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

kmarinas86 · Apr 28, 2006

If you want to be creative with theories of the your own, be creative with your own, not others. What you have posted in this thread shows a lot of misstatements and misconceptions of what Big Bang theorists define as the Big Bang. Many of your ideas do not come from the Big Bang theory and thus have no good relation to them.

why06 · Apr 28, 2006

okay light only has mass when it is at rest so I'm guessing light would only have enrgy when it moving. To be hnest I have no clue. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

why06 · Apr 28, 2006

Okay so I've thrown around some of my own- I won't say ideas-, but opinions....still I believe I delivered a sound argument. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

why06 · Apr 28, 2006

I decided I would put down my original post... so that you all can kind of see where I'm coming from. I simply wanted to know what reason there was for an exspansion. If there was a planet say 50,000 miles away from another how could you tell the distance in between them is expanding? ORIGINAL POST: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> 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. Basically what I'm trying to say is this: 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. ......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. ....Don't be afraid to put your own opinion in on this one ....after all IT'S YOUR UNIVERSE!!!! <hr /></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

bonzelite · Apr 28, 2006

the BB is absolute crap.

harmonicaman · Apr 28, 2006

Actually Why06 is correct; we are the center of the of the universe! Unfortunately, every other point in the universe also shares this very same perspective... The universe is contained within a singularity. Space and time is expanding within this singularity, but the attributes of the singularity still remain. (BTW - There are about 1,000 local galaxies that are actually moving towards the Milky Way, but this is a normal result of the gravitational attraction of matter haphazardly scattered within the expanding universe...)

Saiph · Apr 28, 2006

omega, that's enough. it's fine to disagree with someone, it's okay to suggest reading material, but calling peoples attempts to discuss something uneducated and ignorant nonesense is isn't. why06 has some thoughts on the subject, thoughts that many people have. For instance my own grandfather has talked to me about many of the same ideas. Do you think I said to him, "shut up ya' old geezer, and read a bloody book before you talk about such nonsense with me." Of course not, doing so would be practicing the same close-minded intelectual snobery the scientific community is accused of so often. The fact that why06 is willing to pose his ideas and questions, listen to the responses and discuss the issue is to be applauded, not degraded. Hopefully by discussing this with him he'll come to understand why science is leaning (and heavily) towards BB, and the details behind it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"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" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Apr 28, 2006

this thread should be locked and deleted. I have never seen so much uneducated ignorant nonsense before in my life. I don't know who this why06 guy is or what planet he came from, but for all you people out there who actually have a brain, please just ignore this guy instead of argueing with him. that way threads like this won't happen again you think you know how the universe was created?

bonzelite · Apr 28, 2006

no, but I know how the universe was NOT created, which was everything you said really? you do? so, additionally, you know how it was not created? and you're certain it was not a result of any of the ideas i may have stated? and you are implying that the universe was created. and you are certain that it was actually "created?" ie, from "zero."

kmarinas86 · Apr 29, 2006

Zero is a number. Numbers didn't exist back then. Remember that. -sike-

bonzelite · Apr 29, 2006

Zero is a number. Numbers didn't exist back then. Remember that. like in the land of puff the magic dragon? you assume BB happened, too?--- with a prior state of pre-non-existence/non-zero nothingness. back then, too, my grandpa had to walk up hill to school both ways in the snow. back then. and people wore wooden shoes.

Saiph · Apr 29, 2006

bonze, if you've got a problem with BB, talk about it. Don't berate people who are for it, especially when you don't contribute anything in the post. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"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" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Apr 29, 2006

so now we must talk about the oxymoronic "non-infinite singularities," right? with the fanciful "quantum fluctuations." that is the current "flavor" of official BB? or, rather, tell me, what is the hippest, slickest, most ad-hoc'd version of the BB? let me know so i can berate it further.

why06 · Apr 29, 2006

!!!!!-WARNING-EXTREMELY LONG UNINTERUPTED POST-!!!!! I decided to post all the knowledge this thread has presented so far: I included at least one post from every person who contributed. Many of these ideas contradict each other, but these nearly 30 quotes seem to me to be the most intllectual statements presented. If anyone wants to suceed in proving the expsansion of the universe or the BB correct or incorrect this is your time. I have labeled certain post that i think deserve extra attention in purple before the statement occurs. Here it goes: 1: if your saying that everything suddenly bgan at once than the universe must be infinitely old, If you ascribe to the Big Bang, those two notions are mutually exclusive. -I consider this one very contrdictory- 2: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. 3: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. 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. -the next one is an Exceptional post, makes me f <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

why06 · Apr 29, 2006

I guess 7 is our lucky number! I believe if these 7 questions can be answered a solution can be reached. The major questions these post address are: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> 1: Is the universe exspanding at a uniform rate? -Is it expanding or inflating? -Why would it need to expand? 2:Which is static space-time or matter? 3:When the space-time expands would matter expand also? -Will objects gain or lose energy due to conservation of energy when this happens 4:Does the universe have a center and what does one consider that center to be? 5: would an expanding universe force things to move apart or will that relative distance be kept? 6:Is the only true solid matter within a blackhole? 7: does light lose energy? <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> I am thinking a bout opening up new threads so each of these questions can be answered indivisually without distraction this will make it much easier to understand. - Please tell me if you all object or want to comply with this method. I think it will be much easier than making one single long thread <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /></blockquote></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

bonzelite · Apr 29, 2006

here are my opinons to your questions: 1: Is the universe exspanding at a uniform rate? -Is it expanding or inflating? -Why would it need to expand? niverse is a continuum. does not expand. matter within empty space expands at a constant rate. 2:Which is static space-time or matter? space 3:When the space-time expands would matter expand also? matter expands. space does not. space is an infinite continuum -Will objects gain or lose energy due to conservation of energy when this happens energy is conserved. matter is a manifestation of enery. 4

oes the universe have a center and what does one consider that center to be?very point is the center 5: would an expanding universe force things to move apart or will that relative distance be kept? elative distances and sizes are maintained as all matter expands at a constant rate. 6:Is the only true solid matter within a blackhole?you mean as matter is crushed to an "infinite density?" ---who knows 7: does light lose energy? o. it is conserved.

kmarinas86 · Apr 29, 2006

1: Is the universe exspanding at a uniform rate? No, the rate of expansion, H, changes. -Is it expanding or inflating? Not every single thing by the same amount, or else it would be meaningless. If everything were "resized" by the same amount (including matter, light, and space), no one would notice it. Expansion would be relative like how velocity is relative. Empty space is said to expand faster where gravity does not overcome it. -Why would it need to expand? It doesn't need to expand, it could be repulsion due to negative pressure, so the question is trivial. 2:Which is static space-time or matter? Fields are not static. Matter is not static. Space-time is the result of a gravitational field and is thus subject to dynamical influences. 3:When the space-time expands would matter expand also? -Will objects gain or lose energy due to conservation of energy when this happens Space-time expansion is a tendency towards an outward (so-called negative) pressure. The significance of outward pressure depends inversely with the strength of the gravitational field that is caused by positive, inward pressure. The regions of positive pressure, matter, are stable because of the negative, outward pressure from within the atoms. My computer is not inflating, neither is my car, nor is my bag of tortilla chips. For ours sake, all objects on earth are expanding or not - all at the same rate. There is no "Honey I shrunk the Kids". 4

oes the universe have a center and what does one consider that center to be? If the universe is infinite it cannot have a center. If the universe does not have a perimeter, it cannot have a center. For t

why06 · Apr 29, 2006

I think this might help with this discussion: http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Board=sciastro&Number=346477 It is a previous post about the Big Bang, but brings up the same problems. Well, I'm going to stay of of here a while and give everyone some time to catch up with everything I said. -Also some one please answer my question: "Should these questions be broken up into categories or do you all just want to answer the question the way bonzelite did? -You can aswer this to bonzelite. I did not mean for my wording of that last sentence to exclude you. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

why06 · Apr 29, 2006

I now you guys are just stating your opinions, but please take into effect those nearly 30 points I mentioned. Much of what you guys are saying contradicts what somebody else said. This defies the point of me posting all those things. - So please if not read them at least skim over the post to see if anyone said something to contradict your statement. Oh and please answer my question: Categories or no categories? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

telfrow · Apr 29, 2006

am thinking a bout opening up new threads so each of these questions can be answered indivisually without distraction this will make it much easier to understand. In consideration of other topics, threads and posters in SS&A, please don't open seven new threads to discuss the points you raised. Limit the discussion to this thread. Thanks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

