Where did the Big Bang happened? Is there a galaxy in that location we can travel to?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Where did the Big Bang happened? Is there a galaxy in that location we can travel to?
It happened everywhere
But if everything was very close together in the past, where was that?
Then let me ask in a different way. Where is the center of the universe at?
There is no center of the universe. Like I said, it happened everywhere
Then the universe is infinite in size. Every finitely sized object has a center.
Not necessarily. Not necessarily.
Yes necessarily because yes necessarily. Every geometric arrangement of multiple points has a centroid or center of mass.
Anon, you're way out of your depth here. Stop arguing with me and try to learn some general relativity instead.
Already did. Got an A in it. Oh yeah, took cosmology too. Got an A. Do you have an actual rebut or not?
Surely this point exists somewhere in the universe. So, where in the universe today did this singular point exist?
Sure you did lol.
That's why I'm the one who is substantiating his arguments, and you're the one projecting about how someone else should take courses.
It's simple. All geometric arrangement of points by definition has a center of mass associated with it, which exists at a single point. The universe today is obviously not a single point, so therefore there must exist a center. Where is that center? The typical answer given is
>EVERYWHERE!
That implies the universe isn't finite. Furthermore when you say the universe existed at a singular point sometime in the past, which was also "everywhere" (you're abusing language there, which you'd know if you actually understood what you learned in GR (assuming you actually took it at all)) what you're implying is that again, the universe is infinite.
Your substantiations are nothing other than high-school level misunderstandings of basic differential geometry.
> All geometric arrangement of points by definition has a center of mass associated with it
Simply wrong. If you take a circle of some radius, all points are related to each other by rotations, so they're all equivalent and hence there can be no 'center' of the circle. If you assume the circle is in a plane, you can define a center but that's not the case here since the circle is meant to represent the whole universe so there's nothing outside it. The universe could be finite or infinite but that's irrelevant here.
>Your substantiations are nothing other than high-school level misunderstandings of basic differential geometry.
>there can be no 'center' of the circle.
I fricking hate children
>If you take a circle of some radius, all points are related to each other by rotations, so they're all equivalent and hence there can be no 'center' of the circle
Hey, dipshit. How's the radius defined?
Defined outside the circle so immeasurable to anyone contained in the circle
How's the radius of this 'circle' you brought up defined?
Measure the distance around the circle and divide the distance by 2pi
You'll have to elaborate on what this has to do with my post
Ah so the circle has a perimeter. So explain again how a geometric shape with a finite perimeter has no center.
How can a geometric shape with a finite perimeter have to beginning or end?
>explain again
Look at my post again. It's still there you know
Yes just nit picking thinking that invalidates your argument because the universe isn't exactly a circle. He doesn't realize you're dumbing it down with an analogy so he can relate it to problems he's memorized or arguments he's been told before
I understand exactly what he's saying. Recall I'm the only one here who brought up a Robertson Walker metric. I'm aware of the pithy bullshit cosmologists say that the big bang isn't an expansion IN space-time, but that it's an expansion OF space-time. What I'm saying is that this anon is incapable of defending his position. So much so that when he makes a moronic comment about circles having no center, he can't even admit he gave a shitty analogy. He merely doubles down.
I've always been bothered by this "big bang occurred everywhere" bullshit since it's a play on words and serves only to mislead people.
You sound like you don't understand the analogy. Acknowledge the truth in the analogy, mention where the analogy breaks down and then WHY that necessitates that the argument isn't valid for the argument. All analogies break down at some point, we know that and still use it. Let's recognize some common ground and work from there
>mention where the analogy breaks down
Already did.
>If you take a circle of some radius
>some radius
How is this radius defined? No, the radius of a circle is not defined via the circumference. The definition of the radius of a circle is the constant distance of every point on the circle from its center. By definition a circle has a center. If your analogy to explain why the universe has no center is to cite a geometric shape defined by its center, then you're a fricking moron.
>and then WHY that necessitates that the argument isn't valid for the argument
Are you sure you got an A when you can't read through all the parts? You just copy and memorize solutions, right?
Just admit your analogy sucks dude.
Not my analogy, defending his because he gave up on you
You're not even doing the one thing left because you can't think through the differences yourself so you don't really understand it
Quit being an entitled snowflake and realize you're understanding is your responsibility, not ours
Frick off, your thread dies after your next useless post
>6 posters ITT
>Therefore the guy must be OP
I'm not OP. Understanding is my responsibility, and explaining that understanding is also my responsibility. By symmetry, same is valid for you and the schizo (that's what schizo means, right, someone who disagrees with me?) If you want to keep explaining the big bang via those stupid, pithy, meaningless (false) statements, then accept why nobody understands what you're talking about. If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Also, you're wrong. He didn't give up on me. I gave up on him after I realized he's a pseud. You don't strike me as a pseud though. So just acknowledge that the pithy arguments about big bang occurring everywhere implies the universe is infinite. So pick your poison, either the universe is infinite or the big bang didn't occur everywhere. Simple as.
