Magnetic wrote:I appreciate your post, Brian, but unless I'm wrong, the experts don't know for certain that there was ever an initial singularity. Quite frankly, I don't see how the singularity idea could be the 'best idea' coming from these experts.
FWIW, I'm not a creationist.
Because at heart the math works.
Literally when it comes down to it, that is why they picked a singularity versus mutliple points.
MM /CF/WG/BOTM/JL/Original Warsie/ACPATHNTDWATGODW FOREVER!!
Sometimes we can choose the path we follow. Sometimes our choices are made for us. And sometimes we have no choice at all
Magnetic wrote:I appreciate your post, Brian, but unless I'm wrong, the experts don't know for certain that there was ever an initial singularity. Quite frankly, I don't see how the singularity idea could be the 'best idea' coming from these experts.
FWIW, I'm not a creationist.
Because at heart the math works.
Literally when it comes down to it, that is why they picked a singularity versus mutliple points.
Okay, I back down from the multiple points idea, but not the "pangea" idea. Also, I understand that the mathmatics of it may draw a conclusion such as this 1 dimensional singularity, but I still don't believe that the universe and it's mass followed this mathmatical equation, just because the math says it's possible. On paper, it may work that way, but when we're talking about matter, . . . . . I think the 'mathmatics' of it would ultimately see (what I've been calling) this "pangea" in the initial state before the expanse began (Big Bang).
Magnetic wrote:I appreciate your post, Brian, but unless I'm wrong, the experts don't know for certain that there was ever an initial singularity. Quite frankly, I don't see how the singularity idea could be the 'best idea' coming from these experts.
FWIW, I'm not a creationist.
Because at heart the math works.
Literally when it comes down to it, that is why they picked a singularity versus mutliple points.
Okay, I back down from the multiple points idea, but not the "pangea" idea. Also, I understand that the mathmatics of it may draw a conclusion such as this 1 dimensional singularity, but I still don't believe that the universe and it's mass followed this mathmatical equation, just because the math says it's possible. On paper, it may work that way, but when we're talking about matter, . . . . . I think the 'mathmatics' of it would ultimately see (what I've been calling) this "pangea" in the initial state before the expanse began (Big Bang).
Except unless you are able to go back and provide such, the pangea idea holds no water except as a personalized view and that the math has more in it's corner then being the random theory of just anyone.
This is the problem with going "Maybe it works on paper...". That I could say any number of things that sound better, but without providing some sort of reasonable proof that my idea holds more water then the yaboo across the hallway, I'm just wasting air.
MM /CF/WG/BOTM/JL/Original Warsie/ACPATHNTDWATGODW FOREVER!!
Sometimes we can choose the path we follow. Sometimes our choices are made for us. And sometimes we have no choice at all
Magnetic wrote:But to me, it makes more sense, more of a reality, to see the universe (and all the matter in it) being in some sort of "pangea" state then expanding from there, rather than a 1 dimensional singularity, something that seem less of a reality to me. It still would eminate from one place and travel outwards in all directions.
It doesn't matter if your particular notion of "how this happened" doesn't make intuitive sense to you. That was the entire point of my last statement in the post you quoted.
Let's take a moment and think about our 'pangea' notion, as opposed to the big bang. What sort of implications would it have? If it is correct, then the following should be true:
Matter should be exploding out away from an easily pinpointable central point, because your 'pangea' idea presumes an already infinite space and time -- essentially, the classical space and time geometry
That matter should be continually decelerating, because gravity is continually pulling against the acceleration -- if the center of mass in the universe before the big bang was at this singularity, the center of mass in the universe after the big bang will be at this singularity; thus, gravitational pull will be toward that center of mass.
There are, in fact, problems with this notion of 'pangea'. I list them below, corresponding to the numbers above:
Matter should be exploding away from a center
Because we observe all matter expanding away from us, we may presume we are the center of the universe.
However, because of the equivalence of all frames of reference, every other point in the universe will see matter expanding away from them, as well -- in other words, if we look out and see galaxies expanding away from us, those galaxies will see us expanding away from them.
Thus, no position can be pinpointed as the "center".
Matter should be decelerating outward from this center point
Matter is not decelerating outward from this 'center point'
In fact, matter is accelerating away from each other, not out from a central point.
This implies space itself is expanding, not just the matter within it.
Even if your idea of pangea works out mathematically, it doesn't fit the observations we have made. Thus, it is false.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