harmonicaman · Apr 29, 2006

This is the mainstream (or Einsteinian/Hawking view of the universe); it is a widely (but not universally) accepted view of reality: 1: Is the universe expanding at a uniform rate? -Is it expanding or inflating? -Why would it need to expand? The space in the universe is expanding with the passage of time at "c", the speed of light. At the very beginning of the Big Bang, it took a few moments before the "c" (time and space), "m" (mass) and "E" (energy) stabilized as the Singularity initially expanded. This starting process is not fully understood or well defined. The universe does not expand uniformly because time cannot expand in the presence of the static mass and this manifests itself as gravity -- which is the expansion of space and time curving around mass. In a Black Hole, the mass is so compacted that time and space are completely expelled and space and time becomes infinitely curved. 2: Which is static space-time or matter? Matter is static and unchanging, as defined by the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy; only time and space flow. 4

oes the universe have a center and what does one consider that center to be? Every point in the universe perceives itself to be the oldest and most central point in the universe. Take away time, and you find yourself back at the Singularity of our origin; and since the universe is merely the expansion of space and time within this singularity, every point is the center! The edge of the universe is also adjacent to every point -- at "c", (it's right there in front of your nose but you can never reach it). The universe still acts very much like the singularity even though it is undergoing infinite expansion! 6: Is the only true solid matter within a blackhole? That's an oversimplification, but it's a sound descriptive explanation for what we observe. 7: Does light lose energy? Since

Saiph · Apr 29, 2006

In reply to bonze's take on the questions: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />1: Is the universe exspanding at a uniform rate? -Is it expanding or inflating? -Why would it need to expand? universe is a continuum. does not expand. matter within empty space expands at a constant rate. 2:Which is static space-time or matter? space 3:When the space-time expands would matter expand also? matter expands. space does not. space is an infinite continuum -Will objects gain or lose energy due to conservation of energy when this happens energy is conserved. matter is a manifestation of enery. 4

oes the universe have a center and what does one consider that center to be?every point is the center 5: would an expanding universe force things to move apart or will that relative distance be kept? relative distances and sizes are maintained as all matter expands at a constant rate. 6:Is the only true solid matter within a blackhole? you mean as matter is crushed to an "infinite density?" ---who knows 7: does light lose energy? no. it is conserved.<hr /></blockquote> 1) Okay, that's one way to look at it, though there are some problems that arise, such as yevaud has pointed out to you before. Orbits don't work, then you say the geometry expands...but that doesn't fix it. Only if a) there's a real, centripetal force present or b) a warped geometry for the space the object moves through, will you get orbits. 2&3) If matter expands, show us a way of measuring it, other than the gravitational force you say it replicates. What other evidence is there for it. GR's warped space-time was used to corroborate known orbits, it also explains mercury's unusual orbit, and it explains the classically impossible deflection of light by mass. 4) no problem here, especially since you're espousing an infinite universe. But if you <</safety_wrapper> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"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" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Apr 29, 2006

orbits do work. they are purely functions of geometric relationships. not due to gravitation at a distance. and Olber's paradox is BS. i need to eat now, and thereafter i will respond to your points. time for in-n-out burger.

why06 · Apr 29, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />2&3) If matter expands, show us a way of measuring it, other than the gravitational force you say it replicates. What other evidence is there for it. GR's warped space-time was used to corroborate known orbits, it also explains mercury's unusual orbit, and it explains the classically impossible deflection of light by mass<hr /></blockquote> I don't understand. When you move your arms some matter is moving. There eventually has to be some underlying cause. MATTER MOVES. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

kmarinas86 · Apr 30, 2006

orbits do work. they are purely functions of geometric relationships. not due to gravitation at a distance. and Olber's paradox is BS. i need to eat now, and thereafter i will respond to your points. time for in-n-out burger. First of all, if this expansion occurs in three dimensions (instead of a object centered force) can you explain to me then how a particles change direction in space? If all the earth is doing is getting larger to push objects in it's way, then there is no reason for satellites that orbit earth to go to the other side of the earth when they're not in contact. If objects expanded as fast as earth, then you would expect an astronaut to attract other objects in space with the acceleration of 1 g (and that means anything!) Because of Earth gravity 1 g and the moon's gravity 1/6th g, the acceleration of the expansion of the earth would have to be 6 times faster than the moons - which makes no sense. And it would imply that in 353.823183 days with 1 g expansion acceleration that the change of the speed of the expansion would be 299,792,458 m/s. Also, the inflation of a balloon won't cause objects to orbit it. The premise of this "expanding gravity" is fundamentally flawed. Drop the idea when it's due time.

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

kmarinas86

Guest

why06

Guest

why06

Guest

why06

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

why06

Guest

why06

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

why06

Guest

why06

Guest

telfrow

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

why06

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page