• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A "Before" the Big Bang?

I've only been a member on this forum for a few weeks, but I've seen enough to have noticed a few things.

First let me say that physics was never my strongest subject. Biology was my favourite, but physics classes were always a struggle. I squeaked through by rote, remembering the sentences but never quite understanding.

The posts by Mojo, Mercutio, kmortis, .13., Tricky, drkitten, Taffer, and the discussions and debates between them have actually helped me begin to understand these concepts. Tricky, I've heard the balloon analogy before, but in the context of this forum I actually grasp the concept now.

Which brings me to this: Iacchus, WTF is your flippin' problem?

You don't debate, you bait. I've seen it here, and on several other threads. These other folks are actually trying to explain things in a rational manner yet all you seem to do is use pretzel logic to push other people's buttons. :hb:

To everyone else, my suggestion is to just ignore this clown. He's not trying to learn, he's not trying to help anyone else learn, he's just trying to get a rise out of people by pulling their tails. If everyone ignores him, maybe he'll find another hobby, like testing for gas leaks in his basement with a lighter. He's bringing nothing to the table but strife.

I saw this behaviour in my ex-wife. Anything I said, she'd act as if it was an opening for an argument. If I said salt was salty, she'd question it. I sh!t you not, she once told me that the way I boiled water in a kettle was wrong. I see this same behaviour in Iacchus. He gets a kick out of the drama. He pictures everyone else in front of their keyboards with steam coming out of their ears, and this turns him on.

Iacchus, please, knock it off. You act just like my ex-wife.

PS: My ex-wife? According to her, she controls the weather, she's Jesus' sister, she's from another planet, Army Intelligence told her the phones in the house were bugged.... I could go on, but you catch my drift.
 
the expansion of the universe is not exactly the same as conventional expansion. Universal expansion exists as all points expanding from each other. Like dots painted on ther surface of a balloon. That is not to say that the universe is expanding like a balloon. (the analogy goes "imagine the 2 dimensional surface of a balloon is our 3 dimensional universe." Pretty hard to imagine by any means.) Remember, the universe has no boundry or edge. There is no conventional surface that is expanding into something else. If quantum mechanics is correct, our universe is built on a 10 (or more) dimentional matrix, only four of which we are capable of detecting. (3 spatial and one temporal). There are 7 othe dimensions to worry about. To us this expansion appears 3 dimensional as every point expanding away from each other but the universe is as much as 10 dimensional. If there is an "outside" to our universe, it would not necessarily follow our concepts of space and time or the laws of physics as we know them. It would not be an outside as we would understand "outside". We think in simple terms where the universe is far more complex.

This expansion combined with gravity produces some interesting intergalactic structures. The large scale structure of the universe appears as galaxies forming on the surface of huge voids Like soap bubbles. See here: http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia...thsouth_lg.jpg
 
Hey, HeyLeroy!

Most of us who tilt at this particular windmill are well aware that it is a quixotic endeavor. Ironically, it is for the people like yourself who delurk to say that they learned something despite Iacchus that we (I can only speak for myself and others who have said similar things, not all) continue. So thanks for the advice, but you have inadvertantly reinforced the behavior you are recommending we cease...

Thanks! Oh, and welcome to the forum!
 
Read Message Printable Version Previous | Next
As Attachment Inline Text Trash
From: "leroy hotshot" <leroy@hot-shot.com> Save Address Block Sender This Is Spam
To: leroy@hot-shot.com
CC:
Subject:
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 14:34:27 -0500

Show Full Headers Back To [INBOX]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey back, Mercutio.

I just had to get that off my chest.

Y'know, having him around is kinda good, in a twisted bizarre way. The more he wiggles and blows smoke, the deeper into an explanation the people who actually know what they're talking about get.

You're right. I think everyone understands that getting him to cut the nonsense is like trying to herd cats through a forest. He's so smug in his self-determined superiority, it's actually kinda funny to observe.

He's like the reeeeally drunk guy at the party who thinks he's irresistable to the ladies, when he's creepin' them out and giving all the sober guys something to laugh about.

I just hope no one bursts a blood vessel out of frustration in dealing with this guy.:hit:

PS: I get that Iamme is cut from the same cloth. My first thread he tried putting words in my mouth and baiting me out. Didn't fall for it, though.
 
No, actually it stretches (gets thinner) to accomodate the expansion of the inside and the "diminishment" of the outside (volume) it is expanding into.
You are still thinking three-dimensionally. The problem is two-dimensional. This is why you are not seeing it.

Iacchus, I'll phrase that a bit differently so there will be no misunderstanding on your part:
Two-dimensional objects have no thickness.
 
Most of us who tilt at this particular windmill are well aware that it is a quixotic endeavor.
To dreeeeeeeam, the impossible dreeeeeeam....

I agree that it is newcomers like Leroy, .13., and kmortis that make the effort worthwhile. I have heard it said that unless you can explain something to a six-year-old child, you really don't understand it. Iacchus plays the part admirably, so I guess we owe him a bit of gratitude.
 
