black holes

Originally posted by Palynka
That was very clear, thanks.

Care to comment on my question above regarding the limit as time approaches zero?
If I take the balloon analogy, then the universe would indeed collapse to a point, but not one on the "surface", i.e. not one which is on the visible 3 dimensions. Is this approximately correct?

Why must it collapse anyway?

Originally posted by black beetle
Why must it collapse anyway?

It seems to me it's implicit in the balloon analogy. But I understand your point, that's why him asking.

Do you view it as Pagels?

Originally posted by Palynka
It seems to me it's implicit in the balloon analogy. But I understand your point, that's why him asking.

Do you view it as Pagels?

My understanding of the BB is also limited to popular science; but if I understood twhitehead allright, then the universe could keep up expanding due to the fact that space will always added between "us" and the surface; over here we need FF, twhitewhead and their noble lot!

Originally posted by black beetle
My understanding of the BB is also limited to popular science; but if I understood twhitehead allright, then the universe could keep up expanding due to the fact that space will always added between "us" and the surface; over here we need FF, twhitewhead and their noble lot!

A question from BB to FF concerning BB? 🙂
Okay...

I don't think that new space is filled up in between. It's just expanding, the whole lot. I'ts not more geniusly than that.

I don't ever think of something between the us and the suface. In my perception of the Universe, there is no outer surface of the Universe. this misconception arises when we think of the Universe as a threedimensional stucture. My questions are easily answers when I think about the Universe as a spherical threedimensional space,exatly as the surface of the Earth isa spherical two-dimensional surface. If I think up one dimension, then it all fits easy in my mind.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
A question from BB to FF concerning BB? 🙂
Okay...

I don't think that new space is filled up in between. It's just expanding, the whole lot. I'ts not more geniusly than that.

I don't ever think of something between the us and the suface. In my perception of the Universe, there is no outer surface of the Universe. this misconception arises when we ...[text shortened]... ical two-dimensional surface. If I think up one dimension, then it all fits easy in my mind.

Hi FF!

I understand your point, and I said that if it 's expanding then the Universe must gain more space in total. Is this a false assumption?

Originally posted by black beetle
Hi FF!

I understand your point, and I said that if it 's expanding then the Universe must gain more space in total. Is this a false assumption?

Pull a rubberband in both ends - every part on it comes further and further away from eachother, but are there more or less rubber between them?

The space itself has no material, it's just coordinates. How many coordinates are there between two points in space?

Is it a fasle assumtion? I don't know. If it helps you to understand the Universe then, good. If not, then not so good.

...said Fabian the Buddhist...

Originally posted by Palynka
That was very clear, thanks.

Care to comment on my question above regarding the limit as time approaches zero?

I do not know what happened in the early stages of the big bang. It might be impossible to know. We can guess that the universe came from a fairly small size and find evidence for that in the background radiation, but I suspect we do not know enough about physics to project it back much further.
There are a number of significant considerations to take into account:
1. I do not know if matter, energy, time or space are infinitely divisible or whether they are composed of some sort of indivisible units.
2. There is speculation that there are a large number of dimensions all wrapped up in small sizes - these would have an effect for small distances / times.
3. From quantum physics we know that there can be apparently random fluctuations over small scales.
4. There might not have been a zero time. Any student of calculus knows that just because something 'tends towards' something else does not mean that it reaches it. Time could be an open set bounded by zero.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Pull a rubberband in both ends - every part on it comes further and further away from eachother, but are there more or less rubber between them?

The space itself has no material, it's just coordinates. How many coordinates are there between two points in space?

Is it a fasle assumtion? I don't know. If it helps you to understand the Universe then, good. If not, then not so good.

...said Fabian the Buddhist...

Our rubberband is the same but its dimensions are changing. That's the reason why Palynka supposed that at a given time the Universe could stop expanding;

Originally posted by twhitehead
4. There might not have been a zero time. Any student of calculus knows that just because something 'tends towards' something else does not mean that it reaches it. Time could be an open set bounded by zero.

I was already assuming time was an open set bounded by zero. It is in one of my previous posts.

I don't see why this has much to do with my question regarding the limit.

Originally posted by black beetle
That's the reason why Palynka supposed that at a given time the Universe could stop expanding;

Eh? I didn't say any such thing. 😕

Originally posted by Palynka
Eh? I didn't say any such thing. 😕

Earlier you said "If I take the balloon analogy, then the universe would indeed collapse to a point, but not one on the "surface", i.e. not one which is on the visible 3 dimensions. Is this approximately correct?", and I thought that in such a case the Universe would stop expanding. Maybe I understand wrongly the verb "collapse";

Originally posted by Palynka
Eh? I didn't say any such thing. 😕

Why not? I would.

Originally posted by black beetle
Earlier you said "If I take the balloon analogy, then the universe would indeed collapse to a point, but not one on the "surface", i.e. not one which is on the visible 3 dimensions. Is this approximately correct?", and I thought that in such a case the Universe would stop expanding. Maybe I understand wrongly the verb "collapse";

I was talking when you go "backwards" in time.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Why not? I would.

I also would...but I didn't! 🙂

(of course I would strongly emphasize the term "possible" )

Originally posted by Palynka
I was talking when you go "backwards" in time.

Oh! Desculpe🙂