NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a few questions about this so-called "big bang" theory. I'd greatly appreciate anybody who could give me a straight answer.

1) Over the years, the size of the matter that exploded has shrank in the text book from many times the size of the sun, to literally nothing. Can you honestly say with a straight face, "Billions of years ago, nothing exploded"?

2) If it wasn't nothing that exploded, where did the matter come form that did explode?

3) According to this theory, before it exploded, it started spinning. Where did the force come from to start this motion?

4) According to this theory, before it exploded, it also began heating up. Where did the energy come from to produce this type of reaction?

5) When nothing finally did explode, the laws of physics requires that the matter be evenly distributed do to the frictionless environment. However, we can clearly see that this is not the case. How can this be explained?

6) According to the law of angular momentum, all of the objects in space would have to be spinning the same direction that the original object was spinning (the one that exploded billions of years ago). However, we can clearly see planets within our own solar system spinning backwards. We can also see entire galaxies spinning backwards. How can this be explained?

...If I think of anything else, I'll let ya know.

I have a few questions about this so-called "big bang" theory. I'd greatly appreciate anybody who could give me a straight answer.

1) Over the years, the size of the matter that exploded has shrank in the text book from many times the size of the sun, to literally nothing. Can you honestly say with a straight face, "Billions of years ago, nothing exploded"?

2) If it wasn't nothing that exploded, where did the matter come form that did explode?

3) According to this theory, before it exploded, it started spinning. Where did the force come from to start this motion?

4) According to this theory, before it exploded, it also began heating up. Where did the energy come from to produce this type of reaction?

5) When nothing finally did explode, the laws of physics requires that the matter be evenly distributed do to the frictionless environment. However, we can clearly see that this is not the case. How can this be explained?

6) According to the law of angular momentum, all of the objects in space would have to be spinning the same direction that the original object was spinning (the one that exploded billions of years ago). However, we can clearly see planets within our own solar system spinning backwards. We can also see entire galaxies spinning backwards. How can this be explained?

...If I think of anything else, I'll let ya know.

Does having a big magical entity go 'Poof!' and create the entire universe seem more realistic to you? Can you say THAT with a straight face?

I believe in both God AND the Big Bang Theory, so I say "God did it"

1) Over the years, the size of the matter that exploded has shrank in the text book from many times the size of the sun, to literally nothing. Can you honestly say with a straight face, "Billions of years ago, nothing exploded"?

Whether I can say that is irrelevant. The Big Bang does not state that "nothing exploded". If you're going to criticise a theory, criticise the real theory, not a version you made up yourself.

2) If it wasn't nothing that exploded, where did the matter come form that did explode?

What do you mean where did it come from? The universe has always had matter in it - that is the theory. Just the matter begame more spread out over time.

3) According to this theory, before it exploded, it started spinning. Where did the force come from to start this motion?

I've never heard that. Ask a real physicist, not a bunch of NationStates players.

4) According to this theory, before it exploded, it also began heating up. Where did the energy come from to produce this type of reaction?

The energy didn't "come from" anywhere. It was there since the beginning.

5) When nothing finally did explode, the laws of physics requires that the matter be evenly distributed do to the frictionless environment. However, we can clearly see that this is not the case. How can this be explained?

I've never heard of that law, but the reason the universe's matter is clumped together is gravity.

6) According to the law of angular momentum, all of the objects in space would have to be spinning the same direction that the original object was spinning (the one that exploded billions of years ago). However, we can clearly see planets within our own solar system spinning backwards. We can also see entire galaxies spinning backwards. How can this be explained?

I don't know enough about physics to answer that, but it's probably gravity again.

------------------------

OK, let's hear your theory. Since you think the "big-bang" sucks so much, you obviously have something better. Tell us.

I believe in both God AND the Big Bang Theory, so I say "God did it"

So God exploded and created the universe.... :p

The Straight Dope debunks several of these statements (no, they're not questions) here (http://www.skeptictank.org/cscrew1.htm).

In short: According to the Big Bang theory, the universe exploded into being from a singularity. The Big Bang exploded everything outwards, including space itself. There was no previous spin so there is no reason everything should be spinning in the same direction. Furthermore, some planets are spinning in different directions because they collided with other objects. All in all, it's a faulty premise and doesn't take into account anything that happened after the Big Bang.

I have a few questions about this so-called "big bang" theory. I'd greatly appreciate anybody who could give me a straight answer.

1) Over the years, the size of the matter that exploded has shrank in the text book from many times the size of the sun, to literally nothing.

I really have to ask... what textbooks are you referring to that used to say that a ball of matter the size of the sun "exploded" in the Big Bang?

2) If it wasn't nothing that exploded, where did the matter come form that did explode?

The Big Bang wasn't an explosion at all. It was a space-time expansion. The "explosion" part is an analogy.

3) According to this theory, before it exploded, it started spinning.

Not according to any formulation of the Big Bang theory I've ever heard... and I'm getting a sinking feeling that you've been exposed to good old dr. dino himself, Kent Hovind, and his rather unique imaginary world of what science is.

4) According to this theory, before it exploded, it also began heating up.

Not according to any formulation of the Big Bang theory I've ever heard... again.

I highly suggest you read some real science books on the topic, which you apparently have not done yet.

I have a few questions about this so-called "big bang" theory. I'd greatly appreciate anybody who could give me a straight answer.

1) Over the years, the size of the matter that exploded has shrank in the text book from many times the size of the sun, to literally nothing. Can you honestly say with a straight face, "Billions of years ago, nothing exploded"?

2) If it wasn't nothing that exploded, where did the matter come form that did explode?

3) According to this theory, before it exploded, it started spinning. Where did the force come from to start this motion?

