Groups > sci.physics > #538401 > unrolled thread

How can the Universe be infinite if it was all concentrated into,a point at the Big Bang?

Started by	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
First post	2015-12-10 09:54 -0600
Last post	2015-12-14 18:22 -0500
Articles	13 on this page of 33 — 12 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#538500

From	Double-A <double-a3@hush.com>
Date	2015-12-10 13:13 -0800
Message-ID	<cb073715-5fd5-4985-bdf2-eda58bfdfeca@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#538401

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 7:54:08 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> How can the Universe be infinite if it was all concentrated into
>    a point at the Big Bang?


Good "point"!

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#538507

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-10 15:36 -0600
Message-ID	<O_mdnYVRycnnbfTLnZ2dnUU7-YnOydjZ@giganews.com>
In reply to	#538500

On 12/10/15 3:13 PM, Double-A wrote:
> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 7:54:08 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> How can the Universe be infinite if it was all concentrated into
>>     a point at the Big Bang?
>
>
> Good "point"!
>
> Double-A
>

   One must not confuse the universe with the observable universe.
   Certainly the observable universe not infinite.

   From Ned Wright:

   Is the Universe really infinite or just really big?

   We have observations that say that the radius of curvature of the
   Universe is bigger than 70 billion light years. But the observations
   allow for either a positive or negative curvature, and this range
   includes the flat Universe with infinite radius of curvature. The
   negatively curved space is also infinite in volume even though it is
   curved. So we know empirically that the volume of the Universe is
   more than 20 times bigger than volume of the observable Universe.
   Since we can only look at small piece of an object that has a large
   radius of curvature, it looks flat. The simplest mathematical model
   for computing the observed properties of the Universe is then flat
   Euclidean space. This model is infinite, but what we know about the
   Universe is that it is really big.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#538518

From	"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-10 13:51 -0800
Message-ID	<9ef71733-7d51-4dae-8ced-d26c091670dc@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#538401

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 7:54:08 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> How can the Universe be infinite if it was all concentrated into
>    a point at the Big Bang?
>  > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
> 
> > The Universe was not concentrated into a point at the time of the Big
> > Bang. But the observable Universe was concentrated into a point. The
> > distinction between the whole Universe and the part of it that we can
> > see is important. In the figure below, two views of the Universe are
> > shown: on the left for 1 Gyr after the Big Bang, and on the right the
> > current Universe 13 Gyr after the Big Bang (assuming that the Hubble
> > constant is Ho = 50 km/sec/Mpc and the Universe has the critical
> > density.)
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

Singularity is many points   TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#538520

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-10 15:56 -0600
Message-ID	<O_mdnYBRycmXaPTLnZ2dnUU7-YnOydjZ@giganews.com>
In reply to	#538518

On 12/10/15 3:51 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
>
> Singularity is many points   TreBert
>


   Remedial Review for reber | Gravitational Singularity
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

> A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location
> where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field
> of a celestial body become infinite in a way that does not depend on
> the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant
> curvatures of spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of
> matter. The laws of normal spacetime could not exist within a
> singularity.




-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#538627

From	"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-11 10:32 -0800
Message-ID	<aba799f9-8f38-4d49-8e97-27d7dc7f0d21@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#538520

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 1:56:29 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 12/10/15 3:51 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> >
> > Singularity is many points   TreBert
> >
> 
> 
>    Remedial Review for reber | Gravitational Singularity
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
> 
> > A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location
> > where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field
> > of a celestial body become infinite in a way that does not depend on
> > the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant
> > curvatures of spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of
> > matter. The laws of normal spacetime could not exist within a
> > singularity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

The core of a black hole is weird.Normal spacetime is not in this spot.You can forget finding space or time.Its where gravity rules and is so consintrated that its force equals the force of whole universe. A force to create all that is out of the DNA,and particle points that make up a universe's singularity.Once BH reaches its critical mass density it implodes and imperial thinkers name this beginning "BIG BANG"  I have a better name,but who am I. TreBert  Ps There are as many universes in the cosmos as flakes of snow in an endless storm.All exactly alike other than half have positive charge(positrons) Yes we are negative(electrons)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#538631

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-11 12:46 -0600
Message-ID	<daKdnV7wT8ueh_bLnZ2dnUU7-TednZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#538627

On 12/11/15 12:32 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> You can forget finding space or time.Its where gravity rules and is
> so consintrated that its force equals the force of whole universe.

   Gravity IS WARPED spacetime and black holed by definition warp
   spacetime at the event horizon that light cannot escape.

   The whole universe has a net force approximating zero.

   Come on, reber, try thinking for a change.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#539180

From	"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-14 13:40 -0800
Message-ID	<cd690aa8-cf3e-4a22-abfb-f1d209a75e41@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#538631

On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 10:46:31 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 12/11/15 12:32 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> > You can forget finding space or time.Its where gravity rules and is
> > so consintrated that its force equals the force of whole universe.
> 
> 
>    Gravity IS WARPED spacetime and black holed by definition warp
>    spacetime at the event horizon that light cannot escape.
> 
>    The whole universe has a net force approximating zero.
> 
>    Come on, reber, try thinking for a change.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

Sam you went to the book that told 0 for force.So in your own words is the universe getting bigger,and that's in books too.Tell me if a force is not needed,and why for accelerating expansion Think Think Think. I have much more on this.TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#538586 — Re: How can the Universe be infinite if it was all concentrated into,a point at the Big Bang?

