The cause of Bigbang ?

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Good Morning! Sorry, but you are giving your opinion according to what you read earlier and it seems that you did not read the entire article sent in full! you are repeating what Hawking said! But do you have any idea how absurd this is? There is nothing before Bigbang is the same as saying that the Universe came out of nowhere! This violates a basic law of physics: the law of energy conservation! Before going through a peer review this article was rejected by some journal and one of the arguments was these! It is an argument without proof and without support! If in the Universe there was no time before Bigbang, there was no internal space (space-time dimension)! there is no internal space, there is no energy for motion (kinetic energy). There was no gravitational energy and there was no quantum energy and no interaction between the particles. What energy was there to start the Big Bang? Do you understand why time couldn't have come with the big bang? Note: this article that is being commented on, respecting the Bigbang theory since the beginning of the expansion, the concept of entropy and dark energy, and anti-matter, but to find these items you have to read the entire article and look at the figures before to give an opinion! talking about another absurd criticism for this article: I was asked if I didn't know that the energy of the Universe is not conserved! I had to look for another article that says that energy can be conserved in certain situations! Which are the same as described in this article! Thanks for joining the discussion! What you think is incorrect can define that when I see the message I reply!
 
SGP, you said: "The third dimension or our existence is at the edge of the Universe! Then yes, it really is a centerless surface! Inside our universe are the second and first dimensions!"

How do you reconcile this with the true (defined) x, y, and z dimensions of space as being mutually perpendicular?

Cat :)

P.S. Maybe I can reconcile this with my "Edgeless Universe". Essentially (space only):
"Consider a flatlander living on a sphere. The surface of the sphere is the Universe of that being. Inside or outside the sphere is (spatially) meaningless.
If the sphere expands, the surface area of the sphere expands I.e., the Universe of the flatlander expands." To a 3-dimensional being the radius increases, but this cannot be perceived by the flatlander. I do appreciate the language difficulty.

Cat :)
 
SGP, you state::
"The article shows and compares the extreme instants of the evolution of the Universe! Static instants with concentrated energy / mass in an extensive dimension!" My emphasis.

Energy/mass has unite m^2/s^2 or length x acceleration.

What do you suppose this corresponds to?

I mean in units such as Force = mass x acceleration with units kg (metres) / (seconds)^2.

Cat :)
I did not understand your question! maybe translation error? when I said mass / energy = mass or energy!
Always in the article the universe is in terms of energy, I don't use the concept of force. Energy or work = force x distance or Newton x meter or mass x acceleration x distance = Joule! But I only use Energy and consider its conservation! And in a static universe, the only energy is a potential because there is no motion! I did not understand your question, why you want to contextualize the force! Explain better!
 
I did not understand your question! maybe translation error? when I said mass / energy = mass or energy!
Always in the article the universe is in terms of energy, I don't use the concept of force. Energy or work = force x distance or Newton x meter or mass x acceleration x distance = Joule! But I only use Energy and consider its conservation! And in a static universe, the only energy is a potential because there is no motion! I did not understand your question, why you want to contextualize the force! Explain better!
 
SGP, you said: "The third dimension or our existence is at the edge of the Universe! Then yes, it really is a centerless surface! Inside our universe are the second and first dimensions!"

How do you reconcile this with the true (defined) x, y, and z dimensions of space as being mutually perpendicular?

Cat :)

P.S. Maybe I can reconcile this with my "Edgeless Universe". Essentially (space only):
"Consider a flatlander living on a sphere. The surface of the sphere is the Universe of that being. Inside or outside the sphere is (spatially) meaningless.
If the sphere expands, the surface area of the sphere expands I.e., the Universe of the flatlander expands." To a 3-dimensional being the radius increases, but this cannot be perceived by the flatlander. I do appreciate the language difficulty.

