The Big Bang- It time to settle this once and for all!!!

[why06]

Everyone knows the current big bang theory is that everywhere expanded at once. Do you know what that results in no net gain. which means you wouldn't even be able to tell in the first place that it is expand. It mise-well be shrinking for all we know. if your saying that everything suddenly bgan at once than the universe must be infinitely old, but as it is that is not true for what is happening right know yould already have happened.<br /><br />Basically what I'm trying to say is this:<br /><br />Imagine a ball is the universe and your watching the ball with a video camera connected to your TV. Now suddenly for no apparent reason every thing gets twice as large. I mean everything. The video camera, the TV, You, the ball , and even space time itself. Now how would ou possibly noticed that the ball (universe) expanded if everything else expanded with it. At least in this model there is a reference point. An outside world. A lone universed has no reference. <br />......Except maybe if it had a center...but don't get me started on how a universe with galaxy's, 3dimensional galaxy could not have a center unless the universe reached to the ends of forever, but they say it doesn't. Or how it could not have a chronological center or past. if time exist.....But like I said DON'TGET ME STARTED ON THAT. THE MISSION NOW IS TO ANSWER THE JOB AT HAND. TO....RIDICULE THE CURRENT DEFINITONN OF THE BIG BANG...that never even made a sound.<br /><br />....Don't be afraid to put your own opinion in on this one ....after all <font color="yellow"> IT'S YOUR UNIVERSE!!!!</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">if your saying that everything suddenly bgan at once than the universe must be infinitely old,</font><br /><br />If you ascribe to the Big Bang, those two notions are mutually exclusive.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">......Except maybe if it had a center...but don't get me started on how a universe with galaxy's, 3dimensional galaxy could not have a center unless the universe reached to the ends of forever</font><br /><br />Picture yourself as a polka dot on the surface of a beach ball. Then picture that the surface of the beach ball is everything that is. In other words, that you cannot perceive what's "inside" the beach ball. To your point of view and your existence, there IS no "inside".<br /><br />So now, you're a happy little polka dot on an ever expanding beach ball. Every other point on the ball is equally distant from you. Which means that you're in the middle of everything.<br /><br />Here's old Dragon 3 inches, 3 feet, 3 parsecs, etc away from you. From where I live, every point on the beach ball is equally distant to me as well. I'm in the middle.<br /><br />I think the error is that we can't think past the observable 3 dimensions, and we try to put what we can observe into 3 dimensional terms that don't explain the entire situation.<br /><br />Even if we go ahead and use your notion that every single bit of matter in the universe is expanding, and that we have no way to notice this "local expansion", we still know that the entire universe is expanding, and that it is not at a uniform rate.<br /><br />WERE it at a uniform rate from the microscoic to the macroscopic, nothing would be red or blue shifted. Everything we observe would be static. Observationally, this is not the case.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[thepiper]

Picture when the universe was 10^-23 second old and the size of an electron. Think of this huge concentration of mass in such a small space. This was clearly a black hole, and its self-gravitation would prevent the escape of any mass or radiation. Consequently, according to Einsteinian relativity, it could not have expanded.<br /><br />Now think of a universe that has always been there and always will be, that is not expanding but is constantly transforming itself and creating new matter. We will never know its true age or its size, and we will have to accept that and live with it.<br /><br />In this universe, the plasmoid cores of galaxies give birth to high-redshift "baby" galaxies (i.e. quasars), stars give birth to companion stars and "gas giant" planets (through electrical fissioning), "gas giant" planets give birth to "rocky" planets, humans give birth to children, animals give birth to their offspring... it's a complex cycle of life and creation that never ends.

 

[bonzelite]

do away with the book of genesis big bang story crap. forget it. the universe, in my opinion, is beyond the infinite and defies any explanation. it always was. and always shall be. forever becoming. <br /><br />

 

[itsyuri]

Response to: Now how would ou possibly noticed that the ball (universe) expanded if everything else expanded with it. At least in this model there is a reference point. An outside world. A lone universed has no reference.<br /><br />Yes it would be hard to tell if besides the spaces in between objects, the actual objects and everything they are composed of increase in mass and size proportionally. how would mass be created?<br />I'm no expert, here is the problem i see, due to the conservation of energy, all attractions would get weaker, including the attractions between bodies becuase - if mass could be created, would energy be able to be created too? if not then the seperations would increase at even faster rates, and expansion would be even faster. <br />this is soley based on the imaginary realm of this post.<br /><br />

 

[why06]

