Common misconceptions about the big bang

[PureX]

You could say it that way. However, it seems to me that the best way of saying it is that the universe has no center.

Actually, the universe would have a "center", but we can't tell where it is, yet. Using the expanding balloon analogy, each dot on the skin of the balloon perceives all the other dots as moving away from it, and so it appears to itself to be the center. But in actuality, all the dots are moving away from the balloon's common center. But that common center can't be perceived from the perspective of one dot unless it can ascertain the directions of travel of all the other dots, and then extrapolate the reverse until their lines of travel meet. We have no way of doing this at the present time.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Evidently you are not comprehending what the father of astronomy is saying-Edwin Hubble . So I will put it in different words for you. Oh crap, based on the red shift in any direction we look everything is receding. No blue shift of any galaxies etc coming towards us. We can't
except what our intruments are telling us so lets concoct a theory, a work around so
we wont have the earth as the center.
Steven Hawkings admits the same thing, so keep believing a lie because its in a text book.

Regardless of what Hubble said several decades ago, observation does not require us to conceive the Earth as the center of the expansion. In fact, conceiving the Earth as the center of the universe such conflicts with theories like general relativity, which has been tested by many experiments. Concieving the universe as having no center is both consistent with the observed redshift AND parsimonious with all the other things we know about physics.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Actually, the universe would have a "center", but we can't tell where it is, yet. Using the expanding balloon analogy...

What you're saying is possible, but not necessary. The balloon analogy is precisely that--an (imperfect) analogy. If we want to imagine, in our heads, an N-dimensional object, we generally have to picture it in the context of an N+1 dimensional space; and if we imagine that object expanding, we imagine it expanding into that space. I can't imagine a 2-D surface (e.g. a balloon) expanding without imagining that it is sitting in a 3-D space--and of course, somewhere in that 3-D space would sit the center of the expansion of the 2-D balloon.

However, physically, there need not exist these extra dimensions, or the artifacts of centers and borders that come along with them.

 

[Evolution_Not]

Regardless of what Hubble said several decades ago, observation does not require us to conceive the Earth as the center of the expansion. In fact, conceiving the Earth as the center of the universe such conflicts with theories like general relativity, which has been tested by many experiments. Concieving the universe as having no center is both consistent with the observed redshift AND parsimonious with all the other things we know about physics.

This more current for you?
"A brief history of time-Steven Hawkings
Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe
looks the same whichever direction we look in might
seem to suggest there is something special about
our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem
that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away
from us , then we might be at the center of the universe.
There is, however an alternate explanation; the universe
might look the same whichever direction as seen from
any other galaxie, too.....
This as we have seen was Friedmans second assumption.
We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption.
We believe it only on grounds of modesty..... "

"As the space-time fabric of the universe expanded, overcoming
the gravitational pull between galaxies, so would it overcome the
gravity between stars and thus all the galaxies would dissolve"
Orion Foundation: Exposing the Flaws in the Big Bang Theory

 

[PureX]

What you're saying is possible, but not necessary. The balloon analogy is precisely that--an (imperfect) analogy. If we want to imagine, in our heads, an N-dimensional object, we generally have to picture it in the context of an N+1 dimensional space; and if we imagine that object expanding, we imagine it expanding into that space. I can't imagine a 2-D surface (e.g. a balloon) expanding without imagining that it is sitting in a 3-D space--and of course, somewhere in that 3-D space would sit the center of the expansion of the 2-D balloon.

However, physically, there need not exist these extra dimensions, or the artifacts of centers and borders that come along with them.

That "dimension" is expanding along with space is why we can't perceive a trajectory for the galaxies around us and extrapolate them back to a center point. Yet if it is true that the universe exploded into existence from a singularity, then the globs of matter that became the galaxies will have been following a trajectory away from the that source.

I agree with the pointlessness of searching for this place, however. It's irrelevant to the universe that has resulted.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Yet if it is true that the universe exploded into existence from a singularity, then the globs of matter that became the galaxies will have been following a trajectory away from the that source.

The big bang is not exactly like an explosion. It's an expansion of space that is occurring everywhere at once. From the OP:

For starters, the big bang is NOT...

2) ...an 'explosion'. Explosions happen at certain places, and for only a brief moment. The big bang, on the other hand, did not happen at any particular place....it happened/is happening everywhere.

Now, here's what the big bang IS:

....

2) The big bang is everywhere. When the universe was young, the entire, infinite volume of space was filled with high density, high energy radiation. Today, the entire, infinite volume of the universe is filled with galaxies and galaxy clusters, and as space expands the distances between these clusters increases.

3) The big bang is difficult to imagine. In order to imagine an event in X dimensions, we have to exist in X + 1 dimensions. The only way we can really grasp the expansion of three-dimensional space is to use an analogy in only two dimensions (i.e. an expanding rubber band or balloon). Still, it is important to remember that these are only analogies....they are limited in how accurately they can represent reality.

(Though if inflation theory is correct then the volume of the universe is NOT infinite...there's a misconception on MY part)

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Evolution Not,

Yes, it's an assumption. That the Sun is the center of the solar system is an assumption, too. But some assumptions are better, because they lead to more parsimonious models--like Newton's theory of gravity, or Einstein's theory of general relativity. The assumption that the Earth is the center of the universe, however, makes the problem hopelessly (and needlessly) complicated.

 

[Evolution_Not]

Evolution Not,

Yes, it's an assumption. That the Sun is the center of the solar system is an assumption, too. But some assumptions are better, because they lead to more parsimonious models--like Newton's theory of gravity, or Einstein's theory of general relativity. The assumption that the Earth is the center of the universe, however, makes the problem hopelessly (and needlessly) complicated.

It is not an assumption it is based on observation of the Doppler Red Shift and other observations
and that is the major difference. But man made religions die hard, perhaps the earth is flat after all. But I have more research to do, perhaps the formations of galaxies
would be interesting.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It is not an assumption it is based on observation of the Doppler Red Shift...

The observation of redshift, by itself, is just as compatible with Earth being the center of the expansion as with Earth NOT being the center of the expansion. We would observe galaxies receding from us in either case. After all, from the perspective of any raisin in rising bread dough, all the other raisins are moving away...

(By the way, technically, the redshift due to the expansion of space is not called a 'Doppler' effect; it's only a Doppler effect if the redshift is caused by the movement of the source--not the expansion of space between the source and observer.)

...and other observations

Such as?