Is big bang proven to be solid true?

[kaneda]

So either you are crap at creating metaphors, or you are crap at understanding physics. Either way there seems to be a common theme.

Looks like you couldn't find anything in the wikipedia about it so it must be wrong. :shrug:

Gravity neutralises energy, so is it's antithesis.

 

[kaneda]

Photons don't have mass. They are not affected by gravity as such, but they follow a straight path in curved space, the space being curved by gravity.
It may seem the same but it's not.

Space is literally nothing. You cannot curve literally nothing.

Photons are affected by gravity. They redshift, even when leaving a small mass like Earth. They lose energy in a gravitational well (as they cannot lose speed).

 

[D H]

The singularity idea just has too many problems with it.

Reference needed, please.

There is not sufficient mass to stop light, or even bend it sufficiently so it just circles the universe.

Reference needed, please.

Gravitational sources are located everywhere and it would need a massive bias to bend all light in such a way that it cannot eventually escape the universe.

Reference needed, please.

Space is literally nothing. It is only defined by what occupies it (gravity, photons, matter, etc.)

So you know the secrets of the universe now?
Reference needed, please.

While this would mean there was an end to the universe, photons escaping from the universe mean that what we call the universe is expanding at light speed at the edges.

Reference needed, please.

Just because you don't like how the universe works does not mean it doesn't work that way, kaneda.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Unless you believe the universe is a completely closed system as in a 4D hypersphere with the universe it's 3D skin.

Actually spheres are the 'skins'. The entire object contained by the 'skin' is a ball. ie The Earth is roughly a 2-ball which is encased by the surface, which is a 2-sphere. The dimension below that version is a circle and a disk, aka a 1-sphere and a 1-ball.

And how many times have you and I been over the topic of the fact there's more than just one (ie the hypersphere) closed, boundary-less 3 dimensional objects?

 

[Billy T]

Actually spheres are the 'skins'. The entire object contained by the 'skin' is a ball. ie The Earth is roughly a 2-ball which is encased by the surface, which is a 2-sphere. The dimension below that version is a circle and a disk, aka a 1-sphere and a 1-ball. ...

I undersand this POV. What about the next lower dimention? Is it correct to call a point both a 0-sphere and a 0-ball? I.e. is there any useful reason to be this general such as some law that you want to apply to ALL n-spheres, including the n=0 case?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

A point isn't a 0-sphere, two points are. A n-sphere of radius R is the n dimensional region which satisfies $$||x||^{2}=R^{2}$$ (usual norm) and so a unit 0-sphere is the set of individual points which satisfy $$||x||^{2} = 1$$. The points x=1 and x=+1 satisfy that and each region is zero dimensional, so a 0-sphere is a pair of points at +/-R. An n-ball is the n dimensional region satisfying $$||x||^{2} \leq R^{2}$$ so a 0-ball is a closed interval [-R,+R].

 

[Billy T]

A point isn't a 0-sphere, two points are. A n-sphere of radius R is the n dimensional region which satisfies $$||x||^{2}=R^{2}$$ (usual norm) and so a unit 0-sphere is the set of individual points which satisfy $$||x||^{2} = 1$$. The points x=1 and x=+1 satisfy that and each region is zero dimensional, so a 0-sphere is a pair of points at +/-R. An n-ball is the n dimensional region satisfying $$||x||^{2} \leq R^{2}$$ so a 0-ball is a closed interval [-R,+R].

Thanks. That is nice. It keeps the ball distinct from the skin sphere, even in the n=0 dimention case.

 

[kaneda]

DH (moderator)

Reference needed to show the singularities can exist.

Reference needed to show that inflation is possible.

Reference needed to show that dark energy exists, etc.

I can play the idiot too.

A singularity would be ultimately stable. To say that something with a density trillions of times that necessary for a black hole can inflate/expand is rubbish. It is a denial of the most basic science.

We believe that we can see the CMB at over 13.5 billion light years away. If the early universe could not stop photons, how is a universe which is believed to have a density of one thousandth of that since it is maybe ten times the diameter going to stop photons?

People talk of the universe maybe expanding forever. If it is doubtful that the universe can stop matter, how will it stop photons?

Look at a large scale map of the known universe.

If space is not nothing, what is it? I await your answer.

If space as in nothing is defined by what occupies it, then since photons move faster than matter, they will have long since left matter behind (and so be free of the gravitational force of the universe unless you believe the universe is encased) so photons occupying nothing (beyond the matter universe) would constitute space.

Just because you don't like how the universe works does not mean it doesn't work that way, kaneda.

Just speculation. Give me proof it is true and that I am wrong.

Note: The wiki will not suffice.

 

[kaneda]

Actually spheres are the 'skins'. The entire object contained by the 'skin' is a ball. ie The Earth is roughly a 2-ball which is encased by the surface, which is a 2-sphere. The dimension below that version is a circle and a disk, aka a 1-sphere and a 1-ball.

And how many times have you and I been over the topic of the fact there's more than just one (ie the hypersphere) closed, boundary-less 3 dimensional objects?

But they would all produce huge scale anomalies in what we see of the universe, like your torus. Where are the pictures of these anomalies?

 

[DRZion]

Just because the universe is expanding does not mean that the big bang necessarily happened. It is a popular model with many merits, but couldn't the universe be undergoing cyclical expansions/contractions?

One argument against this has to do with EM radiation escaping the contractions. If you take the one star that is the furthest out and away from all the other stars, it's EM radiation in a certain solid angle will escape for ever.

And I have another query- what is the 'fabric' that is being stretched with an expanding universe? I know that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light which also corresponds to the red-shift on CBR.. this is a very juicy sentence from which a lot can be learned.

I am actually quite curious about the end of the universe, and I may actually skim over this entire thread as a quick fix of knowledge

 

[DRZion]

Part of the problem. Every time a fault is found, believers say the rest must be true so invent something like DE to explain it away. An overview shows that it is a whole mass of fudges.

This is very true. I personally don't want to believe that the universe will continue expanding faster and faster, and I completely agree with you. DE and DM seem like fantasy concepts such as Einstein's aether .

Space is literally nothing so does not expand. What occupies it can move further apart, soi making space seem larger. Spacetime is a mathematical definition. It is no more realistic that spaceheat to describe infra-red radiation moving through space. Time is merely change and not a dimension. Dr Who is just a fictional TV programme!

Well, you have to consider that the universe expanded faster than light. It is very tricky, and I'm not exactly sure how all this was calculated, but if true, there has to be some kind of explanation. A possibility is that the speed of light may have been greater close to the big bang...

 

[DRZion]

I don't think anything is proven so yes, if you (or anyone else) can find a better theory/ model that also describes the N facts using only P adjustable parameters, where P < M , then many will be inclined to this new theory. I.e. of course "other ideas" should be considered. - Have a go at it, but until the "P theory" is found, we are stuck with the "M theory.

This is a very naive approach to science. If we are trying to play a game of who dunnit, it seems more like art and poetry to me. Why limit it all to a single theory? Why not have different facts for different facets? It is awfully foolish to have an elegant creation theory that 'sounds good'... unless we are trying to explain things so that everyone can understand. This is the only excuse I will take- that the BB is a theory made to explain to laymen how our universe originated.

As an intellectual theory of beginning, the BB is mediocre. It does not explain the beginning in the very least; it merely states HOW it happened, instead of why. It answers no fundamental questions about where the energy came from, or how it was created. For all we know a God must have sparked the Big Bang.

 

[Billy T]

...It does not explain the beginning in the very least; it merely states HOW it happened, instead of why.

That is correct. Physics NEVER pretends to explain "WHY." Physics only tries to tell / model / what is, with NO postulated purpose or why.

...For all we know a God must have sparked the Big Bang.

Yes, we have no (AFAIK) explanation of how the BB came to be, but certainly postulating "god made it." is only for the simple minded as it begs the question:
And where did god come from? Applying the "god made it" logic again, results in God made god.
Then to answer where God came from, we have;
God made God. and then:
God made God, and then:
God made God, etc. for a many iterations as you like to sweep the problem of "first cause" under the rug and forget about it as it cannot be answered.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

A singularity would be ultimately stable. To say that something with a density trillions of times that necessary for a black hole can inflate/expand is rubbish. It is a denial of the most basic science.

Why is it you continue to repeat things you've been told are wrong, with lengthy explainations of why, again and again? Is it the only thing you can come up with to use as ammunition against a model you neither understand nor like? Is it because you need to be told something 20 times before you remember it? Or is it because you're simply dishonest?

But they would all produce huge scale anomalies in what we see of the universe, like your torus. Where are the pictures of these anomalies?

This is yet another thing I've corrected you on. The visible universe is about 14 billion light years in radius. If the universe, overall, is a sphere or torus or anything closed shape like that whose size is larger than that then you'd not see any such anomalies. If the universe were closed, like a sphere, and the radius of the sphere was less than $$\frac{14}{\pi}$$ billion light years then we'd be able to see the same set of galaxies on opposite sides of the sky because the visible universe would be large enough to extend entirely around the universe. If the universe were larger than that the visible universe wouldn't extend all the way around the universe and we wouldn't see the same structures on opposite sides of the sky.

This is a discussion you and I have had before. Strange how you conveniently 'forget', time and again, isn't it? If I were you I'd see a doctor about your memory lapses. Unless, of course, they aren't involuntary.....

 

[DRZion]

We do know about black holes and that a singularity should be ultimately stable. We do know that you cannot pack energy into a small area. We have no excuse for believing in the BB other than ignorance.

I think the point is that there was no matter at the beginning of the big bang, only energy. Only after ~379,000 years did hydrogen nuclei become stable... this is a poor explanation though, because according to relativity energy=matter, so there would still be gravitational effects. However, this energy might still not stick together like matter would.

Supposedly there was a huge burst of energy too, god knows where from.

 

[DRZion]

That is correct. Physics NEVER pretends to explain "WHY." Physics only tries to tell / model / what is, with NO postulated purpose or why. Yes, we have no (AFAIK) explanation of how the BB came to be, but certainly postulating "god made it." is only for the simple minded as it begs the question:
And where did god come from? Applying the "god made it" logic again, results in God made god.
Then to answer where God came from, we have;
God made God. and then:
God made God, and then:
God made God, etc. for a many iterations as you like to sweep the problem of "first cause" under the rug and forget about it as it cannot be answered.

:bugeye:
Okay.
I suppose the allure in 'god made it' is that it is metaphysical, with no explanation required. IE 'Its magic!'

The most appealing theory to me would be one of a closed universe, where all matter and energy remain constant; the universe has no beginning or no end.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Why is it you continue to repeat things you've been told are wrong, with lengthy explainations of why, again and again?

I haven't been paying close attention to this thread, but the activity you describe is a textbook case of trolling, on a science website. Discussions are supposed to move forward, in accordance with the scientific method. If an assertion is challenged in good faith by someone with an adequate understanding of the subject matter--i.e. a peer-reviewer--then the asserter must immediately provide evidence (or additional evidence) to support it. If the challenge is a detailed refutation of the assertion then the asserter must present enough evidence to at least make both sides of the argument reasonable positions, so that others may join in the peer review, examine the evidence, provide or ask for more, and ultimately resolve the disagreement.

If no supporting evidence (in any form: an article, original research, reasoning, citation of a previous thread, etc.) is forthcoming, then the asserter is prohibited from every again repeating that assertion on the original thread or any other. Simply repeating oneself without adding new material is not a valid response to a challenge. It is a violation of the scientific method and a violation of the SciForums rule against trolling.

If you observe this behavior, especially a pattern of it, please bring it to the attention of the Moderator of this subforum. At the very least you're welcome to point out to the asserter that he or she is in violation of the website's rules and must immediately stop it or suffer the consequences.

 

[thinking]

any-way

is it true that , normal gravity , that described by Einstein's theory , attraction , is only 25%

and that 75% IS repulsion

hence expansion

 

[AlphaNumeric]

No. Except in particularly odd cases gravity is attractive in GR. Expansion is a different kind of effect in curved space-time than gravity.

 

[DRZion]

I think it would be more satisfactory if dark energy was accounted for using something other than repulsion-gravity. Although it describes the universe well, perhaps there is something else that would explain dark energy.