It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Big Bang

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   
I myself don't believe in the Big Bang theory. But I have a question for those who do. Ok...so to put this in understandable terms I'll use a hand grenade as my example. The grenade represents the point of origin for the known universe. Some people believe (including scientists) that there was a great explosion before there was ANYTHING, and the resulting debris has become our universe. Picture a hand grenade going off, and all the resulting shrapnal would represent all the galaxies and planets. Now, that shrapnal is only going to spread so far here on earth, but in space where there is no gravity and less friction it could spread out and expand (it would seem) forever. My question is this: If you could start at the point of origin of the Big Bang and travel out to where the debris HASN'T expanded to yet, what would you find? Would anything at all be in existance there? Time? Matter? Anti-matter? Evil Clowns?

A question like this could make your brain fart.




posted on May, 8 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   
thats weird plus how would you know you where there because there is nothing there! i actually have another question aswell like you said theres no gravuty, duh, but how did all of the planets stop in their positions then? wouldnt they just keep on flying? could it be possible we are, aswell as spinning and orbiting the sun, moving through our solar sytem?



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
the reason i dont buy into the BigBang theory is because of Black Holes

if you stuck all the matter in the universe into one spot...it would form a supermassive black hole

even if it somehow exploded outwards *which i doubt is possible* , the moment it got 1 inch in any direction , the gravity would be so immense that it would all collapse back onto itself

so....exactly what force would cause the black hole to spit outwards? thats what i would like to know



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Your Understanding is Flawed

But that's okay. The Hand Grenade comparison doesn't work because of one important thing. In the Hand Grenade comparison you have a grenade that's exploding, but it's exploding INTO something. In the Big Bang you don't really have an explosion, but rather a sudden (and likely violent) rapid expansion of time and space.

That's important to remember, it's time AND it's space. There is no "around" around the universe. It creates the space that it "moves" into.

Actually, that's not really true, since there's nothing that it's moving into. It's probably the best example of how 3-dimensional physics fails us.

The universe is expanding like the edge of a balloon expands in surface area. There is a 3-dimensional aspect to the balloon (inside and outside the balloon), but the surface of the balloon is like our universe - expanding in every direction simultaneously.

Now, many people have theories about it from there. Some say that the universe is a "brane" (pronounced "brain") that is like the surface of space between two bubbles. I don't really understand that, all I know is that the universe is here.

Which is very remarkable may I remind you.

If outside the universe there is nothing, then looking at the universe at the dawn of time and looking at it now would have no difference between the two. You would, in each case, have what would appear to be a singularity - since no light can escape from it, and it doesn't even really exist.


There you have it, the universe, in all its massiveness, is really most like a singularity.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   
You mean there are no evil clowns?


I like what you said about how there is nothing to expand into until it has created its own "space" to expand into. That's really something to think about. THANKS MAN! Now I'm gonna be up all night!


[edit on 8-5-2006 by MrChipps]



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   
I don't buy the Big Bang theory either for the simple fact that it doesn't address what cause this sudden and violent expansion in the first place(that I know of). Philosophically speaking, the Big Bangs theory(or the Big Slap), is much more plausible, not sure wether the Math supports it or not but here is a website that will describe it much more thoroughly then I can...

csmonitor.com...



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrChipps
I myself don't believe in the Big Bang theory. But I have a question for those who do. Ok...so to put this in understandable terms I'll use a hand grenade as my example. The grenade represents the point of origin for the known universe. Some people believe (including scientists) that there was a great explosion before there was ANYTHING, and the resulting debris has become our universe.
A question like this could make your brain fart.


Most people believe that there was SOMETHING there; it was just concentrated incredibly, a super object with a near infinite mass, or something of the sort.


Picture a hand grenade going off, and all the resulting shrapnal would represent all the galaxies and planets. Now, that shrapnal is only going to spread so far here on earth, but in space where there is no gravity and less friction it could spread out and expand (it would seem) forever. My question is this: If you could start at the point of origin of the Big Bang and travel out to where the debris HASN'T expanded to yet, what would you find? Would anything at all be in existance there? Time? Matter? Anti-matter? Evil Clowns?


The universe is still expanding. There are lots of theories regarding your question. One of them is that you can't possibly travel to the point you describe because dark matter constantly and infinitely adds onto the universe. Dark matter is widely debated; some people believe that at the point where it expands the universe, time is "fast forwarded". Instead of taking billions of years to form, the time is sped up, causing the planet to form in a matter of seconds or minutes; basically allowing the universe to never end.

Another is that the universe is already infinitely large; there is no point in which it stops. This particular theory is, for the most part, not meant to be fully comphrended by humans, because, let's face it, humans aren't wired to be able to fully comprehend the concept of infinity.

Yet another theory is that the universe is never-ending, but in a different aspect. If you keep travelling in one direction, let's say at 1,000,000,000,000x the speed of light, you will eventually end up right back where you started because the universe is sort of "twisted" or a circle. You'll just be going around and around. Some scientists even believe that some of the furthest galaxies are actually "Reflections of our own galaxy" or "physically our own galaxy". Some believe that the light from our galaxy is somehow distorted and re-represented on the distant edges of the universe. Others believe that that is PHYSICALLY our galaxy, from the 'other end'. Does this make any sense? It's hard for me to attempt to explain it in words, I'll see if I can find a link.

These are just a few theories. No one really knows right now; as you said the Big Bang is just a theory. It's hard to prove any reliable answers to your questions.

Omniscient



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
I don't buy the Big Bang theory either for the simple fact that it doesn't address what cause this sudden and violent expansion in the first place(that I know of). Philosophically speaking, the Big Bangs theory(or the Big Slap), is much more plausible, not sure wether the Math supports it or not but here is a website that will describe it much more thoroughly then I can...
csmonitor.com...


BTW, I think the cause given for the immediate expansion is that the matter became so incredibly dense, and the mass and gravity of the "object" was so near infinity (actually some believe that it was 'beyond the numerical value of infinity', whatever that means) that it caused it to explode.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Omniscient

Originally posted by sardion2000
I don't buy the Big Bang theory either for the simple fact that it doesn't address what cause this sudden and violent expansion in the first place(that I know of). Philosophically speaking, the Big Bangs theory(or the Big Slap), is much more plausible, not sure wether the Math supports it or not but here is a website that will describe it much more thoroughly then I can...
csmonitor.com...


BTW, I think the cause given for the immediate expansion is that the matter became so incredibly dense, and the mass and gravity of the "object" was so near infinity (actually some believe that it was 'beyond the numerical value of infinity', whatever that means) that it caused it to explode.


Thanks, you reminded me why I think the Big Bang theory doesn't make Philosophical sense.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Omni, I understand what you're saying. If I had a telescope with a zoom of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 I could look through it and as long as nothing was blocking my view, see the back of my own head. That would be weird.


The human brain is capable of THINKING about anything. I wish it were as capable of UNDERSTANDING anything.


[edit on 8-5-2006 by MrChipps]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 01:58 AM
link   
see, i think the problem some of you are having is that you're allowing your concept of infinity to reach beyond the bounds of the universe we live in, which is simply impossible. the concept of infinity is so...well, obscure, that people often conceive of information beyond our universe being included in this 'infinity'. unfortunately, were you to travel to the edge of the universe (a physical impossibility) and try to cross over, you would simply cease to exist. the laws of physics for the known universe do not apply outside of it, and we have know way of knowing what the laws of physics are at the edge of the universe.

now, insofar as the big bang being the explosion of a black hole...even black holes die, and perhaps after a long enough time frame they go through a sort of second supernova in extreme cases, such as a nearly infinite amount of mass. i find this unlikely though, and that's why i prefer M-theory, although i find that it has its flaws as well. M-theory account for there having been (i believe) 11 or 26 dimensions in the universe prior to the event we conceive of as teh big bang. somehow, the previous universe split into the universe we perceive, of 4 dimensions, and curled up to an infinitesmal size the remainder of the universe.

the problem i have with this is that i conceive gravity as a 5th dimension, which chucks out all the calculations scientist have measured for this particular theory. general relativity implies that gravity is simply the curvature of space-time - how could this definition not be construed as a fifth dimension? it would certainly explain why we have such a hard time incoporating it in a diagram of forces.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   
According to the latest research on the Big Bang, it didn't happen. The theory of quantum gravity says the event was more like a "big bounce" because the universe existed much as we know it today prior to the so-called big bang. Here is a link to the latest research:

www.physorg.com...



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 02:21 AM
link   
which (excuse the choice of words) lends gravity to the theory that the universe is not expanding fast enough to avoid recollapse.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I don't really know about that, but I have always believed that eventually the rate of expansion of the universe would slow, then stop and reverse. I can't pretend to understand the theory of quantum gravity, because it's mostly gobbleygook to me, but the conclusions of the Penn St. researchers just seem inherently right to me.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Well, unfortunately things aren't so cut and paste anymore. We can't just accept the cycle solution - because it looks like our universe won't be experiencing this cycle.

Currently our universe is expanding, but the rate of this expansion is actually ACCELERATING! We have no clue why. Many people are trying to find something in physics to account for it, such as Vacuum Energy (aka, Dark Energy) or other kinds of wierd science.

Personally, I think it's a problem with the observations and the matter/space distribution in the universe that causes an illusion of an accelerating expansion, when in fact there is none.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   
I was a student of astral physic's and can garauntee you that all of your guy's presumption's are exactly that. You don't try and figure out something that people above you know that can be measured.
The Hubble telescope has let the human population into alot of intriuging and very realistic stipulation's of time and space.
The universe is measurable, because if it wasn't , you wouldn't have "Anti-Matter" to even mention. There is something beyond and there is no definate answers to what it exactly consist's of. Some scientists think that the area beyond consist's of another universe, while other's think that there is nothing there, a void, perminent blackness, absolute dark. (Dark Matter's Origin's)
There is something compressing all planets all of the time. With in each of thier own, even with the self reliance of gravitational capabilities, there has to be an inbound weight or force to cause self compaction. If you were to sit on the highest mountain and expect to live, you would be wrong. You as individual's know that from common scence. But on the other hand, the person that attempt's it and doesn't come back to tell the story. because thier assumption's are deliberated on the principle of "Climbing the Mountain" not surviving the life on the moutain.
Granted that science's are very intrigal and very deceiving at time's, don't misjudge your own self confidence's. Look at NASA!! The attempt's at different voyage's and local stellar space travel's , People have died for it. I don't know how or when, but I can garauntee, we aren't far off of doing the impossible.
As for the existance of the "Big Bang Theory", ?
What do you suppsed what happened to make all of this take place? Some real dramatic existance of a planet that could support life with no point of origin? With all thing's set aside, "Re-evaluate your opinion's".
The closure of the mind to the actual probable cause's of why we are here are going to be the demise of the search of the truth.
P.S.
Did you guy's realize that the Hubble telescope is measuring the universe and mapping it?
Secondly"
Did you know that "Time" is an invention of humans and nonexistant in the universe?
Granted thing's take place to alter the changing universe, but there is nothing stable to call for the change and effect of the changes of the universe on us as a whole. Some day we might be able to walk through the explanation's of how, what when and why, but for now you have to realize the big picture. Don't close your mind to the over powering result's of personal conclusion's, because you never know!!!!



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Allred5923
Did you know that "Time" is an invention of humans and nonexistant in the universe?


That's a hotly debated topic, but Allred, next time you say something, please try to be clear about it. All I was able to understand from the main part of your post was "yes, the Big Bang happened". Everything else seemed to be a nonsensical rant.

