What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[danot]

Explain that 'cos it makes no sense to me...

The centre of each galaxy is dragging in its own mass - in effect, like water down a plughole.

 

All mass(stars - planets etc) is travelling through space(at a uniform rate)towards the centre of the galaxy.

 

If every galaxy is doing this, wouldn't that agree with observations which have identified red shift, and confirmed the expansion of space between galaxies?

[danot]

Wouldn't the stars on the outer part of our galaxy be moving towards us, as we're nearer the centre of our galaxy? Wouldn't we be moving towards the centre of our galaxy as well?

No!, they'd remain the same, but would eventually become more distant from the inner parts of the galaxy, as the velocity increases nearer the centre of the galaxy.

[onewheeldave]

You obviously know that's entirely appropriate though. Given a lack of evidence either way, we should go with the simplest solution.

 

In this case, I'm not sure Ockhams is particulalrly relevant.

 

Remember- Ockhams Razor is not a law- it's something that, at the very best, tends to hold.

 

Also relevant here is why there is a lack of evidence- why the idea of a 'multiverse' giving birth to the Bing Bang- it's clear why there is a lack of evidence:

 

1. modern cosmology/physics is tracing back theory, edging closer and closer to the time of the Big Bang- what we're talking about preceeds the bang- cosmology lacks the tools to access that point and acquire evidence.

 

2. combined with the conceptual issue of talking about a thing which exists outside/before the creation of our space and time.

 

Additionally, it is clear that things in the world are not always of the simplest form- for example, classical Newtionian physics is way, way simpler than relativisitic physics, or quantum physics- yet the latter two and preferred.

 

There's a reason for that, of course, despite being massively more complex, they are considered to fit the evidence (observational) better.

 

Perhaps though, an argument of that kind can be made for the multiverse, in that Big bang style theories are never, even in principle, going to account for the big question of 'why is there something rather than nothing'- they're always going to leave us with a universe that mysteriously appears, uncaused,from nothing.

 

The 'underlying multiverse' theory allows the option of a structure that has existed for ever- no cause necessary and no point at which something just appears from nothing.

 

Of course, i acknowledge that, for some, that concept is just as unapealing as the alternative.

 

Otherwise why not envisage an infinite layer of higher dimensional spaces. So our universe is one of many bubbles in a multi verse. The multi verse is one of many more dimensional bubbles in a multi-multi verse and so on. You don't need to invent any of these multi anythings to explain what we can see, so why do so?

 

There's a practical problem with such infinite heirachy's-

 

firstly, they explain no more than simply having 1 multiverse- that does the job of allowing the concept of a underlying structure that is always existing (which the big bang alone cannot do), so why postulate, in addition, another set of infinite levels (I believe Ockhams Razor is appropriate there)

 

secondly, if these levels beget the levels below, you've got a potential 'picking themsleves up by their own bootstraps issue'- how would the system ever get off the ground?

[truman]

The centre of each galaxy is dragging in its own mass - in effect, like water down a plughole.

 

All mass(stars - planets etc) is travelling through space(at a uniform rate)towards the centre of the galaxy.

 

If every galaxy is doing this, wouldn't that agree with observations which have identified red shift, and confirmed the expansion of space between galaxies?

 

Wouldn't that imply that galaxies are shrinking? Ha sthis been observed?

[Alcoblog]

does a thought exist before it is thought? and once forgotten does it cease to exist. maybe the universe works the same way?

 

Hey! great idea ... I posted this same question days ago and it fell on deaf ears. I really think this may have validity! Maybe this should be discussed further and leave Danot banging his head on his silly, poorly formed, incoherent and self cancelling meanderings!

[truman]

No!, they'd remain the same, but would eventually become more distant from the inner parts of the galaxy, as the velocity increases nearer the centre of the galaxy.

 

I'm sorry but you're just not making sense...first you talk about mass being drawn into the centre then you say they'd be more distant....?

[onewheeldave]

If galaxies were shrinking-

 

1. in our galaxy we'd observe some matter in our galaxy coming towards us- it would be blue-shifted rather than red

 

2. if the shrinking of distant galaxies did, as seems to be being suggested, create a red shift, then that would only apply to the edge of the distant galaxy that is nearest us- the opposite edge of that galaxy would, in contrast, be coming towards us and hence, would be blue-shifted

[danot]

Wouldn't that imply that galaxies are shrinking? Ha sthis been observed?

No, I don't believe galaxies shrinking has ever been confirmed. Although, would any loss of mass be detectable within a given time scale?.. which raises the question - 'why then, is the expansion of space between galaxies detectable?.

[danot]

I'm sorry but you're just not making sense...first you talk about mass being drawn into the centre then you say they'd be more distant....?

Bear in mind that a galaxies are continually producing new stars, so this process could continue for billions of years, and also, the gravitational force(black hole perhaps) which has a greater affect on mass closer to the centre which is being pulled towards the centre.

[onewheeldave]

No, I don't believe galaxies shrinking has ever been confirmed. Although, would any loss of mass be detectable within a given time scale?.. which raises the question - 'why then, is the expansion of space between galaxies detectable?.

 

remember earlier when we were talking about 'red shift'- that's the observational evidence why galaxies are moving away from each other and why space is considered to be expanding