I dont know about 'looking through itself' but at galactic scales we are 'looking into the past' as conventionally stated. It would be more accurate to say 'the past is the present' at greater distances. So if you look as far as possible in any direction, the past we see, which is the present to us, is the moments after the big bang.

That's the scientific model as it exists now. So I personally dont feel there is an explanation in our terms of Euclidean space as to what is actually happening, because it means, whatever direction we look as far as possible, we are seeing a small point.

I dont know about 'looking through itself' but at galactic scales we are 'looking into the past' — ernest meyer

The "looking through itself" is a struggle for me to understand, in itself. But what I was struggling with in my post was not so much our looking through, as it was about the experience of space itself at the "start" of the big bang.

So, forget for the moment the issue of speed and time. Just look at the absence of space at the singularity. Then there is space.

But whenever a scientist tries to explain this to me, they say "imagine the balloon." Okay, I get that. But then they say "Remember, though, the balloon analogy is simply a way for us to simplify it so you get the gist of things not moving away from each other, but, rather, space is inflating between them. In reality, it is not a balloon, but 3d."

So I say okay, now I must try to conceive of space expansion in all directions at once. After all, the balloon analogy is just a simplification. When I do that though, it seems to me that space could not grow out from a fixed point, but would also have to grow in and through itself and out the other side at the same time.

Sum and substance :It is a simultaneous explosion and implosion (with the implosion going through itself and out the other side to join the explosion). And then there is instantaneous space between everything with there having never been a center from which to bang outward. No space, then space, and growing?

well, there are people who believe it is comprehensible, but to me, I accept the limits of comprehension I am given and just think of it as a model which doesn't need to be 'visualized' per se, because its already exceeded our normal senses to say the present is the past in the first place lol. I dont think we have the ability to comprehend time and space as it really is, and trying to force fit it into something natural to our perception is a misguided effort. We can make mathematical models of the apparent observable world, some of which are easier to describe in terms accessible to us and some are not. There's no necessity that there should exist a better explanation in scientific terms.

:ok:

Is there a center on a spherical surface? I believe every point on it can be the center, so it should be the same if you add one more dimension. Every point in space can be considered the center.

A misconception I had was to think that I am in or inside the universe when I'm actually a part of it. In order to be inside something I need an outside, however from my point of view the universe is all the space that exists. If there's an outside then we don't know it's nature nor can we ever go there physically.

Also when we look in any direction we see the CMB, the Cosmic Microwave Background, which is the earliest electromagnetic radiation of the universe.

Is there a center on a spherical surface? I believe every point on it can be the center, so it should be the same if you add one more dimension. Every point in space can be considered the center. — Vince

I agree, and my thinking that way started with a discussion about whether we are the center of the universe. I tried to add the next dimension and came up with my question. It seems to me that if space exists between all that which is not space, then there can be no single not space, but a multitude of not spaces separated by spaces, and there was no single direction from a singularity outward.

I just stopped believing in the big bang. It posses way more questions than it answers. It's a stupid idea.

I just stopped believing in the big bang. It posses way more questions than it answers. It's a stupid idea. — Razorback kitten

I don't know about that, but I never had a problem with lots of questions. For instance, is there a reason why it had to be a bang? How about an extremely slow, insidious creep; a root that can only venture out when it gains enough strength to overcome the forces that don't want to let it go. Or the water wearing away the rock in the river. Gently, slowly, with patience. I guess a bang is sexier. It draws the attention. Like a shooting.

If two people stand back to back and begin walking away from each other, the space between them is not expanding, all the is happening is the distance between them is increasing. The reason physical matter may move freely through space is because space is that which is not there, that’s why it is called space. Because space is not there, it is infinite and will be found not to be there, wherever one may go in the universe.

Can't we actually look in any direction and they are all looking back toward the big bang? — James Riley

Yep.

That's what the cosmic microwave background radiation is - well, almost, to within a few hundred thousand years.

:up:

You didn't understand it, therefore it is stupid? Nuh.

If two people stand back to back and begin walking away from each other, the space between them is not expanding, all the is happening is the distance between them is increasing. — Present awareness

If two people stand back to back, and do nothing, but the distance between them increases... then the space they are in is expanding.