Cat :)
OK! The problem is not having anything outside the sphere! (It is a flattened sphere due to centrifugation)! The problem is that there is nothing inside! for the universe to be expanding rapidly, it has to gain energy on its surface from within! is what you would call dark energy!
SGP, you said: "The third dimension or our existence is at the edge of the Universe! Then yes, it really is a centerless surface! Inside our universe are the second and first dimensions!"

How do you reconcile this with the true (defined) x, y, and z dimensions of space as being mutually perpendicular?

Cat :)

P.S. Maybe I can reconcile this with my "Edgeless Universe". Essentially (space only):
"Consider a flatlander living on a sphere. The surface of the sphere is the Universe of that being. Inside or outside the sphere is (spatially) meaningless.
If the sphere expands, the surface area of the sphere expands I.e., the Universe of the flatlander expands." To a 3-dimensional being the radius increases, but this cannot be perceived by the flatlander. I do appreciate the language difficulty.

Cat :)
The x, y and z axes present remain in the 3 dimension or at the edge (Universe of our existence)
 
I did not understand your question! maybe translation error? when I said mass / energy = mass or energy!
Always in the article the universe is in terms of energy, I don't use the concept of force. Energy or work = force x distance or Newton x meter or mass x acceleration x distance = Joule! But I only use Energy and consider its conservation! And in a static universe, the only energy is a potential because there is no motion! I did not understand your question, why you want to contextualize the force! Explain better!
"The article shows and compares the extreme instants of the evolution of the Universe! Static instants with concentrated energy / mass in an extensive dimension!"

This is a quote from your post #18.

Unit of energy is Joule with dimensions kg(m^2) / (sec^2) so energy/mass has (m^2) / (sec^2)

Cat :)
 
"The article shows and compares the extreme instants of the evolution of the Universe! Static instants with concentrated energy / mass in an extensive dimension!"

This is a quote from your post #18.

Unit of energy is Joule with dimensions kg(m^2) / (sec^2) so energy/mass has (m^2) / (sec^2)

Cat :)
I don't use Energy / Mass, when I wrote: Energy / Mass was meaning: Energy or Mass!
 
As I said in post #32:
"The article shows and compares the extreme instants of the evolution of the Universe! Static instants with concentrated energy / mass in an extensive dimension!" Quoting you.

You use these terms mass and energy and I am trying to see if they mean the same to you as they do to me. The only way to do this scientifically is by dimensional analysis. So energy has the dimensions force of one newton moving an object one meter (J = N · m). or kg(m^2)/(s^2).
Divide this my mass (your energy / mass ) and you get (m^2)/(s^2) which is length squared divided by seconds squared whch can also be stated length times acceleration.

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
OK I understand, but you can see that Energy / Mass also means energy divided by mass?

Cat :)
Ok! It was a translation error! I don't speak English and in my country we sometimes use "/" to define "or" or also in the sense of "division" ! what I send is being translated by google! If you read the submitted article in its entirety, you will notice that it doesn't have: Energy divided by mass!
 
Ok! It was a translation error! I don't speak English and in my country we sometimes use "/" to define "or" or also in the sense of "division" ! what I send is being translated by google!
Yes, same here / can be used as alternative. Sorry. As scientust I assumed mathematical interpretation. Are you Greek? Anyway your English is really good. I would not try to hold this discussion in French or German, both of which I thought I spoke quite well. Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
Yes, same here / can be used as alternative. Sorry. As scientust I assumed mathematical interpretation. Are you Greek? Anyway your English is really good. I would not try to hold this discussion in French or German, both of which I thought I spoke quite well. Cat :)
I am a descendant of Greek! And my English is partial! I'm sending it through google translator, but I understand what is being translated! The article to be published had to have an external review of English! But the messages sent are now translated by the google translator and by a small review of mine! for this reason interpretation errors may appear in some messages!
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
I am a descendant of Greek! And my English is partial! I'm sending it through google translator, but I understand what is being translated! The article to be published had to have an external review of English! But the messages sent are now translated by the google translator and by a small review of mine! for this reason interpretation errors may appear in some messages!
What is your first language?
 
