/sci/ - Science & Math

anyone? (a.k.a. shameless self bump)

>>6739866
there was no center just as the surface of a expanding sphere has no center

>>6739866
we don't even know where is the center of the universe.

the universe, as some estimates, are a few times the size of our visible universe, so we could never observe the "center", and so we can't measure our speed

>>6739992
All that means is there is no center of the surface, but an expanding sphere DOES have a center, it's just not on the surface and that analogy is worthless.

But OP we just don't have the data to calculate this tbh. We don't have a position for the center of the universe, mainly, so our relative velocity is meh

>>6740030
but does a torus have a center?

>>6739866
The light currently reaching us from the CMB was emitted when the CMB was receding at 58.1 times the speed of light.

>>6739866
>Approximate location of the big bang

>>6740611
He's talking about relative distance from gravitational bodies you dope
not some 'inter universal' conjecture that has no time space relevance

>>6739992
>>6740379

I would really like an explanation here as well. I cannot understand why people would claim there is no center for the big bang. Of course there is. Why would the universe be the shape of a donut / torus? So it's a sphere, yes, but that sphere started from a dot, which was the BB. So it stands to reason that the location of the BB is that dot precisely at the middle of the sphere, at the end of its radius.

And another thing. By a sphere, I actually mean the contents of the sphere, not just the surface. Or is there some evidence that we are all moving on exactly that surface of the sphere? IE, there are no galaxies in "front" or in "back" of us relative to the direction we're moving in? Last I checked, there were galaxies all over the place, which from our point of view we appear to be in the middle of. So clearly, we do not exist on some 2D surface of a sphere, but rather in the 3D environment inside said sphere. Which means barring any speed of light and expansion of space limitations, there IS a center there, where it all began.

Note that I'm asking you to teach me why I'm wrong, because so many sources use the surface of a sphere example that clearly I must be wrong. I'd just like to understand why.

>>6740654
You are thinking of the Big Bang as an explosion outwards when really it is not. The universe is expanding in the same way in all places. So in that sense, yes it is kind of like the surface of a sphere, except it doesn't form a sphere shape so there is no center even outside of the space. The Big Bang occurred everywhere in space not one spot.

>>6740672
is this is what scientists actually believe?
mother of god

>>6740674
It has nothing to do with belief, it's what has been observed. If you can't handle your precious little preconceptions about the universe being broken by empricism, I suggest you leave this board and go suck your thumb at /x/.

>>6740675
.. you can't observe the conception of the universe

Proof is conjecture without observation
Do you actually believe the math is right?
You think that just because some mathematician and scientist collaborated on a physical cosmological historical model is without any major fault because.. they're scientists?
There are holes, we don't even have a unifying theory, we can't even disseminate gravity, and you think our scientists just Know it all? for fuck's sake man, somebody says 'this book might have some erroneous contingencies that don't exactly 'add up' to the model. Wait lets throw fucking dark matter up, yup bill that'll fuckin' do'er.

no, the big bang may be an accurate depiction, though I don't think it is, but it's not fucking proven yet, do you understand? it-is-not-proven, it is mathematical conjecture.

>universe being broken by empricism
what are you even implying with the word 'break'
you want to get into philosophy now? There's no proof the theory works, and statistically, there is no proof that unproven theories work, so how can you call into question the legitimacy of empiricism regarding the grand scheme of things?

Empiricism isn't even without flaw, but it doesn't connotate that cosmological mechanics don't have to have some sort of formal explanation including SOME FORM of empirical data.

It really sounds like you should be familiar with /x/, they're juast as naive, minus the psychological trauma and poor math aptitude, you'll fit right in.

>>6740701
>.. you can't observe the conception of the universe
Is that you Ken Ham?

We don't need to observe the event itself, we can observe its affects, which we call "cosmic microwave background radiation". And we've observed that it's uniform in all directions, which is not what we'd expect from radiation from a conventional explosion right? That's because it wasn't an explosion IN space, it was an explosion OF space.

You think that just because you are too stupid to understand what is actually a pretty simple idea, that means it's false? Where is YOUR evidence and proof? You have no position to criticize from, you haven't done anything approaching an argument against this. All you can muster is a hokey appeal to your ignorance. Fuck off, dumbass.

>>6740672

Yes but the BB occurred "everywhere" simply because there was no space before it. But much like with an expanding balloon, there's still the point where the balloon started its expansion.