4) According to this theory, before it exploded, it also began heating up. Where did the energy come from to produce this type of reaction?

5) When nothing finally did explode, the laws of physics requires that the matter be evenly distributed do to the frictionless environment. However, we can clearly see that this is not the case. How can this be explained?

6) According to the law of angular momentum, all of the objects in space would have to be spinning the same direction that the original object was spinning (the one that exploded billions of years ago). However, we can clearly see planets within our own solar system spinning backwards. We can also see entire galaxies spinning backwards. How can this be explained?

...If I think of anything else, I'll let ya know.


ok im gonna try this thing....

let me start with the big bang theory.... for about 40 years there has been substantial evidence of such an occurrence. Using radiotelescoped, we can now see the radio-wave "imprintation" of a gigantic explosion. Though the telescopes we also see two other things.. that the imprintations favor one direction, and that the universe is constantly expanding.

the expansion-collapse theory states the the universe is in a perpetual state of either expansion or collapse. HEre what that means.... the [b]proven fact[/]b that the universe is expanding also means that eventually, teh universe will have to much of an area and mass to "hold itself up". similar to when a very large star turns into a black hole... the star dies and the mass of the star makes it "freefall" in the vacuum of space... similar to this, the universe, when it reaches the critical point, will start to collapse in on itself...

with common knowledge of chemistry or physics, you know that as the universe collapses, density increases. the universe, for billions of years will collapse into the smallest possible form (which is probably no bigger than a baseball for example). Once it reaches the smallest point possible, the great amount of stored energy (also heat), and density wont be able to take the pressure. The universe will then explode with tremendous force, releasing all the stored energy and particles -remember matter cannot be created or destroyed..and with einsteins theory of relativity E=mcsquared.. we know that theoretically, energy can be used to form mass moving @ the speed of light squared (however weve never seen this happen because we cannot witness a big bang)

for your #5 i think... happens to be that we do live in a frictionless environment... if youre talking about the vaccum of space.... which is exactly where the big bang took place.

for your number 6 (law of angular momentum) ... that law does not take into account the disturbance from the original explosion.. ie: the millions of galaxies and solar systems that also contain their own gravity.. messing with the spinning of the universe. The universe may in fact be spinning in one direction.. and all teh galaxies inside are doing their own thing... all i can prove to you is that it is expanding.

this is one of the straightest answers i can give.. let me know if i missed anything or if u have other questions...

I don't know much about this. But here's my $.02 worth (with some questions of mine added in):

So the universe started out as one atom, right? Then it expanded to create this vast thing that really has no end, right? So what I think is that something bad happens to that atom, I don't know maybe neutron falls off and the magnetic balance shifts. So maybe there're more protons than electrons, and they start pushing the rest of the atom outward. Maybe this is were the heat comes from, but of course if this is a frictionless environment probably not. So the stress of the electrons trying to push the positive force of the protons back inward (or vice-versa, whichever) causing another bad thing (no idea) and poof! The universe, there ya go.

My understanding of physics is kinda screwy so I'm probably flat zero wrong.
:rolleyes:

I have a few questions about this so-called "big bang" theory. I'd greatly appreciate anybody who could give me a straight answer.

Ok... NP.


1) Over the years, the size of the matter that exploded has shrank in the text book from many times the size of the sun, to literally nothing. Can you honestly say with a straight face, "Billions of years ago, nothing exploded"?

Nothing has "shrunk". Nor is it "small" in any way you could think of. The "expansion" is 4 dimentional, space and time... All points in the universe are moving away from one another... literally, not just the objects... but "space-time" itself is expanding.


2) If it wasn't nothing that exploded, where did the matter come form that did explode?

We'll get to that once we manage to connect Gravitational, Thermodynamic and Quantum theories together.


3) According to this theory, before it exploded, it started spinning. Where did the force come from to start this motion?

The "universal force" which would be best expalined as a combination of the strong atomic force and the weak gravitational force... Which would have acted the same (somehow, Universal Theory needed) at that time...


4) According to this theory, before it exploded, it also began heating up. Where did the energy come from to produce this type of reaction?

The "energy" didn't come from anywhere, it was already there, the "energy" was a product of expansion.


5) When nothing finally did explode, the laws of physics requires that the matter be evenly distributed do to the frictionless environment. However, we can clearly see that this is not the case. How can this be explained?

We're taling 4D expansion here.... space-time itself, not merely "matter moving away from one another"... There was no "frictionless enviroment".


6) According to the law of angular momentum, all of the objects in space would have to be spinning the same direction that the original object was spinning (the one that exploded billions of years ago). However, we can clearly see planets within our own solar system spinning backwards. We can also see entire galaxies spinning backwards. How can this be explained?

Ignoring other factors.... Gravitational tidal forces, and galactic impacts effect motion is space. Venus is retrograde because of the impact of tidal forces by Sol and the other planets.... The moon's spin has been almost halted by tidal forces from the earth.


...If I think of anything else, I'll let ya know.

Oh, please do...

I have a few questions about this so-called "big bang" theory. I'd greatly appreciate anybody who could give me a straight answer.

1) Over the years, the size of the matter that exploded has shrank in the text book from many times the size of the sun, to literally nothing. Can you honestly say with a straight face, "Billions of years ago, nothing exploded"?

2) If it wasn't nothing that exploded, where did the matter come form that did explode?

3) According to this theory, before it exploded, it started spinning. Where did the force come from to start this motion?

4) According to this theory, before it exploded, it also began heating up. Where did the energy come from to produce this type of reaction?

5) When nothing finally did explode, the laws of physics requires that the matter be evenly distributed do to the frictionless environment. However, we can clearly see that this is not the case. How can this be explained?

6) According to the law of angular momentum, all of the objects in space would have to be spinning the same direction that the original object was spinning (the one that exploded billions of years ago). However, we can clearly see planets within our own solar system spinning backwards. We can also see entire galaxies spinning backwards. How can this be explained?

...If I think of anything else, I'll let ya know.
1. Not really... exploded is not really the proper term. More like expanded. Think a baloon inflating instead of a grenade going off. And it was really a singluarity that did the expanding, not really nothing...

2. This question doesn't really make sense.

3. There are a number of hypotheses as to what occured before the big bang, technically in our sense of spacetime, there was no before the big bang, as this was the moment that our spacetime was formed, so we cannot see outside our own spacetime, or further back in time than before the big bang. Thus, no theories can exist, just hypotheses. At any rate, there is the multiverse theory, in which the singularity that formed our universe was formed in a process similar to star formation, just much larger. There is the vacuum fluctuation hypothesis, in which singularities spontaneously form in an extreme vacuum, and it could spin, sure...

4. It was already hot, it couldn't heat up. You are talking about an entire universe worth of photons here crammed into a tiny space. High energy photons tend to be pretty fucking hot.

5. Why would it be a frictionless environment? The photons and later, matter particles interact and slow each other down and redirect the flow. Often, they get slowed down and end up more concentrated in one area, as a result, the gravity of the higher density area attracts more particles.

6. For one thing, the only planet in our solar system that spins backwards is Venus. This is likely a result of a collision with a very large meteor/planetssimal. Similarly, Neptune's moon, Triton (I always get that one mixes up with one of Saturn's moons, so feel free to correct me) moves in a retrograde motion because it was likely captured from another source rather than formed with Neptune. Many meteors and comets and various space junk pieces move backwards due to interactions with the more massive planets in our solar system, which give them pushes in the opposite direction and often well out of the plane of the solar system.
Simlar things happen to galaxies. I also don't think you have demonstrated too much knowledge of mechanics with this question. Yes, the overall angular momentum must be conserved, but this does not mean that every body must have the same angular momentum... furthermore in star formation, much of the angluar momentum is thrown out of the system entirely in jets.

Now, next time, will you try to learn some more about a theory before offering a critique? Although this is a more intelligent approach than most.

My understanding of physics is kinda screwy so I'm probably flat zero wrong.
:rolleyes:

Well... yes. But at least you recognize it, and that's a good thing.

Here, try this:

Cosmology 101: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

Hmm... I'm noticing a distinct absense of a better theory than "the big bang" on this thread. What a surprise... (not).

damn and I thought the 'big bang' was the great sex you had at the weekend ;)

I don't know much about this. But here's my $.02 worth (with some questions of mine added in):

So the universe started out as one atom, right? ...So the stress of the electrons trying to push the positive force of the protons back inward (or vice-versa, whichever) causing another bad thing (no idea) and poof! The universe, there ya go.

My understanding of physics is kinda screwy so I'm probably flat zero wrong.
:rolleyes:

sorry, one atom of anything could not physically do what u said... many atoms maybe (such as a few atoms of anti-matter and matter colliding, causing a tremendous explosion).. but atoms tend to exist at the most stable form. if not, they try really hard (and succeed) to get to the most stable form, and therefore, cannot create a universe... sorry its just how it is.

damn and I thought the 'big bang' was the great sex you had at the weekend ;)

well of course it has multiple meanings :D

Hmm... I'm noticing a distinct absense of a better theory than "the big bang" on this thread. What a surprise... (not).


And what is that supposed to mean?

sorry, one atom of anything could not physically do what u said... many atoms maybe (such as a few atoms of anti-matter and matter colliding, causing a tremendous explosion).. but atoms tend to exist at the most stable form. if not, they try really hard (and succeed) to get to the most stable form, and therefore, cannot create a universe... sorry its just how it is.


If it wasn't an atom, what was it?

If it wasn't an atom, what was it?

i think the word is a singularity...

Hmm... I'm noticing a distinct absense of a better theory than "the big bang" on this thread. What a surprise... (not).
Meh, some steady state guys make some points. They don't really get past the renewal of energy though, when you bring that up, they usually claim that it's unknown becuase there isn't enough time/energy/money devoted to the theory.

i think the word is a singularity...

Nah, that's a black hole.

If it wasn't an atom, what was it?


not a singular atom ... it is more feesible if its a cluster of unstable atoms and photons (which are the quantum jumps of electrons in their orbitals--read into chemistry for that one).. read what i wrote before (the big page-long thing) im sure something similar is in there.

Meh, some steady state guys make some points. They don't really get past the renewal of energy though, when you bring that up, they usually claim that it's unknown becuase there isn't enough time/energy/money devoted to the theory.


So tell me, what do stars make?

So tell me, what do stars make?


stars dont create energy... tehy just transform it during fission (though the elements being fissioned may be different on different stars in the universe)
from stored energy to heat and light.


_remember... conserevation of energy (it cannot be created or destroyed... only converted)

stars dont create energy... tehy just transform it during the hyrdogen (though the element may be different on different stars in the universe) fusion

Hydrogen burning first, and then it goes down the elements, through Helium etc. If the star is massive enough it gets all the way to iron, which is the most stable atom we know. Then it tends to go bang, rather spectaculaly.

stars dont create energy... tehy just transform it during the hyrdogen (though the element may be different on different stars in the universe) fusion
from stored energy to heat and light.


_remember... conserevation of energy (it cannot be created or destroyed... only converted)

Like I said, my knowledge of physics is rather screwy. That might just be because I'm Oklahoman.

But no really, I knew I was wrong in that statement. I just couldn't resist making a smart-elec remark.

So tell me, what do stars make?
Well, stars form lighter elements into heavier elements. They are responsable for every element heavier than hydrogen existing in any abundance.

Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. They can only be compressed into an amazingly small space. Such a space would have an enormous gravity well, helping to keep the matter in place. This can be seen in the singularity of a black hole.
So, in the beginning, God created the cosmeg (cosmic egg) and the cosmeg was without form. then God threw in a firecracker...

Hydrogen burning first, and then it goes down the elements, through Helium etc. If the star is massive enough it gets all the way to iron, which is the most stable atom we know. Then it tends to go bang, rather spectaculaly.

I'd like to see one of those. :D :rolleyes:

I believe in both God AND the Big Bang Theory, so I say "God did it"
Hmm.
I suppose that solves it all.

Hmm.
I suppose that solves it all.


You wish...

Hydrogen burning first, and then it goes down the elements, through Helium etc. If the star is massive enough it gets all the way to iron, which is the most stable atom we know. Then it tends to go bang, rather spectaculaly.
It's not that iron is more stable, it's just that past that point it costs more energy to fuse an atom than you get out of the fusion process, so the star can't do it. Well, to some extent, extra portons get jammed in there, but not a lot.

A quickl resume about what we know:

The current theory of the big bang states that ~15Gyr (That’s 15000 million years for the layman), quantum fluctuations ‘caused’ the big bang. The theory actually states that these fluctuations were the big bang. A quantum fluctuation is a theorised effect of quantum physics whereby even empty space has the potential for energy (and due to special relativity matter) to be created out of nothing. In fact nothing exploded because there was nothing for it to explode into. These quantum fluctuations actually created space itself- in the words of one scientist (who it was has escaped me at the present) “The big bang was the radical causation of space-time”. It is illogical to talk of before the big bang because time was also created in the process of the universe coming about, and in any case our definitions of time stem from the observations of events, ‘before’ the big bang there were no events so we have no way of defining a time interval. It was literally nothing which created the universe. At this point the believer (such as myself) would call upon God to explain the fluctuations, however some physicists postulate that these effects could be spontaneous with no need to call upon some supreme deity. I suspect, though I would have to do some reading to confirm this, that the notion of a spinning universe was rejected as illogical, since because the universe encompasses everything, there is no frame of reference for which it to spin with respect to, it defines its own reference frame and so is stationary with respect to this reference frame. Since there was before the universe did not need to heat up, and the energy released in the quantum fluctuations would have been provided enough heat, so again no energy is required ‘before’ the big bang. The Laws of physics say nothing about the distribution of matter being evenly distributed, since the quantum fluctuations need not (and probably were not) evenly distributed there is no need for an even distribution of matter. These ‘lumps’ in the matter of the universe caused the gravitational collapse of the matter (once it was formed by pair creation where the energy turned into pairs of particles and anti-particles (the fact it didn’t all annihilate back into energy is one of the biggest mysteries in astrophysics and cosmology)) seeding the galaxies that we see today and the rest of the large scale structure. The spinning of the matter only occurred due to gravitational interactions between the clumps of matter so there is no universal direction for spinning to occur in. The objects that you point to as spinning backwards, especially in our solar system are either captured bodies or in the case of Venus un-explained. On a more personal note I must ask where you have obtained your version of the big bang theory from?

I'd like to see one of those.

:rolleyes: Close up that may not be such a good idea, though there are pics out there of one that happened in 1987, which was seen from earth.

I'd like to see one of those. :D :rolleyes:
There was a supernova that light up a distant galaxy a while back. If you lived in the southern hemisphere, it would have appeared to be a new star. Really, it's just the spectacular death of a single star lighting up an entire galaxy.

It's not that iron is more stable, it's just that past that point it costs more energy to fuse an atom than you get out of the fusion process, so the star can't do it. Well, to some extent, extra portons get jammed in there, but not a lot.

Apologies, you are quite correct, I've been doing far to much nuclear physics recently and everything is getting mixed up :p

There was a supernova that light up a distant galaxy a while back. If you lived in the southern hemisphere, it would have appeared to be a new star. Really, it's just the spectacular death of a single star lighting up an entire galaxy.

You guys are so lucky, you were alive when it happened.

I'd like to see those pictures, anybody got a link to the website?

You guys are so lucky, you were alive when it happened.

Yes, I was two, I remeber so much of it... :p
Just do a search and there will be many mnay pictures out there, 1987A I belive it is called.
Oh, and one other thing, in the previous post I posted it was stated At this point the believer (such as myself) would call upon God to explain the fluctuations. This is in fact not my opinion, but the opinion of mr friend, who wrote it. I could not give you a better reason why is happend though, in fact I went to a lecture on how people have many competing theorys on it but a week ago.

Yes, I was two, I remeber so much of it... :p


At least you were alive. :(

Through one of the most basic laws of physics, something had to cause the big bang. i believe that it was caused by god. god would have survived the big bang because he is inherently a higher-dimensional being, and would be beyond the rapid expansion of the four basic dimensions, prior to which there was a total of eleven dimensions. :eek:

Note: the eleven dimensions cited above are one of the byproducts of string theory. :D

Through one of the most basic laws of physics, something had to cause the big bang. i believe that it was caused by god. god would have survived the big bang because he is inherently a higher-dimensional being, and would be beyond the rapid expansion of the four basic dimensions, prior to which there was a total of eleven dimensions. :eek:

Note: the eleven dimensions cited above are one of the byproducts of string theory. :D


(in preacher-like voice)

Oh no, that can't be true. The bible doesn't say anything about god living in some eleventh dimension. So your satement can't possibly be true. Read the bible! :D

Hmm... I'm noticing a distinct absense of a better theory than "the big bang" on this thread. What a surprise... (not).

Well If you want Another theory there this:

E=MC^2, Energy = Mass X Speed of light squared
M=E/C^2, Mass = Energy Divided by the Speed of Light squared

Meaning Mass is energy slowed down (E/C^2) Light is only really fast particles called photons, though most kinds of energys we think of today are the movement of matter particles (Electricity, Sound, Light is just particles moving around that are dectectable to your eyes) There are theorys of energys such as Quantums and that Theres a force behind our creaton, but I personally think thats wishful thinking and that A universal cycle of expanding and collapsing adds up better,

The moral of this story dont let theorys and theology prevent you from living life :D

I don't recall the bible mentioning nukes either. :headbang:

I don't recall the bible mentioning nukes either. :headbang:


So?

I personally think thats wishful thinking and that A universal cycle of expanding and collapsing adds up better,

Just wondering how that tallied with the current inability for the universe to collapse due to not actually having enough matter in it and it's continued accelerating expansion?

Why is it that evolution and belief in a god are as incompatible as Republicans and Democrats? :rolleyes:

Better yet, what does this have to do with NationStates? :rolleyes:

Why is it that evolution and belief in a god are as incompatible as Republicans and Democrats? :rolleyes:


(in preacher-like voice)

Because my son/daughter, the bible says nothing of god creating monkeys and then evolving into humans. Humans started with adam and eve, no monkeys. And Democrats are just evil evil people. :rolleyes:

:D

Through one of the most basic laws of physics, something had to cause the big bang.:D


You forget that the laws as we know them now did not exist until the Universe had been created. If there is another Universe beyond our own, the laws of physics there could be radically different from what we accept from birth as what should happen. Time, just as space (being the fourth tangible dimension) did not exist, so the Big Bang happened in 'no time' and given that there was no space, the 'primordial atom' responsible for the Big Bang existed 'no where'. It's not something that really makes sense, but the theory that the Universe was always here doesn't work either because of Universal expansion. I suppose a belief that a supreme being caused the Big Bang is as acceptable as anything else, but where did that being come from and where did it-he-she exist before the Universe came into existance?

Better yet, what does this have to do with NationStates? :rolleyes:
This is NS general, nothing is anything to do with NationStates

Just wondering how that tallied with the current inability for the universe to collapse due to not actually having enough matter in it and it's continued accelerating expansion?

Steinhardt's new cyclic model might be worth a look in that department.

http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/

A cyclic model does allow for energy to condense and reexpand, but there has to be an external source of energy to cause reexpansion, like a BEC, unless the laws of physics are destroyed and recreated during each iteration of the Universe

Take an intro-level Astronomy course at any credible post-secondary educational institution. All of your questions are pretty basic contradictions to fundamental, established aspects of astronomical theory that first-year students should be able to grasp quite easily.

Take an intro-level Astronomy course at any credible post-secondary educational institution. All of your questions are pretty basic contradictions to fundamental, established aspects of astronomical theory that first-year students should be able to grasp quite easily.

Actually, even doctors of Cosmology have still to grasp a lot of the concepts of the subject. If it was so fundamental, why is it still studied in earnest by universities across the world?

The problem people have with the big bang theory is an inability to imagine much beyond the 4 dimensional world we live in. It's not surprising considering our brains evolved from ones primarily designed to work out what to eat and what to run away from.

I think one of the greatest misconceptions of our time is that the universe we live in only has 4 dimensions. I personally can conceive of, and mathematically prove the existence of at least 3 more.

I'm personally a believer of the 'pulsation' theory. As in, the universe is timeless, but it expands and contracts repeatedly over time. I'm sure it has a better name than that, but I just can't remember what it is. It doesn't matter, anway. Our race is trying to understand forces it can't possibly imagine, so these 'theories' will never be definitively confirmed one way or the other. That includes religious ones, by the way.

stars dont create energy... tehy just transform it during fission (though the elements being fissioned may be different on different stars in the universe)
from stored energy to heat and light.


_remember... conserevation of energy (it cannot be created or destroyed... only converted)

Fusion, not fission.

I know people have tried to answer this but i have not read the entire thread so someone may have said something similar...or i just may be talking crap.

There is something called 'Dark Energy' in space, that is what is acting against gravity. Gravitational forces of the Stars are trying to keep the planets close to them and the 'Dark Energy' is trying to push them away.

So it could be that at the creation of the universe these two forces may not have been equal as they are now.


I am sorry if that was totally wrong, but i am trying to remember something i heard on the national Geographic channels 'Space Day'. I some times have a poor memory so this may have gotten changed by me.

I'm personally a believer of the 'pulsation' theory. As in, the universe is timeless, but it expands and contracts repeatedly over time. I'm sure it has a better name than that, but I just can't remember what it is. It doesn't matter, anway. Our race is trying to understand forces it can't possibly imagine, so these 'theories' will never be definitively confirmed one way or the other. That includes religious ones, by the way.


There is evidence that the Universe is constantly expanding. By using a dopple meter (is that correct?) you get a image of the light that is reflecting off of certain planets (which ever you are aimed at) and scientists have found that light takes longer to reach earth than maybe it did the year before. (Trying on the same Planet)


I am aware this may not have made much sense.

I think one of the greatest misconceptions of our time is that the universe we live in only has 4 dimensions. I personally can conceive of, and mathematically prove the existence of at least 3 more.


If you go by Stargate SG-1's logic it has 10 dimensions.

There is evidence that the Universe is constantly expanding. By using a dopple meter (is that correct?) you get a image of the light that is reflecting off of certain planets (which ever you are aimed at) and scientists have found that light takes longer to reach earth than maybe it did the year before. (Trying on the same Planet)


I am aware this may not have made much sense.

Sort of, the light from distant galaxies is red shifted, implying they are moving away.

Red shifted!!!! thats the one.

Thanks!

I knew it was something like that just didn't want to make myself look a fool by saying something ridiculous.

I was lead to believe that the universe before it's expansion was a point smaller than an atom but with infinite mass. So it wasn't nothing. Nothing is ever nothing.
Also the fact that all galaxies in our universe are moving away from each other, outward, and the fact the the outermost galaxies are moving much faster, this information gained from the the fact the outermost galaxies are the most 'red-shifted' on the spectrometer (the doppler effect), doesn't that all seem like an explosion, i.e. a 'Big Bang'?
Well that's my stance anyway. And I think its in most educational syllabi I've read.

I think one of the greatest misconceptions of our time is that the universe we live in only has 4 dimensions. I personally can conceive of, and mathematically prove the existence of at least 3 more.

I've gotten to 9.

I was lead to believe that the universe before it's expansion was a point smaller than an atom but with infinite mass. So it wasn't nothing.
Also the fact that all galaxies in our universe are moving away from each other, outward, and the fact the the outermost galaxies are moving much faster, this information gained from the the fact the outermost galaxies are the most 'red-shifted' on the spectrometer (the doppler effect), doesn't that all seem like an explosion, i.e. a 'Big Bang'?
Well that's my stance anyway. And I think its in most educational syllabi I've read.


As they are moving outwards it does seem like it is the effect of an explosion. And we can't see the stars as they are now, we are loooking into their past so we may be witnessing the effects of the blast from thousands of years ago.


Just curious, how do you guys find these dimensions?

As they are moving outwards it does seem like it is the effect of an explosion. And we can't see the stars as they are now, we are loooking into their past so we may be witnessing the effects of the blast from thousands of years ago.


Just curious, how do you guys find these dimensions?

Dimensions are definations of anything that exists, based on their characteristics. Unlike the 1960s comics in which multiple dimensions were actually multiple universes.

Dimensions 1 - 3 are known as the point, line, and coordinate, or point, shape, and object.

4d is time. Hold a pen. Now, put the pen down. Those are two different pens because their time indexes have changed. I could go on, but it only gets trickier.

If you go by Stargate SG-1's logic it has 10 dimensions.

But Daniel Jackson, the Goa'uld have enslaved the Jaffa with their larvae! We cannot trust one! Ha'shak! Mid'cha!

I'll let you guys work this stuff out...although i think i get what you mean.
do you mean that the two pens are a past pen and a future pen? or am i just talking crazy talk?

But Daniel Jackson, the Goa'uld are enslaved the Jaffa with their larvae! We cannot trust one!


Ahh we have a fan of the greatest show on EARTH!!!!!!!!!!


Did you ever get the feeling that they were constantly trying to kill Daniel off? then realised he was a great character so kept bringing him back?

Ahh we have a fan of the greatest show on EARTH!!!!!!!!!!


Did you ever get the feeling that they were constantly trying to kill Daniel off? then realised he was a great character so kept bringing him back?

Yes, actually, I did.

They did good though, because they covered the possibility of his return by making him 'ascend' or whatever. And also I always get Dainel Jackson and Jack Daniels mixed up, as if Daniel Jackson is constantly drunk!

O'Neill is coolness though. A badass. And not an opinionated badass actually delivering a thinly veiled 'Anti Anti-American' message. Which is quite rare for most American shows.

Doesn't string theory postulate at least 10 and as many as 26 different dimensions?

I'll let you guys work this stuff out...although i think i get what you mean.
do you mean that the two pens are a past pen and a future pen? or am i just talking crazy talk?

exactly. But to clarify, the past pen and future pen do not exist, because only the present time exists. Thus every other universe where that pen still exists is immediately destroyed since the pen no longer exists. this is how time moves forward... like a dot moving on the screen is the recreation and deletion of a pixel upon a path.... same thing, basically. The universe in which I did not say this paragraph no longer exists, since I did say this paragraph. This rule somewhat describes the 8th dimension, 5, 6 and 7 ill post about when you ask the next step :P

Yes, actually, I did.

They did good though, because they covered the possibility of his return by making him 'ascend' or whatever. And also I always get Dainel Jackson and Jack Daniels mixed up, as if Daniel Jackson is constantly drunk!

O'Neill is coolness though. A badass. And not an opinionated badass actually delivering a thinly veiled 'Anti Anti-American' message. Which is quite rare for most American shows.


Can't say i do the same.

O'Niell is my favourite...pity he is not in Off-World missions anymore.

exactly. But to clarify, the past pen and future pen do not exist, because only the present time exists. Thus every other universe where that pen still exists is immediately destroyed since the pen no longer exists. this is how time moves forward... like a dot moving on the screen is the recreation and deletion of a pixel upon a path.... same thing, basically. The universe in which I did not say this paragraph no longer exists, since I did say this paragraph. This rule somewhat describes the 8th dimension, 5, 6 and 7 ill post about when you ask the next step :P

Ok, i'm with you.
All exists for its own brief period in time and then is recreated only to be destroyed and recreated.
Is this actually fact or your theory?

Through one of the most basic laws of physics, something had to cause the big bang.
The laws of physics state that casuality does not apply to singularities.

Ok, i'm with you.
All exists for its own brief period in time and then is recreated only to be destroyed and recreated.
Is this actually fact or your theory?

Its partially both... I extrapolated several theories based on evolution, the bing bang, quantum physics, religion and other less scientific beliefs and compiled them. Suprisingly, it didn't fall apart although a frankenstein of fact and fantasy is what it created.

5th Dimesion - Direct Effect on Another Object: Press your hand against a door. Because the door is preventing your hand from entering it's space, it exists.

6) According to the law of angular momentum, all of the objects in space would have to be spinning the same direction that the original object was spinning (the one that exploded billions of years ago). However, we can clearly see planets within our own solar system spinning backwards. We can also see entire galaxies spinning backwards. How can this be explained?
Things may spin, while individual things within the bigger thing may spin by themselves.

Like, if you put a small tub of water on a magnet and cork in a bigger tub of water, but a normal cork in the small tub, and chase the small tub around in circles with another magnet, the normal cork can move around however brownian motion takes it.

So the universe started out as one atom, right? A singularity, the theory says, not a single atom.

Its partially both... I extrapolated several theories based on evolution, the bing bang, quantum physics, religion and other less scientific beliefs and compiled them. Suprisingly, it didn't fall apart although a frankenstein of fact and fantasy is what it created.

5th Dimesion - Direct Effect on Another Object: Press your hand against a door. Because the door is preventing your hand from entering it's space, it exists.

You are basically stating that each thing exists.

Do you take a philosophy (sp?) class?

So tell me, what do stars make? Uh... Helium?

It's not that iron is more stable, it's just that past that point it costs more energy to fuse an atom than you get out of the fusion process, so the star can't do it. Well, to some extent, extra portons get jammed in there, but not a lot. Well, some star must have fused iron into heavier elements, else we wouldn’t have gold or silver...

Take an intro-level Astronomy course at any credible post-secondary educational institution. All of your questions are pretty basic contradictions to fundamental, established aspects of astronomical theory that first-year students should be able to grasp quite easily. I’m doing GCSE. It’s really simple.

Fusion, not fission.
Fusion: Fusing the nuclei together to form a heavier element.
Fission: Radioactive decay.

There is something called 'Dark Energy' in space, that is what is acting against gravity. Gravitational forces of the Stars are trying to keep the planets close to them and the 'Dark Energy' is trying to push them away. Na, it’s the motion of the planets that keeps them away - Energy remains constant, and as there is no friction in space then it has to be divided up into KE and GPE. GPE acts on them to pull them toward the star, and KE works to push them past the star. As they are in balance, the planet orbits the star.

There is evidence that the Universe is constantly expanding. By using a dopple meter (is that correct?) you get a image of the light that is reflecting off of certain planets (which ever you are aimed at) and scientists have found that light takes longer to reach earth than maybe it did the year before. (Trying on the same Planet) Not quite. The effect that is the proof is the ‘Doppler effect’, which is the light version of the sound a motorbike makes as is speeds towards or away from you. The light coming from planets or stars is shifted to the red end of the spectrum - the wavelength is lengthened as the object moves away.

Doesn't string theory postulate at least 10 and as many as 26 different dimensions? I think that it also supports the Multiverse theory (this is the DC comics one) - there are different laws of physics for each universe.

Ok, i'm with you.
All exists for its own brief period in time and then is recreated only to be destroyed and recreated.
Is this actually fact or your theory Terry Pratchet!!!

Dark Energy does the opposite of GPE and works against it.

It was on this Space Show. it was said by some planet hunter.

Just wondering how that tallied with the current inability for the universe to collapse due to not actually having enough matter in it and it's continued accelerating expansion?


when the universe expands to certain point, it wont matter how much matter (lol) is in it... the weight of whatever matter in it will be too heavy for the now-too-large universe to support.. hence, the universe the collapses in on itself until the point of compression, where once again a 'big bang' occurs and it explodes outwards again...

the expansion-collapse theory of unvieral origins states that we may just be the product of one big bang out of a possibility of an infinite amount before the one that ( i guess you can say) 'recently' occurred.

Well thats obvious. The Universe is far to vast to have been created by just one Big Bang.

The Prime Minisiter of The Free Land Of Erikizy states, '' The Big Bang is what killed dinosaurs'', end of quote... (''god our prime minister sucks'' sattes civilian)

I have a few questions about this so-called "big bang" theory. I'd greatly appreciate anybody who could give me a straight answer.

1) Over the years, the size of the matter that exploded has shrank in the text book from many times the size of the sun, to literally nothing. Can you honestly say with a straight face, "Billions of years ago, nothing exploded"?

<snip>


what i got from your post,(as a person who can't possibly answer the scientific questions better than they have already been answered) is that what you wonder is

"why doesnt this make more sense and why does the freaking story keep changing?"

its science, not religion.

the story changes as experiments are run, as astronoimical data is gathered, as big thinkers devise new equations. there is no "final answer" and there wont be one in your lifetime.

things we take for granted right now will turn out to have been utterly wrong. new concepts that you and i cant begin to grasp will be created to explain the results of scientific discoveries. some will stand the test of time, some will be disproven in a few years.

this is what science DOES.

5th Dimesion - Direct Effect on Another Object: Press your hand against a door. Because the door is preventing your hand from entering it's space, it exists.
That's called "electromagnitism." Very strong. The door is mostly "empty" space, as is your hand.

Well, some star must have fused iron into heavier elements, else we wouldn’t have gold or silver...
The big bang produced elements as heavy as Lithium. But after the quark gloun plasma froze out into a more familiar, but very hot, plasma, it was almost all Hydrogen.

Stars during their life form elements as heavy as Iron, by "burning" Silicon at around 2 billion kelvin. During their deaths they distripute much of their matter including these elements into the surrounding enviroments while forming beautiful nebula. In these energetic supernova, heavier nuclei can be formed. Interestingly, why these elements form in the quantities they do (which suggests a weakness in our theories) is one of the things spurring investigation of those numerous odd little neutrinos.

The Prime Minisiter of The Free Land Of Erikizy states, '' The Big Bang is what killed dinosaurs'', end of quote... (''god our prime minister sucks'' sattes civilian)

WOW i hope ur were just kidding right there!... proof of an asteriod hitting the Ucatan peninsula, and the seismic shock in the blast radius, and the clouds of dust and ash that were expelled in the explosion, which in most regions blocked off the sun, killing the plants, therefore ruining any ecosystem (since the sun is the basis for all like on earth).. and killed the dinosaurs

One of the keys to understanding how the Big Bang works is by realizing another instance in nature that is very similar to the celestrial setting. According to Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation, objects on smaller scales will move in the same patterns due to gravity that objects on the largest of scales will. If one can figure out the motions necessary to create a big bang, then maybe through emulating those motions in say, molecules can we be able to proper analyze the big bang.

I have a few questions about this so-called "big bang" theory. I'd greatly appreciate anybody who could give me a straight answer.

1) Over the years, the size of the matter that exploded has shrank in the text book from many times the size of the sun, to literally nothing. Can you honestly say with a straight face, "Billions of years ago, nothing exploded"?

you're view of the big bang is completely wrong. the point that the matter came out of was infinitsmal, not nothing, very big difference.

2) If it wasn't nothing that exploded, where did the matter come form that did explode?

it came from the collision of 2 Ms that formed a new one. and it wasn't nothing that exploded.

3) According to this theory, before it exploded, it started spinning. Where did the force come from to start this motion?

it didn't have to be spinning, it's only one version of the theory, can you tell me which version you read and supply a link to it? i'm interested in reading new theories of it, though i still prefer the 11-dimensional M-theory. and also, according to quantum physics, when something spins, there must be something spinning in an opposite direction somewhere else(don't know too much about the quantum theory, so i'm probably wronge about that, but i know that happends atleast with electrons)

4) According to this theory, before it exploded, it also began heating up. Where did the energy come from to produce this type of reaction?

it was already heated due to the compression, and the energy already existed. the infinitsmal point may have existed for only a fraction of tiem before it exploded, a few seconds before it exploded it could have been a universe collapsing, that is, if it isn't just a new M in the 11th dimension.

5) When nothing finally did explode, the laws of physics requires that the matter be evenly distributed do to the frictionless environment. However, we can clearly see that this is not the case. How can this be explained?

all of the particles, when they stopped moving where atracted to other ones due to gravity, but because they were equally spread they would have had the same force in all directions. this can be easily answered by the quantum theory again, cause in the quantum theory, very tiny particals randomly appear and dissapear in space. if these were spread out different parts of that equally spread explosion would be attracted to one side more than the other causing them to move towards eachother and you understand by that. also, it wasn't frictionless, as the explosion had multiple parts. and friction isn't the only force that can act to produce that effect.

6) According to the law of angular momentum, all of the objects in space would have to be spinning the same direction that the original object was spinning (the one that exploded billions of years ago). However, we can clearly see planets within our own solar system spinning backwards. We can also see entire galaxies spinning backwards. How can this be explained?

a few things, spinning is only relative to something else, as is everything, so the entire universe might be rotating around the point that the big bang happened at but we can't tell cause it's all moving at one time. different pieces within the entire universe don't matter as they started spinning after the big bang. and also, again, in quantum physics when one thing spins there must be something spinning in the opposite direction.

You are basically stating that each thing exists.

Do you take a philosophy (sp?) class?

Nope, though I'm accused of it all the time :p

(edit: and yes, you spelled it correctly)

Na, it’s the motion of the planets that keeps them away - Energy remains constant, and as there is no friction in space then it has to be divided up into KE and GPE. GPE acts on them to pull them toward the star, and KE works to push them past the star. As they are in balance, the planet orbits the star.
The expansion of the universe isn't noticable on scales as small as a solar system (though it is happening) because it's the space itself that's expanding, the more space between objects, the faster they seem to be moving away.

You guys are so lucky, you were alive when it happened.

I'd like to see those pictures, anybody got a link to the website?
1987. I was 4. And living in the northern hemisphere... I didn't see it, I actually only heard about it while in class disussing how a spike in neutrino detection preceeds the appearance of a supernova by something like 9 hours.

I have a few questions about this so-called "big bang" theory. I'd greatly appreciate anybody who could give me a straight answer.

1) Over the years, the size of the matter that exploded has shrank in the text book from many times the size of the sun, to literally nothing. Can you honestly say with a straight face, "Billions of years ago, nothing exploded"?

2) If it wasn't nothing that exploded, where did the matter come form that did explode?

3) According to this theory, before it exploded, it started spinning. Where did the force come from to start this motion?

4) According to this theory, before it exploded, it also began heating up. Where did the energy come from to produce this type of reaction?

5) When nothing finally did explode, the laws of physics requires that the matter be evenly distributed do to the frictionless environment. However, we can clearly see that this is not the case. How can this be explained?

6) According to the law of angular momentum, all of the objects in space would have to be spinning the same direction that the original object was spinning (the one that exploded billions of years ago). However, we can clearly see planets within our own solar system spinning backwards. We can also see entire galaxies spinning backwards. How can this be explained?

...If I think of anything else, I'll let ya know.
1. The question is incorrectly framed and thus cannot be answered. ( see more information below )

2. There was no "matter" to explode. Energy and matter are interchangeable ( see little-known theories like Einstein's E=mc-squared ). The energy of the singularity generated the matter.

3. From the same place the energy of the singularity came from, probably the interaction of the membrane of our universe with a membrane ( or several membranes ) of other universes.

4. From the same place the energy of the singularity came from.

5. Ever hear of Brownian motion and gravity ... you know ... things move around and attract each other?

6. See number 5, above. Also continuing interaction between matter on a universal scale.

Science doesn't have all the answers ... yet ... but it's still far, far ahead of any other epistemological system humankind has yet devised.