What shape is the universe? Flat Universe says if we travel in one direction, we'd hit a wall, or fall off the edge *joking.
A bang implies an explosion. An explosion generally goes in every direction. In a vacuum this means a sphere. The Big Bang should make a Sphere. However there was no space to effect it because it created space inside it.....so who the hell knows.
The Big Bang Theory is a good theory to determine the shape of the universe, I hadn't considered that, thank you. I was thinking more What is the universe is the mighty mighty fabric of space-time? What if our universe was the shape of a layer? Like the easy peel tangerine skin, it's round and can be traversed like a globe in physics, but once you peel that tangerine, assuming you've left the skin whole, you can see it's a flatter shape. One you can cut, one you can fold. Ever tried folding the skin of a tangerine on the tangerine?
The Universe as we understand it IS space-time and everything, including your citrus peel dwells and exists within it. If there are layers then they must theoretically incorporate this into their existence and properties. Branes/Layers/dimensions....whatever, still require space and time.
Getting actual evidence on something like the size or shape or number of dimensions of this universe is incredibly difficult. Our largest telescopes can see only a fraction of the universe, with more and more of this universe expanding at greater than the speed of light - making it impossible to EVER see it. It might even be that our big bang is a local event in an infinite universe that includes other local big bangs. We don't even know how small this universe was before it began its rapid expansion or what was "outside" that burble that began expanding.
If Ω = 1, the universe is flat If Ω > 1, there is positive curvature if Ω < 1 there is negative curvature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe With 0.4% margin of error, it could be flat, or not.
No, it's not. The Big Bang comes with physical, observable, repeatable evidence that can be modeled mathematically. Genesis is a story based on ancient myths that comes with no scientific evidence.
In the beginning there was nothing but a void. Then God said, "Let there be light." Big Bang - in the beginning, there was nothing, then there was a Big Bang. Same thing, different god.
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." ~Stephen Hawking~
The “faith” we have in science is completely different from the faith believers have in God and the dogmas of their creed. The conflation of faith as unevidenced belief with faith as justified confidence is simply a word trick used to buttress religion. In fact, you’ll never hear a scientist saying, “I have faith in evolution” or “I have faith in electrons.” Not only is such language alien to us, but we know full well how those words can be misused in the name of religion.
When I drop a ball, I don't need faith to know it will fall. In the end, science boils down to nothing more complicated than that. As for electrons, they aren't as simple as they look.
if the universe existed a space traveling in a white hole it would appear to be flat because time would be so different as you travel toward the eye of the hole or toward the expanse of the hole but in reality the universe would look like a black hole in reverse. Then again maybe space doesn't expand. Maybe our universe is in fact a very large black hole were matter within it compresses faster and faster shedding mass and causing the red shift due to loss of mass instead of movement causing the redshift.
The "big bang" idea does NOT suggest there was nothing. What it suggests is that what existed was small and in a state that defies all known physics. Then, it went through a period of stupendous expansion (not explosion). Today, that expansion continues, but it is measured to be at rate that is miniscule by comparison, though greater than the speed of light at the edge of what's visible. There is no god in science. There is our best evidence from experimentation that is independently duplicated and carefully reviewed, AND there is "I don't know". Science is humble enough to understand that there are things we don't know. I don't mean to be critical of the belief that "god did it". I just don't want people to be confused about what science is.
You've simply substituted a faith in God for a faith in science and substituted priests for scientists. The big bang is based on the theory that the universe is expanding at an exponential rate of increase. This is due to the red shift in distant galaxies. The theory was supposedly confirmed when the "cosmic background radiation was detected. A good scientist is a skeptical scientist. Is there no other possible explanations for these phenomena? Personally, I find the Big Bang theory so very similar to the creation theory that I think it's should be subject to plagiarism or copyright violations. I have plausible explanations for both the red shift and the cosmic background radiation. My theory is the steady state infinite universe was right all along. The Big Bang is mathematically untenable and has no solution. Big Bang or Steady State?
Itzhak Benton suggested that it is kidney shaped, with the leading lobe enlarging due to increased expansion as it starts to turn and wrap around from the end-run in the white-hole half of the cosmic egg about to begin its way back following the inside form of the shell, destined to go to the other end of the egg and then turn to go towards the black-hole port of the black-hole/white-hole center [Stalking The Wild Pendulum, 1977 & 1988]. The white hole ejects universes in the manner of big bangs.
You don't understand how science works. No, it's not. The big bang is based on the OBSERVATION that everything in the universe at large scale is moving away from everything else. This allows us to run the motions backwards in time like a movie, to a single point of origin. Dark energy is the name used to describe a source of energy that is causing the expansion to accelerate. The Cosmic Background Radiation was discovered in 1964. The redshift was discovered in 1912. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift You aren't a scientist. Real scientists with the proper training, equipment, and knowledge have evaluated this problem for over 100 years. They have applied skeptical challenges with likely tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers. What you are doing is called crackpottery. You don't even have the most basic facts straight.
People think the Big bang is about the creation of the universe. It is not. It is only the expansion of the universe. The idea that the universe existed as a single point is largely hypothetical but we are getting closer to being able to observe what occurred near the beginning of that expansion. Secondly, we don't directly observe the expansion. What we observe is red shifting. There are two things that we know of that can cause red shifting. One is is the acceleration of objects in relation to you and the other is the mass of the atoms emitting light. That being said, it is possible that it isn't acceleration causing the redshift but instead a change in mass in atoms in galaxies in the early universe. One question that needs answered is why does the redshifting jump at certain points instead of smoothly shifting like you'd expect to see with smooth and constant acceleration in the expansion of space. https://io9.gizmodo.com/new-theory-says-the-universe-isnt-expanding-its-jus-815713784 https://www.academia.edu/27565354/Universe_without_expansion
It's odd that you call me a crackpot and then fail to include the last paragraph and the very link to the article where actual scientists are having the very same debate about the Big Bang Theory vs the Steady State Theory. https://history.aip.org/history/exhibits/cosmology/ideas/bigbang.htm
No, that's just plain false. You can't point to ANYTHING I said that suggests faith - certainly not in the sense used by religion. I pointed out that EVERYTHING in science is available to be proven false through the use of evidence. Also, the fundamental precept of Abrahamic faiths is the existence of a god that transcends all observation and evidence discovered by man. Science is founded on the assumption that mankind can meaningfully observe. There is no similarity in those foundations. Your "plausible explanations" don't include enough to evaluate.
IF the universe is round and the result of a Big Bang, then even if we eventually look far enough back in time we only see half of it. So I wonder if we manage to see the other half someday, are we looking back so far in time its no longer our Universe?
You're right, that is my wording based on the definition of the word faith which I think does in fact apply: Also, the fundamentals of physics break down when they reach the singularity. At that point we must take a leap of faith that the Big Bang happened even though we don't know exactly how or why. There are more recent arguments against the Big Bang theory. While I consider myself Catholic, you seem to be more in line with the Catholic doctrine than I.
