north

based on gravity I assume The interesting research is about events immediately preceding it. What led up to it? What caused it? I'd urge anyone who wants to learn about cosmology to try to get the word "singularity" out of their head. It has gotten a lot of people confused. There is no scientific evidence of a singularity. but still based on the effects of gravity sounds reasonable since I look at the compression of matter much like hydrolics , you can only compress matter so far , until it either stops the compression or pushes back perhaps but this depends on how you define " singularity " the beginning of " time " is NOT the important question the important question is the begining of the manifestation energy>matter and the answer is infinity the infinity of the existence of energy>matter

I disagree space does not expand just the space between objects expands further; space and the Universe will expand only if there is an increase in energy and/or matter in the Universe

I see your points first static; at one point in my thinking I thought this concept was a possibility however I don't now ( I'll explain why not later ) second , implosion; big-bang unless we think in terms of the BB as the result of a BH( black-hole ) then this concept is ruled out third possibility , galaxies are spread apart, hence blackness obviously not happening the fourth though is this ; Cosmic Plasmas ; where matter is created from the galactic core and moved out into space quasars which is what mainstream astrophysics is now considering

a single dimension can explain all this ? both of you explain

imagine this is all there is though nothing in real terms however

the washing machine ; pins clothes to the wall of the washing machine drum and draws out the water by shear rotational speed dryer ; heat and by rotation by the dryer drum exposes all clothes to heat and also expending moisture into the outside oops neither the washing machine or dryer have anything to do with centripetal force centripetal force ; directed or tending towards the center the opposite of centrifugal

expansion ( if true ) is based on the creation of matter

okay but you infer that space has some sort of substance associated with it what is that substance ? define it ? for me you don't " bend space " in and of its self but you bend the matter in that space

hmm in order to time-travel means that you would have to back-ward the total expanse of the Universe , actions not just a locale

space nor time is " curved " since neither has any fundamental substance associated with them , independent of all other substances

it is important to get ALL the details before you theroize though is it not ?

it is said that all matter and radiation was confined to a single point at that instant this would imply a black-hole as the point since nothing else could confine matter and more importantly radiation to a single point other than a BH any thoughts in otherwords ; gravity cannot alone explain how radiation cannot eminate into space and nor is common gravity strong enough to draw all matter towards a central point it would take an un-common strength of gravity to create a BB hence a black-hole ( BH )

Edisonian I look at space this way ; both space and matter are inter-connected matter needs space in order for it to manifest and space needs matter in order for it to become and/or expand each and every atom of matter needs a certain amount of space matter and space are infinite and always will be because the opposite , nothing has no possibility to become anything of substance

[Originally Posted by north suggesting that ....? your right there would have to be some evidence that the light from at least those stars that are the closest to the globular center of the galaxy , have their light affected by any black-hole present but so far none exists but not only that , the light coming from the galactic globular center shows no signs of being affected either , by any black-hole physical dynamic consequences , at all really

perhaps but the light from the galaxies eminates from any angle presumably is the key and so far a black-hole explaination is assumed rather than proven when looked at three dimensionaly , there should be evidence of two points at which the black-hole does this there is not so the jets suggest a two point event horizion true ?

further there should be two event horizions at complete opposite ends of each other , there is no evidence of this

suggesting that ....? but there is no evidence that any light is being sucked in by any galaxy

it has been suggested that black-holes exist in all galaxies I disagree if black-holes do exist in the center of galaxies then why is light eminating from these galaxies ?

Martin what does this statement mean ; "the galaxies do not expand: bound systems are not affected by the expansion of the Universe. Also note that the speed of light relative to the nearby galaxies is a constant (I'm more interested in the explaination of the statement in bold )

wow, geez guy you have to explain this further I mean I have never heard of this 45 billion LY before why is this perfectly natural ? of course does this make sense though ? or do you want it to make sense ? to fit the BB theory ? I'm asking

I look at the frequency of the atoms vibration as very important for the vibrations produced by the atom is very real another question what were both plates made of ?

its seems I can't continue this " something from nothing " discussion my hands are tied and by the way I asked you a question on the " what happened before the big bang " thread I await your answer

it does matter really =========================== no I said the result would be a null expansion

not really for a balloon only has galaxies on the outside of the skin of the balloon but in my example , 3D , galaxies would also fill the inside of the balloon

I see so you can't prove me wrong is what your saying