can the rate of change be?)
The difficulty with visualising the geometry of the universe, how two points within it are related to each other in direction and distance, is similar to the difficulty of visualising two points on the surface of the Earth as portrayed on a two dimensional surface like a map laying flat on a table. Two locations printed on opposite edges can in actually exist side by side on the actual surface of the Earth, a fact that can be verified by bringing the two opposite edges of the map together.
In a similar fashion, if we were to look at two different galaxies that appear in opposite directions, both at sufficiently extreme distances from our particular vantage point we might actually be looking at opposite sides of the same galaxy, presuming as we must that it were possible to see them / it from the distance between us and them /it. The same would be true for someone from that galaxy looking towards us, presuming such distances were observable.
The problem is that the dimensions of our universe exceed the distance light travels in the time required to observe anything at such extreme distances.
So where did all this initial expansion we attribute to the 'Big Bang' occur?
The answer, surprisingly enough, is all around us, them . . . and all points in between.
In a similar fashion, if we were to look at two different galaxies that appear in opposite directions, both at sufficiently extreme distances from our particular vantage point we might actually be looking at opposite sides of the same galaxy, presuming as we must that it were possible to see them / it from the distance between us and them /it. The same would be true for someone from that galaxy looking towards us, presuming such distances were observable.
The problem is that the dimensions of our universe exceed the distance light travels in the time required to observe anything at such extreme distances.
So where did all this initial expansion we attribute to the 'Big Bang' occur?
The answer, surprisingly enough, is all around us, them . . . and all points in between.
//(Red shifts have been studied for close to a century, so how fast can the rate of change be?)//
The rate of expansion for any given time in the history of the universe is presumed based upon the distance (and therefore time) the red shift is measured. As we compare redshifts in more distant galaxies, the rate of expansion appears to decrease (to a point) with distance which implies that the rate of expansion has accelerated in more recent times.
The rate of expansion for any given time in the history of the universe is presumed based upon the distance (and therefore time) the red shift is measured. As we compare redshifts in more distant galaxies, the rate of expansion appears to decrease (to a point) with distance which implies that the rate of expansion has accelerated in more recent times.
I need to be nonsensical more often, it seems...
I've handled this whole thing rather badly. I was trying to be diplomatic and I've failed utterly. It seemed obvious that the only reason I got brought up was because PP was being a bit too much of a cheerleader and that's frankly embarrassing but I didn't want to say so directly. And then, well, rightly or wrongly I was a bit miffed by Naomi's curt response but I was trying to interpret that in light of what PP had said to start the whole thing off. And then have tied myself in knots along the way.
I didn't drag myself into this thread but it's gone on far longer than I intended. The point I was trying to make was that I don't want to walk into a thread to find that I'm the topic of discussion. What people think about me is up to them and I expect they've made up their minds by now but it shouldn't be relevant.
I'm sorry all for the distraction, particularly Spod.
I've handled this whole thing rather badly. I was trying to be diplomatic and I've failed utterly. It seemed obvious that the only reason I got brought up was because PP was being a bit too much of a cheerleader and that's frankly embarrassing but I didn't want to say so directly. And then, well, rightly or wrongly I was a bit miffed by Naomi's curt response but I was trying to interpret that in light of what PP had said to start the whole thing off. And then have tied myself in knots along the way.
I didn't drag myself into this thread but it's gone on far longer than I intended. The point I was trying to make was that I don't want to walk into a thread to find that I'm the topic of discussion. What people think about me is up to them and I expect they've made up their minds by now but it shouldn't be relevant.
I'm sorry all for the distraction, particularly Spod.
Thanks Mibs. I love it when you talk ‘space’! Your original hypothesis that each universe resides within a separate black hole, together with your latest posts regarding expansion has conjured up a weird – and probably quite potty - vision in my mind. Viewing the whole thing from the speculatively impossible position of a remote observer, I imagine that each black hole would exert a gravitational pull upon its neighbour which would, I presume, depending on mass, have the effect of the stronger engulfing the weaker – and now I’m imagining not that the universe is expanding as such as the result of the big bang, but that what we are seeing is our black hole absorbing other lesser black holes and, hence, other universes – or indeed our universe in the process of being absorbed by a neighbouring black hole. I’ve worded that poorly. Does it make sense?
Looking at the status quo; time is rapidly running out for, at least, human life on this planet. We should be amazed that our brains which evolved to cope with life of our distant ancestors on the African plains has been able to get us so far, but just as a chimp. cannot ever be aware of quantum mechanics, it appears to me that these aspects of reality are beyond our understanding, and anyway would make no difference to our existence in the here and now, and it is folly to waste time and resources on idle speculation. (end of sermon).
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
One World Built On A Firm Foundation
Music10 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
