Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Problem With The Big Bang.

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by mb2591
That first something had to have always existed.. It couldn't have come from nothing
I think that dense point came from a previous universe..

Think of the universe as a dying star going super nova..
My theory is that the universe can only get so big then once it reaches that point, it begins to collapse in on itself
edit on 20-6-2011 by mb2591 because: (no reason given)


But if you keep going back through the previous universes, wouldn't there still have to be a beginning at some point?


No, no start or end for the initial mass.. and if time has taught us anything it's taught us that it is cylical in nature




posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   
OK, Seriously I have a problem with the way the Big Bang proponent's explanations go from the very start, (which they try to brush off as saying time didn't exist yet, but mass and/or energy did, but fail to explain that nothing can exist without time, or space. So they say it was infinitely small, and had infinite mass, or infinite energy because they know nothing infinite can be applied to observable or applied physics.

Yet at the same time they say it started from nothing?!!#!?

How does that make sense?

Now I think it's great we can base our understanding of particle physics to the point of splitting atoms, developing drugs, designing massive engineering apparatuses that can fly, imaging the WMAP, and make beer. SO what happened before we could do all of these things is just brushed aside in a pubescent expression, a big bang, with things like anti matter–no you didn't, did you?–and dark matter and dark energy to fill in those very detectable missing links to what creates matter, or beer.

From my observations of theoretical physicist's explanations of 'the nature of things' is, they like to throw out infinite a lot, because it excuses them from applying their physics to the origin of 'the nature of things'. The next time I hear another TV documentary about the big bang using the expression 'what if' one more time I think my head will explode.

Yet I'm supposed to just accept the fact that expansion traveled beyond light speed (there's that paradox of infinite again), but it wasn't mass yet, even though 'their' singularity was infinite mass infinitely small with infinite energy. Ask them for numbers, you will get infinite answers.

So in conclusion to my off-topic rant, some guy drew it all up in the infinite past.



Does it really help anything to speculate where it all came from if indeed we can harness some of it to make beer?



edit on 20-6-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


From my observations of theoretical physicist's explanations of 'the nature of things' is, they like to throw out infinite a lot, because it excuses them from applying their physics to the origin of 'the nature of things'.

This is slander.

Any competent physicist will tell you there are no infinite quantities observed in nature.

When physicists invoke infinity, it is to suggest that the laws of nature (as we know them) do not apply to the situation and conditions. We call such instances singularities.

And not being able to wrap one’s head around the idea of time not existing before the Big Bang is not, ipso facto, a disproof of it.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


well, it's piss-poor logic to assume that if something cannot be explained, then the alternative is going to be "god."

Especially since there's no explanation for god, either. Might as well be saying "Snarfelumps created the universe" - what's a snarfelump? It's what created the universe, see?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Just for thought:

thebigblogtheory.wordpress.com...

Hmmm...there is some sort of sybolism in the division of the image there...hmmm...

Regards and Nameste,

-Ching



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 





When physicists invoke infinity, it is to suggest that the laws of nature (as we know them) do not apply to the situation and conditions. We call such instances singularities.


Exactly, so why do they postulate such things then? But we are talking about the big bang with infinite mass infinitely small with infinite energy that came from nothing, or didn't exist yet so which is it, care to explain that?
edit on 21-6-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Sounds like big bang, and dark matter, and anti matter, doesn't it? Why try to make sense of something that created over 96% of what can't be explained today? What good does it do? I'd start with that mysterious 96+% before I tried to explain what created it, to me that sounds more like the scientific process.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Where did that unfathomably dense point of energy and mass come from? Had it always existed?

It has existed for all time. But time has only existed for 13.9 billion years, give or take a few.


The first something can only have come from a nothing.

Unless, of course, it came from another something, a something we can never catch a glimpse of. Maybe it came from the place where hamsters go when they die. Who can tell?


What exactly is a "nothing" that can have "something"?

I guess just about any nothing will do. One gets the impression that all nothings are the same nothing. Again, it’s not easy to tell because we have no experience of nothing. Nothing does not exist in our universe. Even so-called empty space is pretty action-packed.


Why doesn't The Big Bang happen again?

What in the world (
) makes you think it doesn’t?


I have my opinion, but I want to hear yours.

Thank you for your interest (as they say on rejection slips).



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Exactly, so why do they postulate such things then?

Because what we do know implies them. And – supplementarily – because observation shows us they exist.


But we are talking about the big bang with infinite mass infinitely small with infinite energy that came from nothing, or didn't exist yet so which is it, care to explain that?

With pleasure.

First of all, the damn’ thing was only infinitely massive because it had zero volume. Since anything divided by zero is infinite, its density (mass per unit volume) was infinite. As soon as it expanded to any size at all, its mass ceased to be infinite. Its energy, by the way, was zero. And remains zero.

And yes, the original singularity existed for ever in that condition, because it existed outside time.

It’s really very simple, you know.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Exactly, so why do they postulate such things then?

Because what we do know implies them. And – supplementarily – because observation shows us they exist.


But we are talking about the big bang with infinite mass infinitely small with infinite energy that came from nothing, or didn't exist yet so which is it, care to explain that?

With pleasure.

First of all, the damn’ thing was only infinitely massive because it had zero volume. Since anything divided by zero is infinite, its density (mass per unit volume) was infinite. As soon as it expanded to any size at all, its mass ceased to be infinite. Its energy, by the way, was zero. And remains zero.

How can some "thing" have no volume? This does not make sense even semantically. It's a piece of nonsensical sophistry. A word-game masquerading as physics.

Originally posted by Astyanax
And yes, the original singularity existed for ever in that condition, because it existed outside time.

It makes no sense to use the words "for ever" if the singularity existed outside time. Infinite perpetuity is only meaningful in a universe in which time exists.

Originally posted by Astyanax
It’s really very simple, you know.

Only to philosophical simpletons who think their metaphysical gobblygook makes sense. I don't regard self-contradictory use of words as amounting to a coherent explanation of why the equations of General Relativity fail at the beginning of the physical universe. The correct reason is that these equations of classical physics do not apply to the quantum universe, so the so-called "singularity" is merely a mathematical artifact of a theory that breaks down in conditions where quantum effects dominate. There are NO infinities in the real universe. That's why Einstein refused to believe that black holes described by his own equations actually existed. When electrons and quarks are squeezed together by their mutual gravitational attraction, the spin density of matter becomes so large that 4-d space-time flips over from a Einstein-Riemann manifold with a symmetric curvature tensor to an Einstein-Cartan manifold with an asymmetric curvature tensor that violates the Hawking-Penrose condition for the inevitability of naked singularities. A repulsive spin-spin interaction comes into replay that stops the gravitational collapse of matter into a singularity of infinite density. This means that in a universe with quantum properties like spin, black hole singularities do not exist. Nor do singularities occur at time t = 0. Energy always exists but gets recycled into matter at every start of what is a perpetual cycle of expansion and contraction.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


I think this short video helps illustrate the problem. (Don't let the title bother you, the content makes no reference to God):
edit on 21-6-2011 by SaberTruth because: clarification



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Your cosmology statement link did not work.

Hm, it seems to work for me. Maybe try again?


I believe nothing is infinite potential. The existence of a potential implies the probability of a kinetic. Nothingness is pure unbounded infinity. The infinite potential was so great that it could not contain itself as nothingness. It had to spill over into a world of form. The big bang is hardly a fraction of the potential of infinite nothingness.

I'm not sure I'd presume that a non-physical first cause would have what we know as a kinetic. If there was nothing anywhere, then I can't imagine how anything could ever happen. But if we presume that nothing was "infinite potential", then we have to ask where that potential came from, if it was physical. All sorts of new questions arise.


No, the non-physical first cause is a potential for a kinetic. The universe of form is the kinetic of that potential.

The potential is infinity. When you have something as large as infinity, it could hardly be classified as truly nothing. Infinity is the potential.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

No, the non-physical first cause is a potential for a kinetic. The universe of form is the kinetic of that potential.

The potential is infinity. When you have something as large as infinity, it could hardly be classified as truly nothing. Infinity is the potential.

But "infinity" is not an entity of its own; It describes something else whose duration or extent is unfathomable. So "nothing" cannot be infinite, have potential, or have any use at all. It is nothing.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


How can some "thing" have no volume? This does not make sense even semantically. It's a piece of nonsensical sophistry. A word-game masquerading as physics.

How can a thing have no mass? Yet massless particles exist.

You imagine a point sitting in space and insist that it cannot be dimensionless. But the original singularity did not exist in space; there was none for it to exist in. Dimensions, as you know (you being a geometer an’ all
), are properties of space.


It makes no sense to use the words "for ever" if the singularity existed outside time. Infinite perpetuity is only meaningful in a universe in which time exists.

I could just as easily have said ‘it existed for no time at all.’

Infinite perpetuity is not meaningful under any conditions whatsoever. The words ‘infinite’ and ‘nonexistent’ are synonyms, except in mathematics. And even in maths, there is a unique and clearly-established relationship between the concepts zero and infinity (as you’d know, being a mathematician an’ all
).

So you ‘don't regard self-contradictory use of words as amounting to a coherent explanation of why the equations of General Relativity fail at the beginning of the physical universe.’ But the fault lies not in the words but in your grasp of the scope of their implications. You seem to regard the fact that physical laws have limiting conditions as some sort of scandal – concerning what? GR? all physics? reality itself? – yet laws without limiting cases cannot even be formulated.


There are NO infinities in the real universe.

Yes, I said that already. See my second post in this thread.


When electrons and quarks are squeezed together by their mutual gravitational attraction, the spin density of matter becomes so large that 4-d space-time flips over from a Einstein-Riemann manifold with a symmetric curvature tensor to an Einstein-Cartan manifold with an asymmetric curvature tensor that violates the Hawking-Penrose condition for the inevitability of naked singularities. A repulsive spin-spin interaction comes into replay that stops the gravitational collapse of matter into a singularity of infinite density. This means that in a universe with quantum properties like spin, black hole singularities do not exist. Nor do singularities occur at time t = 0. Energy always exists but gets recycled into matter at every start of what is a perpetual cycle of expansion and contraction.

Oho! Now we come to the axe-grinding bit.

Maybe I should ask you to explain a little more clearly, but that would be cruel, wouldn’t it
? Still, I think a word or two of explanation for the troops is in order. Nivver fash y'sel', laddie, I’ll supply it.

READER ADVISORY


Gentle readers, the above paragraph by mcipsi refers to an old and largely discredited ‘fix’ for that which does not require fixing, namely the theory of General Relativity. Einstein-Cartan ‘theory’ is an attempt to wish away some of the scarier implications of GR, such as black holes, by switching geometries in midstream. This is fringe physics – though it’s really more mathematics than physics – and most real physicists would dismiss it as unwarranted by observation – black holes, which are indeed dimensionless points, plainly do exist, and the breakdown of GR at quantum scales is not quite as easily disposed of as mcipsi seems to think.

In the paragraph quoted above, our good friend is not just trying to impress the ignorant with his knowledge of physics
; he or she is trying to smuggle an off-topic fringe theory into the discussion, pretending it is kosher physics. Perhaps he or she thinks it is. If not, he is trying to put one over us, a very naughty thing to do.

– ENDS –


Mcipsi, please be advised that I will not debate fringe theories with you in this thread. Your post adds nothing to the present discussion, and I would have ignored it if not for the sneaky little trick you pulled in it. If, however, you would like to explain in words comprehensible to most ATS members what EC implies for a picture of the beginnings of the universe (and en passant explain how all that matter cycles back to energy again – does EC not imply a density limit after all?), you might be contributing something of value – an alternative point of view. So perhaps you would like to redeem yourself that way.

You’ve been rumbled, mate; your little attempt to bamboozle us into thinking you the Voice of Scientific Authority has come a cropper. Now why not throw away those false specs and lab coat – they don’t suit you, anyway — and come clean? We’ll forgive you. Well, some of us will, anyway.

edit on 21/6/11 by Astyanax because: there is no writing without editing.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth

Originally posted by smithjustinb

No, the non-physical first cause is a potential for a kinetic. The universe of form is the kinetic of that potential.

The potential is infinity. When you have something as large as infinity, it could hardly be classified as truly nothing. Infinity is the potential.

But "infinity" is not an entity of its own; It describes something else whose duration or extent is unfathomable. So "nothing" cannot be infinite, have potential, or have any use at all. It is nothing.


But what is infinity? What would have the capacity to hold it? The only answer is nothingness. In the potential for nothingness to become something, it can become anything and everything. That is infinity.

It is like when God said, "I am the Alpha and the Omega"



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

But what is infinity? What would have the capacity to hold it? The only answer is nothingness. In the potential for nothingness to become something, it can become anything and everything. That is infinity.

It is like when God said, "I am the Alpha and the Omega"

Again, I wouldn't define infinity as an entity of its own but only a description of something that exists, just as "red" or "tall" is not an entity of its own. Likewise, nothingness is just the complete absence of "thingness", just as dark is the absence of light. So also, dark cannot be considered an infinite potential for light, and nothing/eternity cannot be an infinite potential for everything or anything at all. I dunno, that's just how I see it.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 

Infinity doesn’t exist outside the human brain. Never has, never will. Can’t.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
A short time ago, there was a programme on TV about separate "universes" moving around independently of each other (I think the term used was "brains", because of their supposedly convoluted surfaces). Anyway, last night I was thinking about what would happen if two of these "brains" collided....and that got me thinking about the Big Bang.

Now, what if contact between two of these "brains" resulted in them passing through each other, rather than actually "colliding"? Well, it occurred to me that, at the moment of first contact, a new combined region would be created. This would start off as a single point, and expand as the "brains" moved through each other. As they continued to move, the new "universe" would continue to expand, and everything in that region would appear to rush away from everything else as it was carried forward by its parent "brain".

An interesting consequence of this theory is that, once the two "brains" had passed halfway through each other, the central "universe" would start to contract. Eventually, it would shrink to a single point, and then disappear forever.

Of course, this is probably complete BS, but I was intrigued that the central region in such a "collision" could effectively be "born" in a similar manner to our own universe. In other words, the "Big Bang" would have actually been the moment of first contact between two "brains". Maybe this would be enough to cause all kinds of sub atomic particles to be created, and eventually stars and galaxies.....

It was just a thought.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Everything in life/nature is cyclical. To me, the obvious answer is that it condenses and expands when it starts new.

Also, most things in life/nature are fractals.. that leads me to believe that the universe is one of an unlimited amount of other universes. As the surrounding universes expand, ours collapses & vice versa.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Some of these questions and theories can really screw up a guy's head! I'm now heading down to the lake and do a bit of fishing. I found out a long time ago that once I have my line in the water I can think 'til I'm thunked right out, and it doesn't matter!





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join