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.

 

Why the theory of the Big Bang doesnt make since.

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
The theory goes that our universe is expanding, so scientist concluded that it must have all been compressed together into a singularity way in the past.

The reason I find this theory wrong is that you wouldnt look at a large old tree and say," All that mass/matter that makes up that tree right now must have all been compressed into a tiny seed at one point." If you told someone they would probably look at you like you were crazy! So why would we think the nature of fauna would be any different than the nature of our very universe.

So, my thought is that a tree grows from a seed with the "info" needed to grow.
Maybe our universe started off as a seed, of sorts, with the "info" needed to grow.
Could that info be consciousness. and the reason the universe is expanding is that the consciousness of the universe is growing?
What do you think about that?





posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
ur right. Nobody honestly knew exactly what happened at time t=0. Unless you were there. All we can honestly do is speculate. We do try and try though by taking what little knowledge we have and doing research on the surrounding universe and make assumptions. That is all mankind is doing btw. Making an assumption.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Talltexxxan
 


Nice pun in the title

edit on 5-6-2011 by BrianC because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Talltexxxan
 


I have a slightly diffrent view, i think everything in the universe is getting more granular resolution, so as the pieces get smaller the shrinking effect makes distances look bigger.(think fractals)
and before some one says but we would see that and be able to measure it..
well we wouldnt, because everything inside the universe is shrinking including the rulers and machines we measure with..
if you scan a photo and view it on a computer screen (think the screen is a 2d universe) and the place a ruler onto the screen the image might be bigger or smaller then the original picture you scanned.
but if you scan the ruler as well into the computer (matrix/universe) then all of a sudden no matter how you scale the resolution the ruler would stay the same as the image..
we couldn't perceive the change of grain size, because we are inside the universe...

edit on 5-6-2011 by sprocket2cog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Talltexxxan
What do you think about that?



I think that you dont understand the "big bang", nor the evidence for it.
But the main reason for my reply is that you are doomed to failure if you look for "sense" in explanations about the universe. There is much that doesnt make "sense", from the tiny scales of quantum chromodynamics to the large scales of cosmology, but that doesnt mean it isnt true.
To deny truths because you cant make "sense" of them, personally, is really sticking your head in the sand (or fingers in your ears, choose your favorite metaphor).

edit on 5-6-2011 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
i would say even a tree will eventually wither and die, break away by impact or erosion, and become dust, and soil again for new trees to flourish.

hopefully before all this the tree flowered and gave seed.

if not, some other tree somewhere surelly did.

but i like the way you think, but remember the big bang theory is about the onset of the universe, the outcome of this big bang is still pretty much speculation, and science in progress.

as science keeps getting challenged daily to find new ways to explain where we came from and where we are going

for now let us enjoy where we are
edit on 5/6/11 by AnotherYOU because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
If every piece of matter in the entire Universe was compressed into a singularity, it would be a ultra-massive black hole. Such a big black hole it contains all stars, black holes, gas, dust, asteroids, etc etc within one minuscule dot.

This doesn't make any sense to me because black holes suck inwards, they do not push all of their matter outwards. I see this as a critical flaw within the theory.

I understand and realize that many physicists have proposed THEORIES about what happened during the moment singularity broke and everything expanded outwards, but I honestly view it as wishful thinking and completely absurd and illogical.

I just think about Gravity, and how it sucks things inwards towards the source.
And then I think about the Big Bang, and how it requires that everything pushes away from the original source.

This does not make sense at all sorry. Physicists / Cosmologists need to go back to the drawing board.

Also, consider the fact that many galaxies have been photographed by our telescopes while colliding with other galaxies. If everything is moving away from the source, I cannot fathom how galaxies would be heading in totally separate directions and end up colliding.

How come every aspect of observation I can rely on tells me the Big Bang breaks all the rules?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Talltexxxan
 


The current theory doesn't say that all of the matter currently in the universe was once contained in a single point. Our current version of the Big Bang (which, as I seem to recall saying in a previous thread of yours, is called LCDM Cosmology) says that the universe began as a completely empty region of space-time. This region had a much higher zero-point energy (the "virtual" energy contained within a vacuum), and that energy level spontaneously collapsed, releasing an immense amount of energy (which led to the rapid inflation of the universe). This energy, then, condensed to form matter.
To truly understand this theory, you have to understand the quantum definition of a vacuum.
edit on 5-6-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Alfa1,
Im sorry but your post was very hypocritcal. You say that I am "sticking my head in the sand " by trying to make since of it all. well, If that is what you are saying, then sir you are the one with his head in the sand for not wanting to expand your knowlegde.
Oh yeah, please do not speculate on the knowledge of others, becuz you have no "F"ing clue what I do or do not know. Thank you for the read though. Its all about being a trailblazer, remember deny ignorance.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Talltexxxan
 


The current theory doesn't say that all of the matter currently in the universe was once contained in a single point. Our current version of the Big Bang (which, as I seem to recall saying in a previous thread of yours, is called LCDM Cosmology) says that the universe began as a completely empty region of space-time. This region had a much higher zero-point energy (the "virtual" energy contained within a vacuum), and that energy level spontaneously collapsed, releasing an immense amount of energy (which led to the rapid inflation of the universe). This energy, then, condensed to form matter.
To truly understand this theory, you have to understand the quantum definition of a vacuum.
edit on 5-6-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)


It's not really my current version. I prefer the Eternal Universe theory although I admit it could be wrong as well.

May I ask what magical force you have to invoke for the "energy level in the vacuum to 'spontaneously collapse'"? It just looks like magic to me, just like the old Big Bang theory invokes magical principals that only work in that one theory and are never applied to the visual universe around me.

I could be wrong though about what you are talking about. If you have a few minutes would you mind linking me to a source you think has a good write-up on this particular theory? Perhaps with further reading my skepticism will recede and maybe I will learn something new? Thanks for the post!



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


maybe because the theory sort of implies that this expansion was equal in all directions.

wich may not be the case, i would say there was expansion yes, from a singular cell or whatever you want to call it, but this expansion has boundaries and set limits.

we just have to look at us and everything around us, we start from a single cell that is fecunded and multiplies, and grows, but we dont grow and expand in everyway like lets say watermelons.

our molecular expansion into organic beings has boundaries and limits, this case the humanoid form.

whos the say the universe itself does not find barriers or has set limits to expansion.

this way explaining the erratic movements that dont quite match what the initial theory sugested?

kind of late for astrophysics, but still i hope you got my point.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


"Spontaneity" in Quantum Mechanics isn't quite as magical as it might sound. Things happen spontaneously all the time in QM. But, in case the concept isn't clear, here's a bit more detail...

A vacuum isn't completely empty. It is a region that contains no matter or real energy, but, in QM, a vacuum is more accurately defined as the lowest energy state of the region. I used this illustration elsewhere, but I'll use it again:

Imagine you're walking around outside. The earth beneath your feet is solid, so you can't go any lower. This point, then, in terms of QM, would be your lowest possible energy state. But, what if you happen to fall through the ground into an abandoned mine shaft? Suddenly, you're lower, and, again in QM terms, we could say that your "lowest possible energy level" has spontaneously collapsed to a lower level.

A vacuum, then, is at a given lowest-possible-energy-level, but it can spontaneously collapse to an even lower level at any time.
Now, what keeps the regions of vacuum in our universe from doing that now, you ask? First of all, we don't know that they don't, in the most remote regions of the universe. But, except within the large-scale voids between filaments of galaxy super-cluster, there is really no longer any true vacuum. Pretty much every region in space is now full of some level of matter or energy (cosmic radiation). This isn't a vacuum condition.

And, honestly, I don't have any resources that can explain that any better (or more authoritatively, if you don't trust me) than I can. My source is work much more complicated than what I'm explaining. If you want, though, I can track down the site I have that explains how the spontaneous collapse of the initial vacuum led to the initial rapid inflation of the universe (it's ridiculously technical).



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Read this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

BP is very knowledgeable in physics, and this should explain a lot about the Big Bang.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Talltexxxan
Alfa1,
Im sorry but your post was very hypocritcal. You say that I am "sticking my head in the sand " by trying to make since of it all. well, If that is what you are saying, then sir you are the one with his head in the sand for not wanting to expand your knowlegde.
Oh yeah, please do not speculate on the knowledge of others, becuz you have no "F"ing clue what I do or do not know. Thank you for the read though. Its all about being a trailblazer, remember deny ignorance.


Don't worry about that guy. He is just mad because his precious belief system (religion) is being threatened by us questioning it. Typical behavior actually. Pity.

He is misled due to his "Religious Unquestioning Adherence to Doctrine" taught by the ignorant physicists who think they know everything. The intelligent open minded progressive physicists know that we know almost nothing and that we are still trying to figure the most basic things out.

A smart and well educated physicist will tell you "The Big Bang is a THEORY".
And a foolish arrogant simple minded physicist will tell you "The Big Bang is Proven Fact!"

Just like in other Religions and Cults, the hard core adherents ignore contradictory information, suffer from Cognitive Dissonance, and apply Thought Terminating Cliches in order to prevent themselves from ever questioning the dogma of their "dear religion".

This applies to everything, from the Sony VS Xbox fanboy flame-wars to the Universities and Governments and Corporations worldwide.

There are open minds and closed minds, it is up to us to open the closed ones and uphold the open ones. That is what real progress and real science is about anyways. Question. Always question.

Check this out. It applies quite well.

A thought-terminating cliché is a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance. Though the phrase in and of itself may be valid in certain contexts, its application as a means of dismissing dissent or justifying fallacious logic is what makes it thought-terminating.



Lifton said, “The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis.



In George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, the fictional constructed language Newspeak is designed to reduce language entirely to a set of thought-terminating clichés. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World society uses thought-terminating clichés in a more conventional manner, most notably in regard to the drug soma as well as modified versions of real-life platitudes, such as, “A doctor a day keeps the jim-jams away.”


edit on 5-6-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Thank you for going into some detail there about it.

I do recognize the concept as many big name physicists tend to refer to it often.

EG: Spontaneous formation of bubbles in boiling water.

Perhaps this is what you are referring to.

I do admit I like the idea behind it, of bubbles suddenly forming in the vacuum. Michio Kaku did show very eloquently how you can create something out of nothing in his book Visions.

I will look further into what you are talking about. If you catch this reply, let me know if I am on the mark about this or if I am way off on some other tangent. Thanks.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Talltexxxan
 


A decent idea! How about switching that concept from a tree seed, an acorn, to a fertilized human egg?

But how did this Universe get fertilized since nothing else was out there?

'Could only be one way, anti-matter joined in a "union" with plain ol' matter. And that is what's the matter with matter. .

And....oh, good lord, they have just now created over 300 atoms of anti-matter at CERN!
Send out the birth announcements. There are going to be multiple Universes sprouting up all around here shortly (give or take a few billion years)..
edit on 5-6-2011 by Aliensun because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
As someone already wrote, no where in the big bang theory does it say anything about how big the "clump" of matter is. So your tree/seed analogy isn't close to being accurate.
I've been noticing a trend on ATS regarding scientific matters. Some people don't understand matters of science, and instead of learning the truth, they just assume that science must be wrong. Instead of learning about evolution, they just repeat the one thing they've heard, "Humans evolved from fish and monkeys, I don't get it." Details in scientific matters are very important; if you don't include all of the details, it winds up sounding like crazy talk. On a website whos slogan is "deny ignorance" this trend is unacceptable.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


That's pretty much how it would work now...as bubbles. In the case of the early universe, though, it's an instantaneous drop in the energy level everywhere at once, throughout the entire universe (whatever size it may have been at the time). So, one giant bubble.

Also, I figured I'd track down that site anyway. "Ridiculously" technical may have been a slight overstatement, but it does involve some basic calculus, so it's not, like, algebra or anything.

Inflationary Cosmology

The (short) section on the inflation, itself, is the one called "A Simple Mathematical Model."



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
As someone already wrote, no where in the big bang theory does it say anything about how big the "clump" of matter is. So your tree/seed analogy isn't close to being accurate.
I've been noticing a trend on ATS regarding scientific matters. Some people don't understand matters of science, and instead of learning the truth, they just assume that science must be wrong. Instead of learning about evolution, they just repeat the one thing they've heard, "Humans evolved from fish and monkeys, I don't get it." Details in scientific matters are very important; if you don't include all of the details, it winds up sounding like crazy talk. On a website whos slogan is "deny ignorance" this trend is unacceptable.


You see, that is the problem with Science. By going to school and learning one trade or two in it, a person is taught to believe that the "facts" that they have learned are unalterable facts. I remember when slide rules proved that hot rod dragsters could never get enough traction and power to surpass 200mph in the quarter mile. Now I think they are nearing 300mph. I'm old enough to remember many experts saying that we could not travel in space or go to the Moon. They had reams of data to prove their contention. The same was said about the invention of airplanes. The atomic bomb wouldn't work or it would destroy us all in one gigantic burst. The list is endless. As I mentioned in another thread here today, the consideration of life on other rocks around other stars was and, still is by many, considered ludicrous not long ago. How the belief about NOTHING can surpass the speed of light? Science have found the way. And we aren't even getting into quantum physics which is totally uncharted and seems to be givng insights into those long denied psi powers.

A science, of any type, is but a benchmark in the gaining of knowledge. Much of that data is constantly rewritten as well asbeing added to. Set the common facts straight for us when you are inclined, but give us a break from your views of us from the lofty tower, please.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   
the thing that still gets me is it all started from nothing exploding into nothing? something had to be there and the space for it to blast into so big bang wasnt the start?????????



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join