Space is not there? Where do astronauts go, then?

For instance, is there a reason why it had to be a bang? How about an extremely slow, insidious creep — James Riley

The reason here is the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background. A slow formation would have given the matter/energy in the universe time to interact and form large scale structures. Since we don't see evidence of those, the theory is that the expansion was very fast initially.

If two people stand back to back and begin walking away from each other, the space between them is not expanding, all the is happening is the distance between them is increasing. — Present awareness

At first glance, this is correct. But the difference between an explosion and an expansion of space is the presence of inertial forces. With an explosion they are obviously present, with the space expansion they are not. The galaxies "swim" quasi in the expanding space and feel no inertial forces.

No I understand the BBT. But it doesn't even try to explain where or how a universe creating singularity appeared in the first place. The main question the BBT presents. Also, there is no way yet of proving that bodies in space aren't actually just moving apart evenly, increasing the space, rather than assuming the space is expanding. It would look the same. I believe stars release space, space being composed of just radiation like light, which they generate by fusing matter. If all stars release space then space appears to expand. But if you'd prefer I believed a magical point in nowhere with enough heat and energy packed inside to spawn our universe just happened to happen, I say no thank you.

The other problem I have with it is the way physisists say "to ask what came before the big bang is a bad question", because time only exists once the ball is rolling. If nothing existed before this singularity, there would still be nothing now! It's a huge mess of a theory. Even Roger Penrose's idea on how it works is ridiculous and he's been trying to explain it for longer than I've been able to walk.

The CMB is the only good evidense for the Big Bang Theory. But I think it has a different cause. I don't know how or from where, but if its the only reason to believe something as invented and stupendous as the BB, I'd rather wait and see.

Finally, I think at least half the reason the BBT took off is because it fitted in so nicely with the bible. God spoke and shazam, a universe! Sounds like one and the same to me. Fiction.

You're not in a position where your judgement on this is worth listening to.

:up:

Space is not there? Where do astronauts go, then? — Banno

To planets!
It’s easy to walk through that which is not there, I do it every day!

I suppose you're right.

I think expansion is created by all the stars in space pumping space into space. I think gravity is secondary to this, being a blocking effect from the oncoming push from space in all directions, so we fall toward the sun in a path of least resistance.

Complete speculation.

So, rather than gravity pulling me down onto the earth, space is pushing me against it? So the earth doesn't suck after all? Cross thread points with antinatalism? And the sun is pushy, throwing it's weight around?

So, rather than gravity pulling me down onto the earth, space is pushing me against it? — James Riley

Yes

pretty much.

Interesting. I'm curious as to why space would push harder against me on Earth than when I'm on the moon. At first I might guess that the size of the earth draws more push, but since it is me being pushed regardless of what I am on, and I am the same size in either place, why the difference?

If the universe has actually expanded from a point with itself being the center, then the center has become the whole universe. The center is everywhere.

The other problem I have with it is the way physisists say "to ask what came before the big bang is a bad question", because time only exists once the ball is rolling. If nothing existed before this singularity, there would still be nothing now! — Razorback kitten

They don't say that nothing existed before the singularity, they say they don't know.

The CMB is the only good evidense for the Big Bang Theory. — Razorback kitten

I believe the redshift of galaxies, considered to be a Doppler effect, is the basis for the Big Bang theory.

As someone mentioned it before the uniformity of the CMB is a problem for the BBT. It requires the theory of inflation, extremely rapid faster-than-light expansion of the universe to explain this homogeneity.

The center is everywhere. — noname

Thanks. That's a little easier to grasp, at least conceptually. It answers and defeats the intuition that it had to have started some place if that place is actually everywhere. I would then venture that when everywhere was in a singularity, it was really nowhere. Had it been somewhere, then we'd have to grapple with a direction back to a place that never was.

Interesting. I'm curious as to why space would push harder against me on Earth than when I'm on the moon. At first I might guess that the size of the earth draws more push, but since it is me being pushed regardless of what I am on, and I am the same size in either place, why the difference? — James Riley

The Earth is more massive, so it curves space-time more.

the earth is blocking more push than the moon because its bigger. So in open space you stay still as you're being pushed evenly from all directions.