Anyways, time does occur. "Time" as in "History" is an invention of the human mind, but history is a measure of the difference between Now and Then. The past occured, correct? If the past occured, then whilst the past may now only exist in our minds, and one time it was reality. Time is the DISTANCE between Then and Now.

The unit of time, the second, the minute, the year, etc - is another human invention - but, like distance, there is no minimum or maximum unit of time.

If you measure 1 metre, then divide it by half, then again, then again, then again another 50 times, you end up with a tiny amount of space - but there is still distance there. You can do this an infinite amount of times. Cut those halves again and again another trillion times and there's still distance between one point and another.

The same occurs with time. An hour is not the lowest unit. There is no lowest unit. There is no standard other than the one we create. Even if you divide a second by a half a trillion, trillion times over - there will still be a lapse between the now and the then.

If you say that this is the reason why time doesn't exist, because it's just a human measure, then you can - using the same flawed logic - deduce that distance doesn't exist. The space between you and me isn't there, because the units that we use to measure that space aren't fundamental units (they're not the same at every point in the universe).



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   
"Time" is a hard thing to comprehend. If you think about it, time really doesn't exist. All that exists is the NOW. This very instant. Now, the human brain can REMEMBER past events, and therefore, in order to comprehend that ability, the concept of "time" was invented.

Immagine that you had no memory at all. I mean not even a trillionth of a seconds worth. Now immagine that you couldn't think ahead to plan anything. (obviously an impossibility, otherwise we wouldn't be able to exist, but for my explanation it's needed.) All you could experience and possibly know about would be the "now". If all you could know about were the very instant that events were unfolding in your life, you would have NO concept, nor would you have a need for time.

Time exists in our thoughts and memories. That is all. It is truly one of mans greatest concepts. It places all events in order.




[edit on 15-5-2006 by MrChipps]

[edit on 15-5-2006 by MrChipps]



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   
That may be true - and a bacterium knows nothing of time. To it, whatever happens, is all that has ever happened.

Time, as in memory, may be our concept - but it is our way of "seeing" the movements of the 4th dimension.

Now, there's another reason why I think the "if you didn't have memory, time doesn't exist" idea is flawed - because even if something exists, but we can't see it, this does not preclude its existance.

Take X-rays. If I take an X-ray picture of you, you would not see a flash of light, or experience any change. For all you know I just said "say cheese - there, got it". However, even through we cannot see X-rays, we can deduce their existance. To a blind man, does light exist? The blind man can tell you when he thinks he's near a light source - since the light will cause his skin to feel warm. However, a hot metal spoon can produce the same effect - it is the warpage of how we percieve light.

We cannot see the passage of time, merely the now, and we can remember the past. The past no longer exists, but the passage of time does. The line/cone of time is reflected to exist through our memory. However, our memory can be fooled - such as through dreams, or through experiencing many exciting events at the same time, producing the feeling of "time flying". This feeling is the warpage of how we percieve the passage of time.



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Yarium,

While I certainly agree with you that time does exist, the fact is the following statements from your post are just not true:


Originally posted by Yarium
...The unit of time, the second, the minute, the year, etc - is another human invention - but, like distance, there is no minimum or maximum unit of time.

If you measure 1 metre, then divide it by half, then again, then again, then again another 50 times, you end up with a tiny amount of space - but there is still distance there. You can do this an infinite amount of times...

The same occurs with time. An hour is not the lowest unit. There is no lowest unit. There is no standard other than the one we create. Even if you divide a second by a half a trillion, trillion times over - there will still be a lapse between the now and the then...

What you are defining here is what's known mathematically as a continuum, of which an example would be the number line. But actual reality is not made up of number lines.

The entities time and distance may have no maximum values, but they absolutely do have minimum values. The minimum distance is called the Planck length. Here's a link to a short explanation of it:
Planck length

The minimum unit of time is called (predictably
) the Planck time. The Planck time is the amount of time it takes a photon to move the Planck length.

See this link for further info on the Planck units:
en.wikipedia.org...

Or just Google "Planck length" for more and more explanations of it.

Harte



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join