There's no way to type ascii text and imbue it with humor, no way for you to see the expression on my face, etc.
If you've got some preconceived notion that anyone who pokes a little fun at the universe and how it's been built is either wholly knowledgeable about it or ignorant, and anyone who makes fun of the whole serious thing, makes your seriousness more shaky and might even be poking fun at YOU, then you're taking the whole thing much MUCH too seriously!
As you go along, keep that in mind, and re-read what I've said, and how I've said it, please.
John Francis wrote:
keith whaley wrote:
Yeah, some fool wants us to believe that all the material the big bang scattered all over, well, it all came from some verrrrry, very small "singularity."
Isn't that right?
Now, I do knonw that all fairly intelligent people actually DO believe that, and even tho' they don't understand how that could possibly be, they nevertheless go along with it.
So do I. No, really!
When I said, "...some fool..." I wasn't really calling anyone a fool, but you already had your back in the air, ready to hiss your way thru the argument--so you didn't see any fun in what I was saying at all...
That's a wholly presumptive presupposition indeed! <g>
How come the initiation point isn't the most sparsely populated part of the cosmos? All of it ought to have gone outward from that point source, and created a BIG spherical vacancy, no?
No.
It's apparent that you haven't grasped the idea at all.
Apparently I haven't!
However, that's why I'm here. I'm willing to listen and learn.
If I wasn't, I'd have left this thread long ago, believe me.
I know I have some pre-conceived notions and that's from learning my physics back in 1946-'47 high school as a base.
From that point forward, I became a mechanical engineer, but didn't pursue any advanced physics.
All I did was read about it.
That was almost kindergarten for physicists, and a LOT of water has gone under the bridge.
Some of today's most powerful branches of physics didn't even exist back then.
I'm aware of all that, but I don't take it quite as seriously as some here do, it seems.
Sorry if I twisted your shorts a bit. Not intentional, nor was it personal, believe me...
The "initiation point" has now expanded, and that's what our universe is.
You still seem to be assuming that space existed "outside" that singularity.
It didn't. There wasn't any "outward" for the universe to spread into.
Well, so everybody seems to want to believe. Yet another thing to take on pure faith. I don't know how anyone can prove it, but then, I DO seem to be hung up on getting proof for things that modern day physics just "believes' out of hand.
Okay. Another gimme for your side.
I'm getting used to this. If all that stuff was inside--oops, I mean was formed into an infinitesimally small "point", and I am asked to believe that preposterous (another little joke, John!) contention, it's a very small leap to believe there was _nothing at all_ for the explosion to expand "into."
Hey, why not...sort of balances out, doesn't it?!
The whole of space (and time) was packed neatly up into that singularity, together with all the matter and energy now to be found in our universe.
Yup. I'm sure it was. Stands to reason, doesn't it... <smile>
Now the whole of space/time has expanded to be quite a bit larger. But there's still no distinguished "central point" where everything started off.
You must have come across the balloon analogy before.
Absolutely. Long ago. It's a clear analogy, and readily conceived.
Take a partially- inflated balloon, and draw a design on the surface. Now blow the balloon up so that it's twice as large as it was before. Everything on the design is now twice as large as it was, and all distances are twice as large. But there's no special point on the surface which was the centre for the expansion. Well, inflationary universe models are rather like that. You can come up with a mathematical description that has a "center", if you want.
I do seem to want that. I mean, one can point to the geometric center of the balloon as the center of the spherical expansion, can we not?
But that center doesn't correspond to a point within the universe.
Okay. If you say so. You know far more about it than I. Another gimme for you.
I know these analogies are meant primarily to foster understanding, but it's all the "well, it's not _quite_ like that, but you get the idea" comments that throw a clinker in my overall understanding.
No, no...I still go along with all the other stuff, but there's so much
that has been left out, that needs resolution in my mind. No problem,
tho'...that's why I'm still here listening to you most learned gents! <g>
Rail at "fools" and their ideas as much as you like, if you are unable to understand them. Fortunately for the rest of us there's no requirement that the universe has to conform to something you are able to comprehend.
How nice for me. No, again, I wasn't really serious when I said "...some fool..." In retrospect, I'm really sorry I chose that pronoun!
But then, if I had it to do all over... <BIG smile!>
Okay now, John? No hard feelings?
later, keith