Iacchus, I'll phrase that a bit differently so there will be no misunderstanding on your part:

Two-dimensional objects have no thickness.
You're right. However, how does it stretch? Are you saying the thickness of the balloon is not a third dimension and, that it doesn't allow it to stretch?
 
the expansion of the universe is not exactly the same as conventional expansion. Universal expansion exists as all points expanding from each other. Like dots painted on ther surface of a balloon. That is not to say that the universe is expanding like a balloon. (the analogy goes "imagine the 2 dimensional surface of a balloon is our 3 dimensional universe."
Yes, but without any thickness to it, how is it allowed to expand? It seems to me it wouldn't even have a surface area, hence you wouldn't even be able to see that it was there, since it's only defined by the first two dimensions ... width vs depth.
 
Last edited:
You're right. However, how does it stretch? Are you saying the thickness of the balloon is not a third dimension and, that it doesn't allow it to stretch?
He is saying that there is no thickness, and that it is allowed to stretch...
 
You're right. However, how does it stretch? Are you saying the thickness of the balloon is not a third dimension and, that it doesn't allow it to stretch?
Thicknes of the balloon is one of the three dimensions. But there is no third dimension in a two-dimensional object. The balloon itself is a three dimensional object but the surface is a two-dimensional plane. I'm not very good explaining this, I hope someone else can do a better job.

Yes, but without any thickness to it, how is it allowed to expand? It seems to me it wouldn't even have a surface area, hence you wouldn't even be able to see that it was there, since it's only defined by the first two dimensions ... width vs depth.

Remember we are now talking about the two-dimensional surface of the balloon, not the actual universe. You can see the surfaces of objects I assume and not wireframes of three-dimensional objects when you look around in your house.

And how does two-dimensional space expand? By increasing its width and/or depth.

If you can manage that, then you're a bloody genius.
I guess I'm not as smart as I thought... :)
 
Without thickness there is nothing to be contained (volume) and that cannot be stretched.
You are, on purpose i believe, stretching the analogy out of proportion.

The volume is the surface are. Only width and height.
 
Remember we are now talking about the two-dimensional surface of the balloon, not the actual universe. You can see the surfaces of objects I assume and not wireframes of three-dimensional objects when you look around in your house.
Yes, even I have a skin, and everything is contained within.
 
Last edited:
You are, on purpose i believe, stretching the analogy out of proportion.

The volume is the surface are. Only width and height.
The surface area is only imaginary, because there is no thickness to it. Even if it was only half a proton thick, it would still be a third dimension.
 
A Holographic Universe ...

Actually, as I have said two or three times already, if you guys are correct, that the Universe is expanding three dimensionally and, that it's not really expanding into anything, what else are we to conclude, except the Universe must in fact be holographic?
 
The surface area is only imaginary, because there is no thickness to it. Even if it was only half a proton thick, it would still be a third dimension.

We aren't saying that the universe is the surface of an expanding ballon. That is just a picture we can use to grasp the universe. In that picture, there is no thickness to the ballon.

Not half a proton thick thickness. simply no thickness at all. What so ever.

There are only two dimensions on the ballon.

Now, imagine a four dimensional ballon being expanded, then we have thickness. that is closer to how we believe our universe to be right now.

The problem is, we can't picture a four dimensional ballon,so instead, we picture a 3 dimensional one, and put a 2 dimensional representation of our universe on the ballon.

A globus is a 2 dimensional representation of earth.

An atlas is a 2 dimensional representation of earth.

Even though in reality mountains on earth have height, we neither see it on the atlas nor the globus.

The surface of earth(which is three dimensional, with height), is represented in the globus as two dimensions, with no height. If we make a bigger globus of the representation of earth, we still only have two dimensions. Still no height. Height doesn't enter into it.

The universe on the surface of an expanding ballon is just like that, a representation, and in that representation we haven't got thickness. If we want thickness, we will have to use a four dimensional ballon, which it is pretty hard to wrap once head around.
 
Actually, as I have said two or three times already, if you guys are correct, that the Universe is expanding three dimensionally and, that it's not really expanding into anything, what else are we to conclude, except the Universe must in fact be holographic?
holographic: Holography is the science of producing holograms, an advanced form of photography that allows an image to be recorded in three dimensions.

I fail to see your point with that statement?

Are you saying that the universe is a recording? a projection? what do you mean?
 
The surface area is only imaginary, because there is no thickness to it. Even if it was only half a proton thick, it would still be a third dimension.

But don't think about the balloon analogy as three-dimensional. Just consider the surface as it expands. In this case I can't really talk about widht/height because there are no boundaries for the surface.

Remember: Ignore the third dimension. Nothing outside or inside the balloon and no thicknes for the material. Just the surface. If it helps go to the store and buy some balloons. Then draw few dots on it as galaxies and start blowing. Observe.
 
holographic: Holography is the science of producing holograms, an advanced form of photography that allows an image to be recorded in three dimensions.

I fail to see your point with that statement?

Are you saying that the universe is a recording? a projection? what do you mean?
I take it you didn't see the movie, The Matrix?
 

Back
Top Bottom