From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date	2015-12-10 22:07 -0800
Subject	Re: How can the Universe be infinite if it was all concentrated into,a point at the Big Bang?
Message-ID	<566A683D.7E4C@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to	#538401

Sam Wormley wrote:
> 
>    How can the Universe be infinite if it was all concentrated into
>    a point at the Big Bang?
>  > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
> 
> > The Universe was not concentrated into a point at the time of the Big
> > Bang. 

It was not concentrated into a point at the time of the big bang...
it was concentrated in a size of our milky way.

ucla is full of drug addicts. why post a link from ucla.edu?

ucla stands for ugly caucasians love asians.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#538590

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2015-12-11 18:30 +1100
Message-ID	<dcvcd8FsjvqU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#538401

On 11/12/2015 2:54 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>    How can the Universe be infinite if it was all concentrated into
>    a point at the Big Bang?
>  > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
>
>> The Universe was not concentrated into a point at the time of the Big
>> Bang. But the observable Universe was concentrated into a point. The
>> distinction between the whole Universe and the part of it that we can
>> see is important. In the figure below, two views of the Universe are
>> shown: on the left for 1 Gyr after the Big Bang, and on the right the
>> current Universe 13 Gyr after the Big Bang (assuming that the Hubble
>> constant is Ho = 50 km/sec/Mpc and the Universe has the critical
>> density.)
>
>

We don't know what the laws of physics are/were in that situation, so 
we've no way of reaching any conclusions about whether it's possible.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#538705

From	benj <none@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-11 20:19 -0500
Message-ID	<SCKay.288886$TJ2.124973@fx21.iad>
In reply to	#538590

On 12/11/2015 02:30 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 11/12/2015 2:54 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>    How can the Universe be infinite if it was all concentrated into
>>    a point at the Big Bang?
>>  > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
>>
>>> The Universe was not concentrated into a point at the time of the Big
>>> Bang. But the observable Universe was concentrated into a point. The
>>> distinction between the whole Universe and the part of it that we can
>>> see is important. In the figure below, two views of the Universe are
>>> shown: on the left for 1 Gyr after the Big Bang, and on the right the
>>> current Universe 13 Gyr after the Big Bang (assuming that the Hubble
>>> constant is Ho = 50 km/sec/Mpc and the Universe has the critical
>>> density.)
>>
>>
>
> We don't know what the laws of physics are/were in that situation, so
> we've no way of reaching any conclusions about whether it's possible.
>
> Sylvia.

Absolutely correct "Sylvia".  Cosmology isn't science it is 100% 
fantasy. Everything is just made up and nobody has any real evidence
and little data to back it up. (how far have any of them been from 
earth?) I guess they do it because it's fun but why it impresses people 
I'll never know.
-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#539056

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-14 08:23 -0600
Message-ID	<n4mjbk$amt$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to	#538705

On 12/11/2015 7:19 PM, benj wrote:
> Absolutely correct "Sylvia".  Cosmology isn't science it is 100%
> fantasy. Everything is just made up and nobody has any real evidence
> and little data to back it up. (how far have any of them been from
> earth?) I guess they do it because it's fun but why it impresses people
> I'll never know.
> --

Because, as everyone knows, you can't know anything about any 
astronomical body until you stand on it.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#539059

From	Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-14 15:26 +0100
Message-ID	<n4mjem$j9c$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#539056

On 12/14/2015 03:23 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/11/2015 7:19 PM, benj wrote:
>> Absolutely correct "Sylvia".  Cosmology isn't science it is 100%
>> fantasy. Everything is just made up and nobody has any real evidence
>> and little data to back it up. (how far have any of them been from
>> earth?) I guess they do it because it's fun but why it impresses people
>> I'll never know.
>> --
> 
> Because, as everyone knows, you can't know anything about any 
> astronomical body until you stand on it.

Like nobody can have any idea about colour of the Sun light
until he is thrown to its plasma,
and not even than, as there is no solid surface.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#539208

From	benj <none@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-14 18:22 -0500
Message-ID	<JaIby.26867$JN1.8530@fx38.iad>
In reply to	#539056

On 12/14/2015 09:23 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/11/2015 7:19 PM, benj wrote:
>> Absolutely correct "Sylvia".  Cosmology isn't science it is 100%
>> fantasy. Everything is just made up and nobody has any real evidence
>> and little data to back it up. (how far have any of them been from
>> earth?) I guess they do it because it's fun but why it impresses people
>> I'll never know.
>> --
>
> Because, as everyone knows, you can't know anything about any
> astronomical body until you stand on it.
>
OF course, that doesn't change the point that you don't have to know 
anything about an astronomical body to make crap up about it. And who 
can prove you wrong?

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

csiph-web

How can the Universe be infinite if it was all concentrated into,a point at the Big Bang?

Contents

#538500

#538507

#538518

#538520

#538627

#538631

#539180

#538586 — Re: How can the Universe be infinite if it was all concentrated into,a point at the Big Bang?

#538590

#538705

#539056

#539059

#539208