Now I realise that because space expands faster than the speed of light, we could never make the trip back to the point where the big bang started, but it seems to me like there definitely is a point where it all started. Even if there's nothing there,

>>6740011
>Thinking you know anything about cosmology

>>6740718

>That's because it wasn't an explosion IN space, it was an explosion OF space

I really really don't know how to break this to you, but you are fucking retarded.
I want to know what literature you're getting this from so I can avoid it, it's authors, it's publishers and it's goddamn investors too, you realize comparing conventional chemical explosions to fucking cosmology is inane, right? do you have any idea how novel and ill-informed your interpretation is?
>DDRHR EXPLOSION OF SPACE

neat. really neat kid.
We don't even understand intergalactic gravitation let alone background radiation.

Do you actually think about theories you read before you start stammering into some dippy mechanical explanation?

You can't even criticize my criticality because nobody has ventured this far into uniform theory, are you really about to imply truth for a lack of data?
have you EVER considered the possibility, that much like a religious man, you are a total imbecile, except you have subscribed to science instead, but still don't understand a fucking thing?

>EXPLOSION OF SPACE
I can't even.. you're fucking hilarious.

>>6740741
>Yes but the BB occurred "everywhere" simply because there was no space before it.
Not only that, the important point is that the Big Bang was an explosion of space, not stuff in space.

Imagine you have an uninflated balloon that's squeezed so tight that the distance between each point on the surface is minimized. Then you inflate that balloon. And now you are asking where on the balloon's surface did the inflation begin. Do you see how that question doesn't make sense? It didn't start in the center of the balloon, because the center of the balloon doesn't exist in reality and space isn't even necessarily spherical. We're talking about two different things. You're asking about the balloon's surface but want something outside the surface (which doesn't exist).

>>6740746
>I really really don't know how to break this to you, but you are fucking retarded.
It's funny how when someone stupid is confronted by something they don't understand, they lash out at the person explaining it to them. What is that called again? Oh yes: projection.

>I want to know what literature you're getting this from so I can avoid it, it's authors, it's publishers and it's goddamn investors too,
You seem to be doing a good job of avoiding any and all cosmology since the 1930s, so I wouldn't worry about it.

>you realize comparing conventional chemical explosions to fucking cosmology is inane, right?
But that's what YOU'RE doing you fucking fool. I'm trying to explain to you why the Big Bang is NOT a "chemical explosion" and you sit there bawling. The irony is stunning. You truly are completely oblivious.

>do you have any idea how novel and ill-informed your interpretation is?
Yes, an 80 year old theory backed up by just about every single piece of cosmological evidence we have is "novel" and "ill-informed". It's like you've been asleep since 1910 and just woke up. None of this is even as remotely controversial as you are attempting to make it seem. Buffoon.

>We don't even understand intergalactic gravitation let alone background radiation.
Non sequitur.

>You can't even criticize my criticality
I can't criticize what doesn't exist.

>because nobody has ventured this far into uniform theory
What the fuck is "uniform theory"? You mean unified theory? Another complete non-sequitur. I guess all our scientific knowledge is useless because we don't have a theory of everything! Oh well. Are these the only two concepts in physics you know and do you think name-dropping them is somehow going to scare people away from pointing out your rank stupidity?

>>6740746
>have you EVER considered the possibility, that much like a religious man, you are a total imbecile, except you have subscribed to science instead, but still don't understand a fucking thing?
Unlike religion, science is not a dogma. Science changes and corrects itself based on evidence and inquiry. The fact that you have presented neither and therefore are incapable of swaying anyone from the standard model does not mean that this is a religion. It just means you are an idiot screaming about nothing.

>>6740754
>>6740756
>It's funny how when someone stupid is confronted by something they don't understand,
>But that's what YOU'RE doing you fucking fool.
>Buffoon.
>Fuck off, dumbass.

I rarely called you anything aside from an imbecile, I'm laughing at you, I am expressing in text how comical I find your interpretation.

So if we factored lashing out by insult volume, you've done a great job at being both the shovel and the dirt. what wisdom.
I would take this time to call you a dumbass BACK, but I'm confident you're used to feeling like one already, I see no point in giving your anguish any more dialogue.

>I can't criticize what doesn't exist.
nor can you contemplate anything you haven't read apparently.

>What the fuck is "uniform theory"? You mean unified theory?
another key characteristic of the inept book worm, obsession with phraseology. 'Uniform theory' is not a phrase, it's a simple conjunction of words to imply the harmony between theories.

The fact that you use non-sequitur isn't because my topics aren't relevant, in fact utterly pertinent, it's because you are not adept at connecting the dots without being spoonfed concepts through a textbook.
I've said multiple times that math is not adequate. What formidable examples does one person hope to produce does not actually imply a lack of theory. I observe the big bang as incongruent with its own physical terms and so I seek an alternative.

You will die one day knowing that you were part of the stupified crowd who thought space explodes because someone wrote a ton of shit on a chalkboard and said TADA. I don't even need to argue this point, it is an eventuality that you, and the rest of this blind community will learn that the carrot you're chasing isn't even there, it's poor mathematical conjecture.
I believe you have too little evidence to formulate a truth, you believe there is no need to disagree with the truth it's flaws are somehow counterbalanced with it's own probability? Dogma.

>>6739866
>relative to the origin of the Universe (or approximate location of the Big Bang)

This doesn't make sense.

>>6740011
>we don't even know where is the center of the universe.

There is no centre of the universe, the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

I want to be a small girl trapped in a tentacle hentai, with an hymen that regenerate between each thrust.

OP here, i realize how autistic my question must have sounded, but i made 2 assumptions about the "origin" of space
1- Going back in the time dimension, one could identify a region in the early universe, that has the most distance to all edges. Taking inflation into account, that region is probably way bigger than galaxies but a region, so i.e. oldest galaxy we can observe in that region could be a symbolic centerpoint. I realize that must be false, since inflation is at a given point almost same for all regions.
2- Since inflation is acceleration, the older regions of space have a slower rate in comparison to us, so it could be a difference of speed. I am not sure if this is correct.

So i want to reformulate my question. what would one choose as a reference point to calculate the maximum relative velocity of our planet in respect to that point, and how big would that maximum velocity approximately be

>>6741443
>... since inflation is at a given TIME point almost same.....
>2- Since inflation is acceleratING

sorry for my retarded english.

>>6741445
>>6741443
also, thanks for your contributions so far.

>>6741443
>Going back in the time dimension, one could identify a region in the early universe, that has the most distance to all edges.
What edges?

>Taking inflation into account, that region is probably way bigger than galaxies but a region, so i.e. oldest galaxy we can observe in that region could be a symbolic centerpoint.
You cannot date galaxies with that kind of precision. You can date when a merger occurred but not a galaxy.

>Since inflation is acceleration, the older regions of space have a slower rate in comparison to us
Inflation is not an acceleration. It was a rapid expansion of space. Just as the universe we have today is expanding, this is not an acceleration.

>>6741483
i know my first assumption was false, but
>what edges is a valid question.
>I don't have any knowledge on dating galaxies i take your word for it but could you explain why not?
>i meant inflation is accelerating (see >>6741445)

and the main questions i have is still unanswered:
>what would one choose as a reference point to calculate the maximum spatial relative velocity of our planet in respect to that point, and how big would that maximum velocity approximately be

>>6739866
Scientist speculate that before the big bang, there was a 4d star that collapse upon itself causing the big bang. If this is true, what was before the star?

>>6741541
>>6741483
for example light from this galaxy
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z8_GND_5296
is almost as old as the universe itself and that's quite far away and old.
>>6741549
Everything is a holographic illusion. Go away now. Don't derail the thread.

>>6740675
Don't be that guy. Nobody likes that guy. That guy makes scientists look like stuck up holier than thou pricks.
Don't be that guy.

>>6741541
>>I don't have any knowledge on dating galaxies i take your word for it but could you explain why not?
Because there is no standard model of galaxy formation. Nor any indicators of it's true. Most likely the vast majority formed within a billion years of each other.

>i meant inflation is accelerating
You don't mean inflation then, you mean the expansion of the universe. Inflation is a very specific form for the rapid expansion of space in the very early universe.

>>6741554
That's dating the light not the galaxy. The time you are viewing the galaxy is related to it's distance, it is not linear is you might assume. This doesn't tell us which galaxy formed first.

>>6741549
You mean before space-time? No such concept existed, therefore nothing and everything at the same time (aka it's not relevant, just like how many yellow are there).

>>6741549
It's a toy cosmological model, it probably isn't thought out that far.