I personaly belive that the big bang is true, but i am curous as to weather it is absolutely proven (as far as science goes) or is it still a widely suported therory, if its a theory then what are other theories that are scientificaly suported. Same question for the big crunch.

Well, it's hard to prove something that no one was around to witness. Afterall, the Big Bang theory makes assumptions about the past, but doesn't really predict anything...making it hard to test.

 

Fortunately we can assume that the laws of physics governming today's world were the same at the begining. That simplifies things. Also, the conservation of matter should help too, somewhere along the way.

Well, it's hard to prove something that no one was around to witness. Afterall, the Big Bang theory makes assumptions about the past, but doesn't really predict anything...making it hard to test.

it predicts a lot of things that have been confirmed. Certain models pertaining to the nature of it are not "proven" but we're pretty certain the bang itself is real.

There are problems though. The observed universe is too large for all the slow quarks to get to all the places where we observe them in only 13.7 billion years. Is there any real way for this to happen?

 

The faith of the BBT depends on future measurements of the CMBR, QCD and also condensed matter physics and statistical thermodynamics.

I thought the biggest problem was how all matter managed to escape from gravity in the early beginning.

 

The Universe was so compact, it should have collapsed from the force of gravity and formed a Black Hole.

I thought the biggest problem was how all matter managed to escape from gravity in the early beginning.

 

The Universe was so compact' date=' it should have collapsed from the force of gravity and formed a Black Hole.[/quote']

 

That's also a problem. Sometimes i wonder whether we trully understand the real nature of gravity.

 

The current explanation is that the universe passed through a phase of exponential expansion (the inflationary epoch) that was driven by a negative pressure vacuum energy density. The question is: Where does all this energy come from?

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0410/0410270.pdf

Somehow that also raises the question: If given enough energy is it possible to pull a Black Hole apart ?

I personally believe that something must exists outside of the Big Bang "Baloon" model

It has some basis in reality of how the universe works,but a lot of it is theoretical speculation,trying to find the answers to things they can't possible know.Not yet anyway

I personally believe that something must exists outside of the Big Bang "Baloon" model

Then what about the inside of the balloon ?

so yes the big bang has been proven but the details have not? what is the evvidence that it did happen?

Then what about the inside of the balloon ?

 

That's what i'm saying.The Big Bang only suggests what is happening inside of the "Balloon" enclosure.Not what my exist outside of it.

Maybe I have strayed from the original question as to whether the Big bang being true.I understand it is,with all the scientific observational facts that have been put forward

so yes the big bang has been proven but the details have not? what is the evvidence that it did happen?

Read the evidence part: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

 

That's what i'm saying.The Big Bang only suggests what is happening inside of the "Balloon" enclosure.Not what my exist outside of it.

No, according to Big Bang theory our dimensions are on the surface of the balloon, not inside.

 

So inside is as undefined as the outside.

possibly the universe at the beggining was compact then the bang started and it was pulled outwards by dark matter surrounding it the pulling force of dark matter i believe is supposedly stronger than gravity so once the expansion got started dark matters pull pulled the universe to where it is today there are probably things wrong with this theory feel free to correct me

AFIAK the discovery of the CMBR was the most decisive evidence for the big bang theory. I believe that future measurements of the CMBR anisotropies will show whether the big bang is correct or not.

 

When will NASA release the 2nd year data? Could the CMBR be the cause of gravity (maybe vacuum polarization)?

Maybe gravity is the ultimate strongest force that we know of; but I wonder if there are forces that are indeed stronger & maybe faster?..It seems to me the gravity inside a black hole has the strongest capability, but maybe I'm incorrect who knows?........ Anyone?...us.2u

Maybe gravity is the ultimate strongest force that we know of; but I wonder if there are forces that are indeed stronger & maybe faster?..It seems to me the gravity inside a black hole has the strongest capability, but maybe I'm incorrect who knows?........ Anyone?...us.2u

 

Yes i also think it has something to do with the hydrogen atoms. There should be an interaction.

Have you any idea how this interaction of hydrogen atoms I prsume that's what you mean? deploys it's-self? This sounds really interesting Blackhole looking forward to your reply...us.2u

Maybe gravity is the ultimate strongest force that we know of; but I wonder if there are forces that are indeed stronger & maybe faster?..It seems to me the gravity inside a black hole has the strongest capability, but maybe I'm incorrect who knows?........ Anyone?...us.2u

 

Ironically gravity is the weakest force that we know of. The other three forces, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force, are all much much stronger than gravity.

 

However, the strength of these forces changes with energy/distance and it is postulates (but unproven) that gravity will become strong on very short distance scales or at very high energy.

Gravity is not necessarily weak. In fact, it can be very strong. The physical mechanism for gravity is still not known but i think it is related to the CMBR.

 

Comparing gravity to the other forces can be misleading because the other three are short-range quantum mechanical forces (particle interactions to be more accurate).

ok, look at G and compare it to K.

Gravity is not necessarily weak. In fact' date=' it can be very strong. The physical mechanism for gravity is still not known but i think it is related to the CMBR.

 

Comparing gravity to the other forces can be misleading because the other three are short-range quantum mechanical forces (particle interactions to be more accurate).[/quote']

 

I am currently working on a theory which relates gravity to magnetism.

 

Regards

I am currently working on a theory which relates gravity to magnetism.

 

Regards

 

I think gravity is an interaction of matter with the CMBR' date=' the electromagnetic fields of the quantum vacuum.

 

Btw take a look at this.

 

Best regards

im very intrested in whatever theory you come up with.. could you pleese email me at <address removed> your findings/ ideas.

I think gravity is an interaction of matter with the CMBR' date=' the electromagnetic fields of the quantum vacuum.

 

Btw take a look at this.

 

Best regards

 

Nice quotes there by Dr Einstein.

 

... interaction of matter with the cosmic microwave background radiation... the electromagnetic fields of the quantum vacuum.

 

i.e. the photons right?

 

Quantum electrodynamics by Feynman?

 

Sort of not disagreeing with me actually.

 

The sun has an enormous magnetic field associated with it.

 

Toroidal in shape.

 

The "magnetic field lines" run through the ecliptic plane.

 

So we already know the shape of the B-field.

 

So, in your own words, what is the B-field composed of?

 

There aren't real magical lines running through space.

 

You have E-fields, and B-fields in your model, but otherwise I don't see much difference.

The sun has an enormous magnetic field associated with it.

 

 

It does? Do you have a citation for this?