Jun 1, 2020
987
692
1,260
Basically, it is impossible for big bang to have a cause, because, theoretically speaking, time, space and matter all started to exist from big bang. And by the law of causality, the cause of an effect always comes before the effect. Therefore, if big bang is the effect, then the cause is before the big bang, and as there is nothing before the big bang, it is impossible for big bang to have a cause. Therefore, logically speaking, as there is no reason for big bang, and therefore, there is no reason for anything. Now, I know I am delving into Philosophy here and getting distracted from Pure Science, but that is what logic leads me to. I am happy for any feedback,
Remember that BBT was founded upon the expansion rate we have discovered today, then it rewinds the clock back to as far as physics can take it. So there is point in time where the BBT stops and metaphysics and philosophy take over. The causal action that took the universe to the moment in time when BBT begins is completely unknown and there is no hypotheses that offers any suggestion since a scientific hypothesis requires a way to test any claim and prediction.

By limiting BBT to the point where we lose objective evidence, then we remove any causal requirement understanding, at least for science.
 
[QUOTE = "Helio, postagem: 536285, membro: 1111136"]
Lembre-se de que o BBT foi baseado na taxa de expansão que descobrimos hoje, então ele retrocede o relógio até onde a física pode levá-lo. Portanto, há um ponto no tempo em que a BBT pára e a metafísica e a filosofia assumem o controle. A ação causal que levou o universo ao momento em que o BBT começa é completamente desconhecida e não há nenhuma hipótese que ofereça qualquer sugestão, uma vez que uma hipótese científica requer uma maneira de testar qualquer afirmação e previsão.

Limitando a BBT ao ponto em que perdemos a evidência objetiva, removemos qualquer entendimento de requisito causal, pelo menos para a ciência.
[/CITAR]
The Big Bang really reports the evolution of the Universe since the beginning of the expansion! Relativity does not allow us to go any further! But you are considering that Physics is made only of relativity! You are disregarding fundamental concepts of Physics! which is where relativity does not reach or reaches but fails at the same time that it becomes unnecessary (in a static universe and that despite being concentrated to the maximum in one dimension, it is dispersed in this dimension and not in a single point but for this extensive Please read the article more carefully! In static states and without energy concentrated in one point relativity is unnecessary! Necessary becomes basic concepts such as: energy conservation, momentum, centrifugation, etc. Content that does not require relativity and explains why using relativity itself and quantum physics (E = mx c²) cannot be refuted by relativity or quantum physics!
You cannot be manipulated by the usual ideas and methods! have to give chance for new ideas so that science can evolve!
I don't just have new arguments for the universe! I have others who depend on this who clarify many things! But I can't disclose it because I don't have space yet, if it artigle isn't accepted! You have no idea what you're missing!
Imagine if Einstein published today that time is relative? Do you think it would be easy to publish? Who would accept that? Only after a long time did he divulge his ideas! because normally people tend to preserve old ideas and despise new ones! In the case of the article, I am not denying either relativity or the Bigbang theory (I aprove ), I just deny the possibility of using it at possible times, unnecessarily!
 
The Big Bang really reports the evolution of the Universe since the beginning of the expansion! Relativity does not allow us to go any further! But you are considering that Physics is made only of relativity! You are disregarding fundamental concepts of Physics! which is where relativity does not reach or reaches but fails at the same time that it becomes unnecessary (in a static universe and that despite being concentrated to the maximum in one dimension, it is dispersed in this dimension and not in a single point but for this extensive Please read the article more carefully! In static states and without energy concentrated in one point relativity is unnecessary! Necessary becomes basic concepts such as: energy conservation, momentum, centrifugation, etc. Content that does not require relativity and explains why using relativity itself and quantum physics (E = mx c²) cannot be refuted by relativity or quantum physics!
You cannot be manipulated by the usual ideas and methods! have to give chance for new ideas so that science can evolve!
I don't just have new arguments for the universe! I have others who depend on this who clarify many things! But I can't disclose it because I don't have space yet, if this artigle isn't accepted! You have no idea what you're missing!
Imagine if Einstein published today that time is relative? Do you think it would be easy to publish? Who would accept that? Today you saying that relativity is metaphysical ? Only after a long time did he divulge his ideas! because normally people tend to preserve old ideas and despise new ones! In the case of the article, I am not denying either relativity or the Bigbang theory (I aprove ), I just deny the possibility of using it at possible times, unnecessarily!
 
Last edited:
Aug 14, 2020
167
37
110
Basically, it is impossible for big bang to have a cause, because, theoretically speaking, time, space and matter all started to exist from big bang. And by the law of causality, the cause of an effect always comes before the effect. Therefore, if big bang is the effect, then the cause is before the big bang, and as there is nothing before the big bang, it is impossible for big bang to have a cause. Therefore, logically speaking, as there is no reason for big bang, and therefore, there is no reason for anything. Now, I know I am delving into Philosophy here and getting distracted from Pure Science, but that is what logic leads me to. I am happy for any feedback,
"Basically", it is a scientific -- and a mathematical -- fact that the Big Bang can have a cause. It is a physical impossibility to observe the infinite (the antonym of finite), but never-the-less the existence of the infinite will have influence and consequences (will have 'presence'), as finite physics' facts and potential of the infinite, regarding this finite side (and these finite sides (this infinite self-mirrors to infinity -- it cancels but does not cease to exist)), the only finite side(s) of the infinite (Stephen Hawking: The particle has six faces; six individualized dimensions; therefore is in fact six individualized particles; but never-the-less is exactly one particle).

That "presence" is a single-sided 2-dimensionally flat frame entity of entities, a severally dimensioned (multi-dimensional) collapsed horizon, aka ['Big Bang' / 'Planck' / 'c' / '?'}, the infinite Universe (U) the [Big Crunch / Big Hole binary (0 and/or 1) 'naked singularity'] of Vortex effectively (relatively), but not at all really, closed up to it on its non-local, non-relative, non-existent, side, so to speak (I, for one, would not care to call it any kind of one dimensionality, though that point -- blackhole and/or wormhole -- is one property of 'binary' 3-dimensionality (binary "and/or" is in fact, at the very least, three dimensions)).

The cause of Big Bang, reduced to its simplest dimensional representation, is the never changing, never to be changed, difference (and thus [horizon's] ultimate boundarylessness) between "finite" and "infinite," each being a form of nemesis regarding the other -- though neither can exist without the other. It is just a matter of "what, where, when, and how." You can argue theory all you want , but this difference, and the physical manifestation in whatever "difference," is very "basic" reality. The Big Bang+ is manifestation of a difference, the biggest difference of all (between infinite and finite). And it is very useful dimensionality since "finite" is, obviously, finite. A problem solved by infinities of finites (conversions to and from infinities of point infinitesimals, the infinite of the point infinitesimal. Infinite does not explode to finite, it mirrors to finite(s). And, as I said, "finite" is, obviously, finite (change). A finite universe is a demolition derby heading into disappearance from beginning to end, generation to generation, plane to plane, past>future (+) always paralleling, always correlative with, future>past (-), and the two correlative with '0' (0-point).