I told you not to get me started on that....Your describing the universe as a two dimensional figure with three dimensional characteristics.... that contradicts itself. the only way say if you connected all the galaxieis with imaginary lines and there was no center would be if the universe was infinnite- which is not beyond reason. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[why06]

if the universe is not expanding at the same rate what is going on... why are'nt some planets as large as a solar system than and any way for all you know we could be shrinking. To say such ourageous thing to me you need evidence to back it up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[why06]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Now think of a universe that has always been there and always will be, that is not expanding but is constantly transforming itself and creating new matter. We will never know its true age or its size, and we will have to accept that and live with it. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Your Right! it seems like the universe had always been here rather than just suddenly appeared.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />Picture when the universe was 10^-23 second old and the size of an electron<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br />Lets put it like this for the universe to have expanded the way you say it would come from a central point except if it was described as that beach ball philosophy. The universe can't expand from a beach ball. No if it was put into that beach ball philosophy it would still look like it is today, evenin the very beggingnings because the same relevant distance between galaxies and things would maintain. Heck! if the universe expanded at all it would not have a beggining. In order for what you described to take place the universe. <font color="blue">would need to explode into existence, but that not what happened the big bang -which can't exist- is not only the creation of matter but of space time itself. I belief the introduction of time and space among us may be radically different froman explosion.<font color="white"><br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> Consequently, according to Einsteinian relativity, it could not have expanded.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />So you see consequenty it could expanded, but like I said there would be no net gain and matter would not all be in one spot. <br /><br />-Also I would be careful of using Einsteins theories in conjunction with black holes- Einstein purposefully tried to disprove his theory on his death bed when he heard of the possibility of such an anomily coming to be.<br /> <br /><br></br></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[why06]

This message is For bonzelite and istruyi....<br /><br />So you believe that the universe forever was....? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

yes. <br /><br />and objects within it are constantly expanding. yet the actual "space" is not.

 

[why06]

Good but how do you explain whow we havent eventually ripped out of this universe if the actuaul space is not expanding. or are you saying that the universe is infinitely big...<br /><br />Oh don't get me wrong I may not believe in the big bang but there are problems on both sides...<br /> For instance....why do galaxy show sign of creation- a giant black hole in its center. How come solar systems and planets are being created right now once those new systems form are we going to say they always existed.... NOOO! of course not. Space time could remain the same and nothing will ever happen but MATTER, matter moves it changes form and moves from the location of its it beginning is effected by anything in its path. the thing that bothers me is how me is this<br /><br />Say you see a baseball thrown from the pitcher hand... if you trace the velocity of that ball and reverse it... mathematically you should be able to trace its starting point. The same should be true for the for the bodies of the universe. The only problem is this ball of creation might have been thrown forever ago. <br /><br /><font color="yellow"> That's why they call the universe a <font color="blue"> CONTINIUM <font color="white"> <font color="yellow"> and not a simply a segment in time. For if suddenly time started going back words there would be no begging <font color="white">- PS> The begginning is the future- <font color="yellow">because it never was....<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /></font></font></font></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Your describing the universe as a two dimensional figure with three dimensional characteristics.... that contradicts itself.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />No, it doesn't contradict itself. It's an analogy. The reality is that the universe is three dimensional, but curves in the *fourth* dimension. It is analogous to the way two-dimensional things behave on the surface of something three dimensional. You're right that it's not the same, but it's easier for our minds to get a grip on. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

IMO, there are a number of misconceptions about the presumed Big Bang, and the nature of "expansion", particularly as it relates to "space".<br /><br />Space as we know is not really "empty" in the first place. It is filled with particles galore including neutrinos and what are currently called "virtual particles". These are essentially "waves" of energy, and the "waves" may expand, but a completely empty "space" cannot.<br /><br />Having said all that, I think the whole BB theory is nothing but a convenient mechanism to make things "tidy". Unfortunately life has a way of not being so neat and tidy. There is no evidence that all energy was ever completely "subatomic" in nature as BB theory suggests, and empty space does not "expand". Only particles and real things can "expand". The conservation of energy laws suggests that energy has eternally existed, even if matter (in the form of atoms) has not. A universal electromagnetic field would also explain "expansion" a lot better than "inflation" IMO.<br /><br />Of course it should also be noted that Arp has raised some important objections to the way we attempt to gauge vast distances. Current BB theory is hopelessly flawed IMO. I'm not saying it "couldn't happen" the way it's described, but it's certainly not a guarantee that it all energy was ever completely subatomic in nature. Assuming the known physical universe was in fact compressed to a relatively "small area" of space at one point in time, there is certainly no guarantee that it was ever compressed to a point or a "singularity". For instance, it could be that our physical universe was created in a "big slam" event, somewhat analagous to a galaxy collision, where some matter interacts violently, and some matter does not. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />Good but how do you explain whow we havent eventually ripped out of this universe if the actuaul space is not expanding. or are you saying that the universe is infinitely big... <br /></font><br />right. very easy to understand idea. <br /><br />ripped out of this universe? i don't follow you on that one. with infinite space, there is plenty of room for all kinds of interactions, motions, explosions, collisions, expansions, orbits, everything we see. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">, matter moves it changes form and moves from the location of its it beginning is effected by anything in its path. </font><br /><br />yes. a good way of looking at it. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">The only problem is this ball of creation might have been thrown forever ago. <br /></font><br />yes. <br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />That's why they call the universe a CONTINIUM and not a simply a segment in time.</font><br />yes. <br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[why06]

my idea is that our 3d world is a point moving threw a 1d line of time<br /> in a forward direction. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

my idea is that 1d, 2d, 3d, time, etc are artifical limits upon a reality that we are unable to fully understand through our senses and present technology. that is, what we see is not what is necessarily really there. we are seeing the physical top-layer, if you will, of a far more unknown existence; our human experience of it is only able to see what it is capable of seeing through our given senses. the cosmos is not what we think it is. <br /><br /> <br />

