So here's a part of the big bang idea that just never worked for me. they like to say in passing that the universe is XIII.x billion years because thats as far back as we can "see". so does that time include what on the other side of point 0? meaning the universe is only 6.x billion years across. the radius ? where's the center or has everything already bounced around so much we can't tell. But, whats time and space bouncing off of? keeps me up for minutes most nights.
Why should space-time bounce of anything? How can we know that the concept of "time before the Big Bang" even makes sense? Why does the universe even need such a thing as a "centre"? Why should superluminal expansion be regarded as an issue?
@anglophone are you saying the whole universe is "center"? don't try and claim that please.
@hankster I make no claims about the "centre of the universe". I cannot be sure that idea even makes any sense.
@anglophone It sounds like perhaps because there was no space/time in the moment of the big Bang, Anywhere was everywhere. there was no here and there and every nowhere was center. It's kinda sad that the birthplace of the universe is not existing.
@hankster Even the word "birthplace" in that context makes me wonder, as "place" requires some sort of spatial coordinate system. (And my extremely limited understanding of these things is that our equations of spacetime become meaningless at t=0.)
@anglophone its meaninglessness is kinda the point. if the equations don't figure when there is naught to measure then they are meaningless also.
@anglophone of course if there is a form of existence not reliant on space/time the no space/time universe could be in business.
@hankster Sorry to be nuisance about such ideas. I would only go as far as to say that we do not have a good understanding of what was happening at t=0 (as we currently understand spacetime). I would conjecture that we may never have a good understanding.
As to the universe, there’s more.
The rules of language allow more statements than I can count.
The rules of logic disallow some of those statements.
The rules of physics disallow more of those statements.
The rules of Big Bang physics do not require that hypotheses be tested.
I don't fully agree with the premise of the Bing bang myth but here is a video that might could help you.
No it is a lot more weird than that. A lot of cosmologists think that there is no center, and every observer creates their own center. That if you go in a straight line for long enough you will in the end returning to where you started, because space is curved. (Therefore what we think is straight is a curve. ) That there was no time before the big bang, because the big bang made time as well as space, and that in fact time and space may be the same thing. On the other hand there are cosmologists who have different ideas.
In my mind, the big bang was just a transition, within the existing space, matter, time and nature (or physics or whatever we might call that spark of energy that makes things happen and go forth.) I can't fathom a point where there is a beginning of time, nor an end to time. To me, it's just something that always was and always will be. A mystery for sure!
My thought is that the big bang was created out of the collapse of whatever part of the cosmos had come to the end of its time. I know absolutely nothing about astronomy and cosmology or cosmogony, but for me this makes the most sense. No beginning of time is possible, likewise no end. A beginning and end for us and what we know, sure, but not time... it just keeps going, if you ask me.
Yes, a beginning and an end for us; no beginning or end for the universe.
In Edwin Hubble’s words, “a universe extended indefinitely in both space and time.“
PS. Hubris pushes many to religion.
if they claim it show me some evidence. if they wanna say "bang" show me a ground zero.