Big Bang, where is it?

[flyingcloud]

Have we located the precise location of where the big bang had supposedly occured?

I can't find it, why not? should be obvious.

[JaJa]

Have we located the precise location of where the big bang had supposedly occured?

I can't find it, why not? should be obvious.

Like the coordinates of a blackhole?

[Goldminer]

All those "extremely distant" highly red shifted galaxies and QSO's are supposedly moving away from us here on Earth at very high and/or accelerating velocities, approaching the speed of light. They are supposedly the oldest objects in the visible Universe. They should be disappearing over time as they cross the event horizon. They do not. No Big Bang!

[JaJa]

All those "extremely distant" highly red shifted galaxies and QSO's are supposedly moving away from us here on Earth at very high and/or accelerating velocities, approaching the speed of light. They are supposedly the oldest objects in the visible Universe. They should be disappearing over time as they cross the event horizon. They do not. No Big Bang!

I think mainstream believe they covered this angle of logical argument Goldminer by declaring that there are two types of singularities and one of them is naked (without an event horizon).

What's the odds that the one we apparently sit in (the Big Bang singularity) has no clothes on...

JJ

[Goldminer]

When you are making stuff up, the sky is the limit. I think there are a bunch of conventional astronomers and physicists getting real cold in their "new suits"

[JaJa]

When you are making stuff up, the sky is the limit. I think there are a bunch of conventional astronomers and physicists getting real cold in their "new suits"

I'd be very interested to know what "conventional" means in astronomy/physics these days...

Re: the OP question, is this something that has ever been looked at?

JJ

[Goldminer]

Jaja wrote:

I'd be very interested to know what "conventional" means in astronomy/physics these days...

What words mean, any of them, are always a combination of what the author had in mind, including who he thinks is his readers, as well as the actual readers and their education etc. You knew that already, I bet'cha. (I had a course in Semantics along time ago, probably a course in artificial intelligence would be better today. (Google "semantics and ethics"/Korzybski for some good input)

Re: the OP question, is this something that has ever been looked at?

Well, it has been looked for! Another of those conjectures that Mainstream, Conventional, "peer reviewed," "media" seem to leave in the background, along with conjectured objects, [the usual list] and ideas such as "inflation," none of which have been directly observed, and probably never will. Features of active electrical plasma have been directly observed and have been proven scalable from laboratory to Earth magnitude, and even Solar system, and Sun scales. (Before the "atomic age, an externally powered Sun was on equal footing with an internally powered Sun.) (The Electric Sun conjecture does not exclude fusion and fission reactions on the Sun, it's just that they are not the primary source of all the energy release, and not even the source of all the "magnetic" action seen there.)

[JaJa]

(Google "semantics and ethics"/Korzybski for some good input)

Thanx Goldminer part of my studies involves meta-ethics

JJ

[Goldminer]

Omnia in numeris sita sunt

Yes, numbers [Math] and Latin. Two favorite ruses to keep the adept knowledge within adept circles! Doctors, Lawyers, and Physicists/Astronomers are famously adept at this tactic. Abstraction is the way to both higher knowledge and conflation of truth to blind the Goyum. The nuvo-adept must carefully make the distinction. Of course, in their zeal, the "adept" can become blinded by their own efforts. That is the naked truth.

As to the Big Bang; It got sucked back into the Black Hole from whence it came! The rest of the Universe never noticed.

[tayga]

Have we located the precise location of where the big bang had supposedly occured?

I can't find it, why not? should be obvious.

The party line, I believe, is that since all of everything was contained in the original singularity then the big bang happened everywhere.

Surely you weren't expecting an intelligible answer?

[Shrike]

The problem with a big bang is that every where is the center.

If every thing expanded out of singularity (nothing, yet all there is) then the center is everywhere (like tayga posted)
Its a hard to grasp mental exercise. The so called big bang can't be compared to an explosion although it is always shown as an explosion.
The problem is that singularity has no outer boundary it is all there is, so the universe has no boundary (or the universe created a boundary by an act of god or some other miracle) and there is no physical center.
Any point is the center there is no and can't be no boundary to measure a center to.
Yet a lot of mainstream says that quasars are out the outer edges of the universe (they probably mean observable universe) but that makes no sense to the hypothesized uniformity of the so called inflation, quasars should be every where on an almost uni-formal base.
One doesn't need math or physics degree to come to that conclusion.
There shouldn't be old or new parts in a big bang picture sure there would be new stars and new galaxies but that should also be on a almost uni-formal basis not like the picture they paint where we are in some kind of center and 9 billion or more light years all around us are quasars which makes some kind of a sphere where the old regions are and towards some kind of center is a young region unless they think that the universe if filled with infinite of those sphere like regions.

Next brain breaker, the real universe doesn't end where the observable universe ends or else we have boundary so if we have in theory all those infinite other spheres that all came together some 13 to 20 billion years ago it could be that the big bang singularity could be infinite big while we always tend to think that a singularity is infinitely small. Which actually would be all the same since a singularity is all there is. And it's kinda weird in the big bang view to suggest that in this universe we have other singularities which means all there is in all there is. Unless one treats a singularity as something with a boundary in that case we have a fractal like or holograph like structure the whole contains the whole



I just liked to respond to this one as philosophical exercise for my self, i could prattle on for hours on this one

[D_Archer]

I think the Big Bang is passé, the little Brains are searching for big Branes now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

Regards,
Daniel

[Shrike]

I know thats why i wrote it
it doesn't make sense !

[ColdCowboy]

The Big Bang Theory gives us the opportunity to blend New Age mysticism and Quantum Physics.....

If you consider that everything in the Universe came forth from the Big Bang, being simultaneously created there, we can assume that everything must have been Quantum Entangled at that event, which means everything is connected and we are all one together.

[dugiewugie]

If you will excuse me (i am new to this), where, according to this theory did all the electricity
come from?