Your do realize that by "explaining it simply" that never includes a film explanation and is usually done by analogy? Go back and read Feynman's simple explanations and tell me they're complete and analogy free.
Furthermore, no I don't understand it well, but better to understand it not as an expert but a novice than to not understand it at all.
If you need the expert, simple answer, go pay an expert for it and thir time to explain it simply to you
you forgot the third possibility. the universe is finite, the big bang occurred everywhere, and the universe is periodic!
What exactly is your problem? Explain it in clear precise terms instead of using vague and pointless analogies.
Meant to only quote 14614578 instead
I literally gave you an actionable list of simple items to keep the conversation civil and productive. If you're not putting effort in then we're done trying to help out your holes in your understanding
I mistook you for OP, my apologies
Fair enough, would be helpful to have hashed identities as other boards do
Reread the thread fricking moron. I'm not retyping it.
>You'll have to elaborate on what this has to do with my post
I'm not the schizo you're talking to, I was just pointing out that the geometry is different when you have an expanding circle or sphere (balloon you blow up) compared to the universe.
Of course, every ant on that expanding ring says "Everyone is moving away from me" and every ant claims to be the centre of their one-dimensional universe. But their universe is cyclic. If you move long enough in one direction, you return back where you started. At least in a non-relativistic view.
In a region defined outside of the circle that we, outside the circle, can use and verify. If you want to find the analog, go ask someone outside the universe. Go find God and ask
But the circle has periodic boundary conditions, while the universe does not
Every point is this point... go memorize more homework problems
Bullshit. Because the Big Bang didn't happen in the future, and according to relativity, the future is just another place at the same time in another reference system. That would mean the Big Bang happened in the future as well
False
>according to relativity, the future is just another place at the same time
Citation needed
If you're talking about event simultaneity, that's not a proper generalization statement. If I assume what you mean instead of what you said, then if you look out to the edge of the observable universe, yes, you will see (in the here present which is the future of the edge of the universe reference frame) the big bang happen at that point. If you look out in any direction to the edge of the observable universe you will see the same. The problem is seeing beyond the CMB which floods you with background radiation and was the earliest you can really look with photons.
Let's try this instead. Define a metric for me, dealers choice. Minkowski, Euclidian, Manhattan, Robertson-Walker, I don't care. Define any region which bounds a volume in this metric. Then surely this volume is finite. Now, tell me what region (if any) corresponds to the centroid of this volume existing everywhere in the region. Surely you can do that, right?
Go memorize more shit without thinking about it, moron.
>Define any region which bounds a volume in this metric.
>Then surely this volume is finite.
That second statement is a direct consequence of the first. You force it to be definite by saying a bound volume.
Furthermore, in order to do the first statement that implies there is a volume to begin with. If you are talking about the point the universe was at the beginning, there is no volume so no valid metric
>The universe is finite in volume
>the universe is expanding in all directions
>The big bang occurred everywhere
>Even in regions that don't yet exist!
On the off chance you're not trolling and you actually believe what you're saying (and aren't simply regurgitating what you've heard), just admit that what you're saying implies the universe is infinite.
All the points existed at that single point. The expansion of the universe physically spread them out. If you are looking at a point after the expansion and thinking about that point without considering the expansion of the universe then yes it occurred in places that didn't exist yet. That is a failure in your thinking. That point in the future didn't have the separation or measurable distance from any other center of the universe when it was the center of the universe
>If you are talking about the point the universe was at the beginning, there is no volume so no valid metric
Then how could it have occurred "everywhere" if there's no valid metric?
>Then the universe is infinite in size.
What's wrong with this?
Many (if not most) cosmologists do think it's infinite in size
Personally, I don't see a problem with it. Except for how it triggers pseuds like the one ITT with his moronic circle analogy. Look at how antsy he got at the proposition that his claim implies the universe is infinite keke
Yes, it is. Instantly after big bang an infinite space was created.
Everywhere is the center of the universe.
Where is the center of a point?
A point is a zero dimensional object that exists only at a specific coordinate. As such, the center of a point is by definition the same coordinate on which the point exists. The universe is clearly not a point as it doesn't exist on a single coordinate.
All evidence says the universe was a point at the beginning
Then what happened if you moved to the left?
You end up at the same point. There was no space in which to move. That's how a 0-dimensional space works
>All evidence points to
Bullshit. The acceleration of the expanding universe is evidence. How does that imply the universe existed at a single point in the past, dumb frick?
Not necessarily. It says that every finite region was a point. If the universe were infinite, it would have been infinite at the big bang too
>center of the universe
?t=10m
Only changes in location are physically meaningful. More precisely, only relatively positions have physical meaning. So your question doesn't make sense.
Yes, the milky-way galaxy. In fact, your house is where the big bang happened