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. astrocat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    179
    Yes, I agree. But there are many forces acting on Systems in Space, and I doubt that there are any Systems that no other forces act on, by that I mean, no System that has only one force acting on it.

    Hi Ultra. Yes, and thanks for agreeing. Of course you're right, a picture, even if it represents a 3 dimensional picture, will always be 2 dimensional.

    Yes, Nasor. I was actually thinking of the picture of the Big Bang in Wikipedia. The lines that the Universe is moving in have obviously been drawn with a ruler. If you know of a picture without such straight lines, could you tell me where it is?

    Hi Impet. Do I take it that you are saying the Expansion of the Observable Universe (the only part, surely, we can really talk about) occurred in straight lines?

    Well, Impet, it's my opinion that there are no straight lines in Space, and I doubt anyone will agree with you if you try to tell them about these straight lines.

    Hi Woowoo. I'm impressed by your open mind. Myself, I don't think there ever was a Big Bang. If you think about it, Georges Lemaitre, who is generally credited with the Big Bang, On news that the Observable Universe had been found to be Expanding, assumed that the entire Universe was expanding, even though there is no evidence of this. (We can't see the entire Universe).

    I think Woowoo's got a point.

    I think you make a lot of sense, in a field of fantasies and fabrications...

    Newton taught us that Gravity was Universal, in his book on Universal Gravity. That means, of course, that an atom on one side of the Universe has a gravitational attraction to an atom on the other side (of the Universe).

    Einstein completed Newton. Einstein didn't prove Newton to be Wrong. And gravitational fields overlap constantly in Space.

    Voids are real, and their existence demonstrates structure, more than anything, to me.

    Well, we've alll been juiced in the mathematics of the Big Bang, but you can do anything in Math, which isn't actually a Science. Impet, let's stick to the Science of the situation, can we?

    These voids are real. Are you disputing their existence, Keith?

    I totally agreee that the Observable Universe is Expanding. But I'd like you to tell me how you know the entire Universe is Expanding?

    And GR is often represented as you describe, but that's something we have to live with.

    Well done, Ultra. You have raised a key question, how large...?

    As I say, Newton said Gravity never runs out, and that it is Universal.

    Good, Shadow. Yes, in my mind I see the Universe as a Vortex - going in.

    I was looking at the Hubble telescope's recent pictures, and it seemed to me tghat Space is made up of a network of Galaxies. I saw more Galaxies than anything else, which makes me think that if everything else in the Universe is going in, and if you go to Wiki you will see, under Vortex, that Galaxies are Vortices (plural of Vortex) - then we're probably going in also. What do you think of that?

    The bb? I'm sorry, Captain, but I don't really understand you? I'm new here, so tell me what the bb is?

    That's funny, 'cause I thought (and thought) that because nobody was there, to take a picture, that maybe it didn't happen.

    I know the Observable Universe is Expanding. How does it follow that therefore the entire Universe is Expanding?

    That's just an assumption, and assumptions are dangerous, in Science.

    Brilliant - Boris 2. You are in agreeement with me, Newton and Einstein. How can we convince these others, that the bounds off Gravity are endless.

    Gravity is real force, unlike the Big Bang and Dark Energy, which seem to be in trouble, lately...

    Or is that just me?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 27, 2010
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    It's just you.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. astrocat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    179
    Loved your picture. Yes, I think that's a pretty fair representation of SpaceTime.

    The CMBR doesn't move because it is almost outside of the Universe, a part of the Warm Smooth Soupy Hydrogen cloud that was the Early Universe.

    And how far does the distortion of SpaceTime stretch - infinitely, according to Newton. I don't think Einstein said this was wrong?

    There was no Big Bang. It's only the Observable Universe that has been found to be expanding. The voids are there as part of the Structure of Space.

    it's important to bear in mind that the CMBR doesn't move. I doubt that it's related to anything as violent as a Big Bang.

    So now we have the truth. The Big Bang is 'purely a mathematical result.'

    Mathematics are fine, but Math is not a Science - Astronomy is! You can do anything in Math, including proving that two and two equals Three! That's why it's not a Science. Science is bound by hard rules and Laws, including the Law of Gravity.

    Allow me, Squirrel. The Early Universe started as a Warm, smooth, Soupy Hydrogen Cloud. Why Hydrogen? It is the very simplest of the elements, consisting of a single Proton and a single Electron. In addition, it is the most abundant of the elements, and it is what formed the Universe. Sol is a good example of what Hydrogen can do.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 27, 2010
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. M00se1989 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    508
    I just wonder how all the universal laws would allow one big bang to make more big bangs, then I think about how to make humans able to safely accomplish the feat. Like how would they drive a fission powered space ship into intergalactic space, and implode something that would resembe the initial big bang. Then I pray to God someone has the ability to take me seriously. Then I think of the children who could always use better models for their education and simple understanding of our basic universe. Most kids these days are visual with advanced ADD. Giving them a decent model to look at can only bring a better understanding in future generations. But first we would need to construct a model that all scientists can agree on... which could be why there are people making threads saying they are not happy with the current explinations. Then I think of more nonsense the children could use.
     