 

[why06]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> There is no evidence that all energy was ever completely "subatomic" in nature as BB theory suggests, and empty space does not "expand". Only particles and real things can "expand". The conservation of energy laws suggests that energy has eternally existed, even if matter (in the form of atoms) has not. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br /><br /><font color="orange"> first i would just like to sate that you said "energy could be before matter"-true just as matter could be before energy. the two forces switch in and out. M*A= F<br /><br /><font color="white"> <blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>A universal electromagnetic field would also explain "expansion" a lot better than "inflation" IMO. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br /><font color="orange"> Please elaborate...<br /><br /><font color="white"> " A BIG SLAM"....what are you talking about galaxy creation is easy but we can not begin to understand the universe. What do you mean?</font></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

if Michael said this, i agree with it:<br /><br />"There is no evidence that all energy was ever completely "subatomic" in nature as BB theory suggests, and empty space does not "expand". Only particles and real things can "expand". The conservation of energy laws suggests that energy has eternally existed, even if matter (in the form of atoms) has not."

 

[why06]

I also believe time is beyond are understanding... but this is just an idea. I need to label something? all I can see right now is that time moves forward yet somehow not backward, but then again forward and backward could be the same thing....who knows? .........To exist in 2 or 3 dimensional time is beyond my comprehension and my best guess is, well...only a guess...and your idea is only a guess .... Heck to imagine dimensions other then length with and height is impossible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[why06]

How can you say that energy exist when matter doesn't ... as a matter of fact I want to ask a question to all of you what is energy.<br /><br />If its electromagnetic radiaton thats Okay ,but energy can also be stored in the form of a mass standing still or in motion. understand what energy really is before you start making road statements like that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

Big Slam = Collision between 2 big objects<br /><br />A collision between two planets can form a larger planet and a moon. A collision of two ULTRA-massive black holes (or if you like, Gravastars) the size of the universe could result in a splash of gamma rays that eventually condense into stars, planets and galaxies. These objects may still exist by the way - behind the fringe of the observable universe.

 

[Saiph]

The key problem with the original post, is the idea that everything is expanding, and so we wouldn't notice expansion at all. And that's likely true. But there's one catch:<br /><br />Big Bang theory does <i>not</i> state everything is expanding, only space-time. As such, distance between objects will grow unless a sufficient force between the objects exists, so as to counteract this motion.<br /><br />The force between two nearby atoms is far in excess of that required to defy the expansion. The force between two neighboring galaxies is enough to defy the expansion. It's only when you get millions of light years seperation between objects, does the expansion become strong enough to overcome attractive forces and move objects apart.<br /><br />As such, since my head, my instruments, my planet, my solar system, my galaxy are not expanding, due to internal forces holding it together, we could identify expansion on a large scale.<br /><br /><br />Problem with an infinite universe and seeing things form now: Entropy. Given an infinite amount of time, everything should have settled down already, unless new energy or matter is introduced into the system. Sure, we have an infinite amount of mass, but it's been interacting for an infinite amount of time...<br /><br />Also, there's Olber's paradox, but I'll let you read up on that.<br /><br /><br />Anyway, as for why you can have such a dense state of material, but also have expansion...white holes fit the bill, and having that much energy and such a rapidly expanding spacetime probalby changes things a bit. Throw in the fact that people much, much better with relativity than I say there isn't a contradiction.<br /><br />The ascribing a 3d model 2d characteristics has already been addressed. It's an analogy to help explain how a 3d object in a 4d space would behave. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[rickstine]

The big bang theroy is just a theroy,there are alot of unknows that can' be explained with with our current understanding of physics.The big bang thery says that when the universe formed there were equal amounts of anti-matter and matter.I fthere was equal amounts woulden't we not exist and talk about the big bang theroy in the first place.I belive when the unvirse stared there were larger amounts of matter than anti-matter.But this still leaves alot of holes in this opinion of mine.

 

[fingle]

If I can be so bold as to add to what MichaelMozina and kmarinas86 said about a "big slam event" creating the universe as we know it. <br /><br />That kind of sounds like 'Brane-Storm' Challenges Part of Big Bang Theory<br /><br /><i>"The [Ekpyrotic] scenario is that our current universe is [a] four-dimensional membrane embedded in a five-dimensional 'bulk' space, something like a sheet of paper in ordinary three-dimensional space," Turok told SPACE.com. "The idea then is that another membrane collided with ours, releasing energy and heat and leading to the expansion of our universe."</i><br /><br /> To me this brane idea seems like it merges points from both the steady state universe and the big bang universe, the branes have always been there but when they merge there is a time of expansion.<br /><br />that's all for now.<br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[why06]

Than where does spacetime expand from? How can we sense this expansion? And most important of all where is all this matter coming from?<br /><br /><br /><br />-Also, Why has it not stopped expanding? Why would it need to expand? <br />-As a side note: <br />Didn't one post say hat only matter can expand?- whoever posted this please explain your self- Einstein proved time dialation which proves space can expand. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>