Is eeryone happy with the Big Bang? I'm not.

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by astrocat, Nov 19, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    infinite.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    I will probably be corrected by someone who knows better..


    I think the picture you have in your head is that of the lines of force created by gravitational objects in a space time map..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    yes? no?

    without any gravity to affect the trajectory of the particles,the only effects would be from the particles themselves(spin?,collisions,minimal gravitational effects)..after they spread out enough to be unaffected by other particles there should be a straight line trajectory..

    i think current microwave background science assumes this..they tell of CMBR being a map of the big bang
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ULTRA Realistically Surreal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,555
    I like the pic, but obviously it's very simplistic, you need to try and create a 3D model of it in your head. Not so easy! But it does show the basic principle..no?

    (Was it kieth?) said gravity's influence was infinite, but wave dynamics would suggest otherwise, I stand to be corrected.

    I'm not sure why the voids are there. It only really matters that they have been found. Whether gravity permeates them will be an interesting experiment, but not in my lifetime!

    The question that i find most puzzling is how did the BB attain enough power for the superluminal expansion phase, and what happened to the shockwave..?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    isn't that related to cosmic microwave background radiation?
     
  8. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    General Relativity involves (at minimum) a 4 dimensional spacetime universe, and all 4 of those dimensions are "curved". You can write down equations to describe it, but you can't draw that properly in a picture, and GR doesn't contain any "lines of force". What you can do is draw the trajectories you'd expect a cannonball or laser beam to take when you shoot it in various directions from some given starting point.

    There's no "shockwave" from the Big Bang as far as I know, it's not like some jumbo stack of dynamite that went off and shot all the galaxies out in different directions. The Big Bang is not a concept you can understand in terms of analogies to anything you've learned before, it's purely a mathematical result. There is Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, but that was created about 400 000 years after the Big Bang, although it gives very useful info on what the early universe looked like.
     
  9. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    Expand please..
     
  10. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Until about 400,000 years after the initial expansion the universe was too hot for electrons and protons to bind, and so the universe was filled with free electrons. Photons were constantly abosrbed and re-emitted, never able travel without encountering electrons. When the universe cooled to where electrons bound to protons, space suddenly became transparent to the photons. The CMB are those photons which have been traveling since then.
     
  11. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    so the CMBR is those first free photons? (light particles?)
    how/why 400,000 years?

    Oh..found this link..hawkings time line.
    it says 300,000...but whats 100,000 between friends...
     
  12. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Actually, 300,000 years is the figure I've always seen for the recombination, which is what it's called, even though it wasn't a RE-combination.
     
  13. Brian Foley REFUSE - RESIST Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,624
    I'd love to have someone try to explain the mechanism behind this expansion.

    If black holes, which are only part of this universe, exert such a strong gravitational field that even light can't escape, how do they explain how the entire mass of the whole universe could be contained within this minute point, and not be trapped forever in it by its own gravitational pull.

    How did it escape itself? What kind of and amount of force was necessary to overcome that kind of gravitational attraction?
     
  14. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    It didn't escape itself. It fills all of space and works to slow the expansion.

    There's a difference between space expanding, and something expanding WITHIN space.
     
  15. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    recombination time is thought to have occurred 380 000 years after the big bang.
     
  16. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Planck/SEM1R20YUFF_0.html
     
  17. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    There's that word again. This is the first time ions combined, so there's no REcombination.

    I know, that's what it's called....:shrug:
     
  18. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    i wonder at that term too.
     
  19. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
  20. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    I am not happy with Big Bang cosmology. I liked the Steady State (aka Continuous Creation) cosmology which was a contender for a while.

    Alas, the evidence does not support my favorite theory.
     
  21. M00se1989 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    508
    true. REcombination of a universe requires that controlled "resources" are put to "work" and "alignment" to be "observable". More or less what is going to happen to the sky during the galactic alignment. It only makes the universe more observable. Maybe we should make a miniture representation just for the celebration. :scratchin:
     
  22. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Do you post nonsense knowing it's nonsense, or do you hope that by some outside chance it means something?
     
  23. jmpet Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,891
    Re: expansion: there was too much matter occupying too little a space for space to flow. Expansion was the universe's way of spacing out these particles.

    R: the title of this thread. To paraphrase Sagan, the universe exists independant of your summation and observation... science does not define the universe- the universe exists independant of your opinion.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page