  8. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    maths is the language of science, you cant do science without maths. in science you can't "prove" anything, maths has proofs. maths is more rigid than science.

    hth.
     
  9. M00se1989 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    508
    Strongly disagree: Observation is the language of science. Math is rigid only when nature requires exact dimensions to be calculated into our observations. Would we dare to try and calculate every atom within the universe? No, but we can make approximations. Math is only as rigid as the tool used for the calculation, and the way I see it we don't have any exact calculations for the big bang. Evidence?
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,130
    astrocat:

    16 posts in a row, followed soon after by 5 posts in a row?

    I have merged your posts.

    I suggest you think before posting a string of posts in future. Use the "multi-quote" button, and/or combine your responses into a single post (or maybe two at the most). Otherwise it starts to look a lot like you're talking to yourself.
     
  11. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Incorrect. The CMBR completely, and evenly (pretty much) fills the universe. At any moment, there are approximately 400,000,000 photons of the CMBR in every cubic meter of space. And of course, all these photons are moving at c.

    That's correct, but you must keep in mind that gravity diminishes in strength according to the inverse square law. It doesn't take very long before the gravitational attraction of any particular mass has dropped to a point where it is too low to be measured.

    Again, incorrect. The fact that there is an unobservable part of the universe is a direct consequence of the Big Bang and Inflation. The voids are there because it is an inevitable outcome of gravitation. Any areas in the early universe which had a greater mass density, no matter how small the difference, would attract more matter, thereby increasing the area's gravitation and leading to clumping, which will also produce areas of almost no mass.

    It's a simple enough matter to google the CMBR, and find out what it is and how it was produced. Have you done so?

    You don't seem to know much about Math or Astronomy. And certainly not cosmology.

    Again, incorrect. Protons and neutrons, and hence hydrogen, did not form until about three minutes after the start of the BB. In terms of the relative size of the universe, that's a relatively longer period of time than the following 13.7 billion years. Non-ionized hydrogen did not appear until 300,000 years after the Big Bang. It took that long for the temperature of the universe do drop low enough for electrons to be able to maintain their orbit. And that was the event which allowed photons to travel without absorbtion and re-emission, producing the CMBR.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2010
  12. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    thats the part that sounds hinky..

    300,000 years to cool down?..that intones the universe may have been hot to begin with..:shrug:

    just seems like a long time to cool down..if particles were expelled then it seems it would be sooner cause of the temperature of the environment away from the big bang..i mean doesn't distance from an event have a decrease in temp?
     
  13. M00se1989 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    508
    "The equation of statistical thermodynamics, the entropy of a system in which all states, of number Ω, are equally likely, is given by":

    \(S = k_{B} \ln \Omega \)

    Where \( k_{B} \) is the Boltzman constant. wiki

    so... just average the hottest and the coldest thing in space one being a photon at zero, another being the temperature of the Earth, and the other being the core temperature of the Sun. and devide it by the age of the universe to see how much entropy has increased "since the begining of time" in our solar system. So we should probably put plank time in there somewhere... So its not so much the distance between an event has a decrease in temperature, as it is the closer you get to the edge of the universe the colder it becomes near events. Still more events yields a higher temperature relative to other objects in the immediate surroundings. What this means basically is that as our universe expanded into space, space expanded around it as well to help balance temperature.
     
  14. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Yes Squirrely, it was hot to begin with,

    There is no 'away' from the BB. The BB wasn't an event at a particular location in space. It took place everywhere at the same time. The BB was space itself expanding, not an explosion somewhere in space.
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,130
    M00se1989 has been permanently banned from sciforums for continuing to post crap in the science forums.
     
  16. astrocat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    179
    Why yes, it seems to me that the Cosmos is a Vortex, probably shaped a lot like the Milky Way or the Whirlpool Galaxy. How do you picture the Universe, if I might ask?
     
  17. astrocat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    179
    What's just me?
     
  18. astrocat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    179
    Not sure how this relates to Straight Lines in Space. Care to enlighten me, Moose?
     
  19. astrocat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    179
    But Math isn't a Science. Astronomy is.
     
  20. astrocat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    179
    I replied, but my reply did not get posted. I repeat, Math is not a Science. I think you can do Science without Math. Fire was discovered without Math. Do you know of any more important discovery in Science?
     
  21. astrocat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    179
    What about Fire. Fire was discovered without math. Can you think of any more important discovery in Science?
     
  22. astrocat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    179
    I'll try your suggestion. I'm new to this Forum.
     
  23. astrocat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    179
    I fail to see what this has got to do with Straight Lines in Space?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page