The Big Crunch (Big Hole) / Big Hole (Big Crunch) Vortex is the infinite. There is no other side to infinite. And as far as "finite" is concerned, the collapsed horizon of "infinite" is single-sided (only ONE-sided!) 2-dimensional 'flat' frame physical entity, a white hole as opposed to black hole, so to speak. A black hole is also a single-sided (only ONE-sided) 2-dimensional "flat' frame physical entity. Two single-sided 2-dimensional 'flat' frame doors of universe (u), one marked "Entrance Only". The other marked "Exit Only."
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE = "Helio, postagem: 536285, membro: 1111136"]
Lembre-se de que o BBT foi baseado na taxa de expansão que descobrimos hoje, então ele retrocede o relógio até onde a física pode levá-lo. Portanto, há um ponto no tempo em que a BBT pára e a metafísica e a filosofia assumem o controle. A ação causal que levou o universo ao momento em que o BBT começa é completamente desconhecida e não há nenhuma hipótese que ofereça qualquer sugestão, uma vez que uma hipótese científica requer uma maneira de testar qualquer afirmação e previsão.

Limitando a BBT ao ponto em que perdemos a evidência objetiva, removemos qualquer entendimento de requisito causal, pelo menos para a ciência.
[/CITAR]
The Big Bang really reports the evolution of the Universe since the beginning of the expansion! Relativity does not allow us to go any further! But you are considering that Physics is made only of relativity! You are disregarding fundamental concepts of Physics! which is where relativity does not reach or reaches but fails at the same time that it becomes unnecessary (in a static universe and that despite being concentrated to the maximum in one dimension, it is dispersed in this dimension and not in a single point but for this extensive Please read the article more carefully! In static states and without energy concentrated in one point relativity is unnecessary! Necessary becomes basic concepts such as: energy conservation, momentum, centrifugation, etc. Content that does not require relativity and explains why using relativity itself and quantum physics (E = mx c²) cannot be refuted by relativity or quantum physics!
You cannot be manipulated by the usual ideas and methods! have to give chance for new ideas so that science can evolve!
I don't just have new arguments for the universe! I have others who depend on this who clarify many things! But I can't disclose it because I don't have space yet, if it artigle isn't accepted! You have no idea what you're missing!
Imagine if Einstein published today that time is relative? Do you think it would be easy toI have publish? Who would accept that? Only after a long time did he divulge his ideas! because normally people tend to preserve old ideas and despise new ones! In the case of the article, I am not denying either relativity or the Bigbang theory (I aprove ), I just deny the possibility of using it at possible times, unnecessarily!
I have sent some suggestions starting with Introduction as conversation, as it is too long for the public forum. Best wishes, Cat :)
 
Jun 1, 2020
987
692
1,260
The Big Bang really reports the evolution of the Universe since the beginning of the expansion! Relativity does not allow us to go any further!
QM is far more restrictive than GR in those first nanoseconds.

But you are considering that Physics is made only of relativity! You are disregarding fundamental concepts of Physics! which is where relativity does not reach or reaches but fails at the same time that it becomes unnecessary (in a static universe and that despite being concentrated to the maximum in one dimension, it is dispersed in this dimension and not in a single point but for this extensive.
No, GR was proposed as a powerful but general model to address the Static Universe, which was the popular model in the early 1900s. It was Lemaitre, and a few others, that recognized that GR fails to support a Static model.

To suggest GR is the problem for the early nanoseconds in BBT discourages my interest in any lengthy ATM suppositions.

You cannot be manipulated by the usual ideas and methods! have to give chance for new ideas so that science can evolve!
Perhaps if you could present some short and simple nuggets to help give us stepping stones to your model, then you may find more participation. There are many, many ATM ideas out there that deserve little to no attention.

But, be sure to demonstrate objective evidence for any non-mainstream claim. "Word salads" are far too common and far too worthless, most often.

Imagine if Einstein published today that time is relative? Do you think it would be easy to publish?
Well, with his clout, he'd have no problem. But he had no clout when he published his SR theory. But it was published because he offered a solution to the objective evidence found in the Michelson-Morley experiment regarding the aether and light.

I am not denying either relativity or the Bigbang theory (I aprove ), I just deny the possibility of using it at possible times, unnecessarily!
I'm unclear what you mean by "possible times". If you mean at t=0, then yes, there is no scientific theory for this.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY