MainFragger
Posts: 59
Joined: 2/28/2009
Status: offline
|
360 comes from 360 degrees. Whatever the size of the center is determines your start point for scale. Forget the ACTUAL numbers for a moment. If the circle was 1 mile in circumfrence, then you can use that to determine over all scale. Then you just apply that scale to the real numbers. The way you determine the thickness of the imaginary lines is by assuming that the lines are the thinnest possible lines whose points fit together perfectly to form the circle at the center. Once you know the size of the center, you divide that by 360, and you have the size of the point of the convergence of two degree edges. Now, you can add two equally split straights radiating out from that point at 1 degree, and determine how thick they will be using mathematics I admit are beyond me, but tie in with the relationship between angles and lines within a circle. If we assume everything is its most basic form, then once we know the minimum thickness at 1 or 100 or 1000 miles that those lines could be, then we can work out a formula to determine the largest the universe could possibly be based off of that thickness of line.
Thats becuase people make the mistake of thinking of gravity as a force. It isn't a force. Its a warping of existing space. Think of it as a dimple in existance. Its curve causes anything within its event horizon to naturally slide or roll toward the center. There are other conditions that can slow down that process.. But anything in a gravity well will eventually fall to the center. So no matter how large or powerful the Big Bang is.. if it never reaches beyond the event horizon of the edge of the warp in the universe, then eventually its only natural that it will spiral or slide back to the center again..
Brian E.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Raechard
quote:
ORIGINAL: MainFragger
However, I think once we knew how big that center actually is, we'd be able to extrapolate the true size of the universe. I look at it this way, if you had a circle with 360 degree lines intersecting at the center, it forms an imaginary dot at the center. This metallic center would be that same dot, but real. There has to be a relationship between the size of the intersection and the size of the circle. So if you know the size of the intersection, you should be able to estimate the size of the circle. Therefore, if you know the sizd of the center of the universe, you should be able to figure out the size of the completed expansion of the universe... Which is the full size the universe will be after it stops expanding and before is starts to contract again.
All this proves is a complete lack of geometrical knowledge on your part. A circle has a centre point if lines are crossing through that centre point the radius of the circle would have no bearing on that centre point size. The point at the centre of the circle visually increases the more times you intersect it i.e. why are you only intersecting it with 360 lines why not a billion then you'd have a completely filled in circle depending on how thin your pencil line is to your circle diameter.
The other flaw in your assumption is that the current centre of the universe coincides with the centre point from which it expanded. If something explodes does it explode evenly or does matter go in chaotically decided directions with differing forces based on the initial resistance to the explosion? Something would have to be divinely spherical in construction in the first place to offer exactly the same resistance to force over its entire surface area. If so, you have to consider that such a uniform pattern of expansion would offer many reflections that would still be present today as we gaze upon the stars i.e. repetitive patterns in star formations. People say quantum singularities and other forces would have spoiled these patterns long ago but why? If everything is expanding in this uniform way then the exact same sequence of events is happening with regards to the life and death of stars on both sides of the universe; mirrored perfectly to the most finite point in time.
Perhaps it's a problem of scale and the little we see of it. There is seemingly slightly less gravity in the universe than actual mass. The more mass, the greater the gravitational pull but all the gravitational pull in one place for this super dense particle wasn’t enough to keep it from bursting apart. Yet it is seemingly enough to draw it all back together, there is an explanation for this in terms of the creation of new particles, I’m told and the fact the mass of particles can change according to the fields that influence them.
< Message edited by MainFragger -- 5/9/2009 9:17:25 PM >
|
RE: What caused the big bang? - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread