The dark lord Posted July 13, 2003 Share Posted July 13, 2003 If there was no time before the big bang occur, how did it start? Could the enormus energy of matter broke trough time, hmm... this doesnt sound to logical to me?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 13, 2003 Share Posted July 13, 2003 For all we know it might've been God messing around with some fireworks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrFoxington Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Ask yourself this one, if the universe was empty except for the massive energy cluster that was the source of the big bang, how did that mass come to be in the first place? Why was it the only thing? Anyway.. after the bang it seperated itself into what we have today. To think.. my atoms rubbed up against the atoms of some star 1,000,000,000,000,000 lightyears away!! Makes me tingle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kettle Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Originally posted by MrFoxington To think.. my atoms rubbed up against the atoms of some star 1,000,000,000,000,000 lightyears away!! Makes me tingle! Heh - here's another one for you. Apparently (according to Bill Bryson), we each have 1 billion atoms in us that once belonged to Shakespeare or Genghis Khan or even both (but not Elvis - he hasn't been dead long enough for all his atoms to sufficiently "dissipate"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clown Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 You only get that problem if you insist on starting with state before the big bang in the first place. Often though, the claim is that there is no before or prior state at all, meaning no cause needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star-struck Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 What do we know of explosions? We know that when an explosion occurs there is an intense outward force which throws everything away from the source of the explosion. This creates a vacuous expanse in the vacinity of the source of the explosion. Once the outward force expands out as far as it can based on the force of the explosion, it collapses back towards the source of the explosion having been drawn in by the vacuum. So, we know that the Universe is expanding. Eventually, the Universe will reach the limit of expansion based on the force of the original explosion. Space is a vacuum. The Universe will contract in on itself back to the source of the original explosion. All this matter, anti-matter, and energy contracting and compacting in on itself will cause another explosion. Another "Big Bang". This could keep happening like a perpetual yo-yo going up and down. Due to our perception of time we look at it as happening over billions and billions of years. In reality it could all be happening in nano-seconds. Just thinking out loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clown Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 The big bang wasn't an explosion into empty space. The term big bang is not the best, and is misleading. A better to think of it is that the space itself starts to expand, not matter moving into some pre existing static void. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star-struck Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 That is conjecture. What proof can you offer that the big bang wasn't an explosion? The definition of "explosion" is:"a large-scale, rapid, or spectacular expansion or bursting out or forth." I think we can classify the big bang as an explosion albeit not today's standard definition of the word. Most people associate an "explosion" with a combustible. Not necessarily true. If I overfill a balloon with water it will explode. Anyways, based on your theory what houses space in which it can expand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clown Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 No, it's not conjecture. The expanding universe model is predicted by general relativity. The big bang is based on GR, and when you run back the clock on the universe you find a much smaller volume of space. The expanding universe does not need to embedded in any larger space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star-struck Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Oh yeah, you are right...because one theory is "predicted" by another theory. And the theory it is "predicted" by, relativity, doesn't lose a little face every time there is another breakthrough in quantum mechanics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Originally posted by Star-struck Oh yeah, you are right...because one theory is predicted by another theory. And the theory it is predicted by, relativity, doesn't lose a little face every time there is another breakthrough in quantum mechanics. Personally, I go for General Relativity over the Standard Model. It's much nicer in every respect, and has an enormous amount of evidence for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clown Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 There's also really no quantum theory of spacetime, so the classic model of the expanding universe is all we have to explain the data. As of now, the big bang is purely a classic theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star-struck Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 So what if the theories that are the bedrock of what we think we know turn out to be all wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Originally posted by Star-struck So what if the theories that are the bedrock of what we think we know turn out to be all wrong? They probably are. In fact, it's impossible to prove they're not. We adapt and move on, with refined mathematics and a better metaphysical framework. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clown Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 In the case of the expanding universe, we'd need a new model that can explain the evidence as well as GR can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Which would be why GR is still accepted then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star-struck Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 I appreciate that honesty! Too many people seem to think to rigidly when it comes to things that are all based on as of yet unprovable theories. Seems to me that the greatest breakthroughs often come when someone dispatches with "traditional" thinking and goes outside the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 There's no of yet about it; it is impossible to prove empirically derived theories. However, that doesn't stop there being an absolutely immense amount of evidence for it, and it's almost certain that any theory that displaces it will have almost identical predictions across the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clown Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Very true. Whenever a sucessful theory is replaced by something better, the new theory is usually an improvement on the old. It's never a case of throwing away the old completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duster Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 If time did not exist till after the moment of the big bang, then in some streach of theory, during the future contraction of the universe, time must again seize to be. So, in the moment that the contraction of the universe is complete, time would stop until the next bang, so would happen immediatly or never happened again. Never happened again? yes. If you throw a rock into a small puddle, the water may be thrown out far enough that it never runs back to the puddle. It is the spacific gravity of individual atoms that attracts them to become a sun, or to be drawn together during contraction. Then, it may be thrown out from the big-bang far enough to no longer be reacted upon by the spacific gravity of the majority of the mass in the universe. If the big bang happened because of the culmination of the total mass of the universe into a single point, any loss of this matter would cause the bang not to happen. Or, would it be possible that the amount of mass in the singularity just prior to the big bang IS the defining charecterisic of the universal constants and that there is truely a diffrent cause for the big bang? Meaning, with less mass, it might still happen, but happen diffrently, causing the next universe to be created using and containg diffrent rules. Perhaps, one atom less in the singularity would cause gravity to act diffrently or stars to burn with diffrent colors, by light to not move at it's constant speed. Maybe E=Mc2 would be E-Mc1.999, all would be diffrent. All we would need to do is invent interdimensional travel, or prove the Super-string Theory to find out for sure. There is a line of though on the interconectivity of all things. If this is true, then of course my theories are impossible, but thats what theories are for. These are thought I have carried with me for quite a while now. If anyone knows something to the contrary, please let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star-struck Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Following is the definition of empirical: Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal Function: adjective Date: 1569 1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data> 2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory 3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws> 4 : of or relating to empiricism How then can it be impossible to prove empirical theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star-struck Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 At any rate, the universe is expanding. Will it reach a certain point where it can' t expand any more and be pulled back to the center? Or...maybe when it reaches that point the center itself will tear and begin to expand itself so that the universe is shaped like a ring. Maybe then it will tear into two separate universes. Who knows! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Originally posted by Star-struck How then can it be impossible to prove empirical theory? Prove to me that gravity exists using only axioms and formal logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Originally posted by Star-struck At any rate, the universe is expanding. Will it reach a certain point where it can' t expand any more and be pulled back to the center? Or...maybe when it reaches that point the center itself will tear and begin to expand itself so that the universe is shaped like a ring. Maybe then it will tear into two separate universes. Who knows! Under current models, it will expand forever. Don't ask me to justify it. If you want that, go investigate the mathematics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duster Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 My Earth Science teacher in High Sholl had a theory on that. He said that as the universe ages, it could form a ring as you described. That at that point the whole idea of time and distance would change. You would be able to leve Earth in a craft, travel in a streight line, and exentually end up back at Earth. Interesting idea to entertain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now