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.

 

Need ATS help...simple question: Where did the BIG BANG happen???

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
the singularity existed within a black hole.a black hole that existed in another dimension,another universe and on the other side of its singularity a white hole was formed and after a certain amout of matter was accumulated, it burst forth its contents through and out of the white hole and created this dimension,our universe... thats how i see and understand it anyways.
edit on 14-9-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 

There's no edge. AFAIK the shape of the Universe resembles a surface of an expanding sphere..
edit on 14-9-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Yeah, I was wondering about that. I am sure I remember learning in school the Universe was a sphere...but that was a fair while ago now, things change quickly these days. I just looked this up on the Wikipedia page and it seems a whole lot more complicated than I had first assumed...listen to this:


The shape of the universe is a matter of debate in physical cosmology over the local and global geometry of the universe which considers both curvature and topology, though, strictly speaking, it goes beyond both. In practice, more formally, the debate seeks a 3-manifold that corresponds to the spatial section (in comoving coordinates) of the 4-dimensional space-time of the universe.

The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has confirmed that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error.[1] Within the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) model, the presently most popular shape of the Universe found to fit observational data according to cosmologists is the infinite flat model,[2] while other FLRW models that fit the data include the Poincaré dodecahedral space[3][4] and the Picard horn.[5]
It seems to me like this super flat model does not fit the Big Bang theory at all.
edit on 14-9-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a flat disc universe does'nt fit the big bang theory at all because we really dont know when,how,or where our universe formed. every couple of years a new theory is put forth and is eventually seen as incorrect...just what do we really know anyways?...not much...unless the universe is in the shape of a disc because it is expanding outward pressed between something or somewhere else that compresses it and it is then forced to take on the shape of a disc as it expands...



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
It seems to me like this super flat model does no fit the Big Bang theory at all.

Why is that?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
It seems to me like this super flat model does no fit the Big Bang theory at all.

Why is that?
Well...think about it...is a super-flat disk the typical shape formed by a massive release of energy (what some may call an explosion, others may debate that
)?
edit on 14-9-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
a flat disc universe does'nt fit the big bang theory at all because we really dont know when,how,or where our universe formed. every couple of years a new theory is put forth and is eventually seen as incorrect...just what do we really know anyways?...not much...unless the universe is in the shape of a disc because it is expanding outward pressed between something or somewhere else that compresses it and it is then forced to take on the shape of a disc as it expands...
That's an interesting explanation. The mind boggles to think what may be pushing the Universe into a disk shape.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 

I think you're misunderstanding what they mean by flat..




posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Originally posted by blocula
a flat disc universe does'nt fit the big bang theory at all because we really dont know when,how,or where our universe formed. every couple of years a new theory is put forth and is eventually seen as incorrect...just what do we really know anyways?...not much...unless the universe is in the shape of a disc because it is expanding outward pressed between something or somewhere else that compresses it and it is then forced to take on the shape of a disc as it expands...
That's an interesting explanation. The mind boggles to think what may be pushing the Universe into a disk shape.
hi how are you?... pressed between dark matter? or perhaps another dimension?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by BlackPoison94
 


hi Poison, thanks for the reply,

and thanks for the pointer to your thread...awesome work...

i have been reading alot about it to...

interesting about the constant temperature thru out the universe...

catchya later, when i have worked thru your thread...

thanks again,

seeya...



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by akushla99
 



Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by Elentarri
I assume you are assuming that the Big Bang Hypothesis is correct?

There are several other hypotheses summarized in LINK

or this one LINK


Some problems with the Big Bang hypothesis summarized in LINK

Cosmology is fun!


I'm warming to the idea (that i read alot about here on ATS) that the explosion for some fabled big bang was produced by gases emanating from the fundament of the flying spaghetti monster. Is this true?

Akushla


Don't see why not.... some of the "proof" on some of these science "theories are a bit stretched.
Why not try this religious view:


A RELIGION FOR THE REST OF US




posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by blocula

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Originally posted by blocula
a flat disc universe does'nt fit the big bang theory at all because we really dont know when,how,or where our universe formed. every couple of years a new theory is put forth and is eventually seen as incorrect...just what do we really know anyways?...not much...unless the universe is in the shape of a disc because it is expanding outward pressed between something or somewhere else that compresses it and it is then forced to take on the shape of a disc as it expands...
That's an interesting explanation. The mind boggles to think what may be pushing the Universe into a disk shape.
hi how are you?... pressed between dark matter? or perhaps another dimension?
or the universe is just an illusion,a holographic projection created within some kind of super advanced computer simulation...www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 14-9-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


hi Order, and thanks to U for the responses...

one point i wanted to clarify....

you said...



I can't even comprehend how the start of the Universe could begin outside of the Universe?


what i was getting at was this:

either the big bang happened in this universe ( which would create the problem of a "pre-existing" universe...)

OR: the big bang happened somewhere else ( in one of your bubbles, maybe...?)
and the resulting "explosiion" is "our" universe...

so when i say somewhere else, i mean it couldnt of happened IN OUR UNIVERSE, if
our universe didnt actually exist until AFTER the big bang...

thanks again,
+ seeya...



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Just a thought to cloud things further.

I thought the multiverse is gaining favour. If so then the big bang resulted in much more than time zero in our universe but infinite time zero's in infinite universes.

If you think you will get an answer to your question on ATS you may have an infinite wait.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 



Within String Field Theory multiverse the physics suggest that our universe may have formed when two extra-dimensional membranes collided. Our universe may not be so special, since membrane collisions could cause big bangs all the time.


The theory that our universe is contained inside a bubble, and that multiple alternative universes exist inside their own bubbles -- making up the 'multiverse' -- is, for the first time, being tested by physicists.


link

edit on 14-9-2011 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by mamaloney
 





You obviously have no understanding of the big bang theory


thanks for that,

and welcome to ATS, where most of us have manners and show respect for people asking questions...

if U know so much, explain your singularity, please...

the original question, in case u didnt read it, was WHERE did the big bang ( or expansion of that singularity) actually happen... in a "pre-existing "space" / universe, OR somewhere "outside"...?

and PS: what caused the inflation process again?
i understand it was at / or after the "baryogenic" stage,
and i am familiar with the theory of "Big Bang (and/or stellar) nucleosynthesis, etc

BUT, they still dont explain the singularity itself, where it come from,
what caused it,
etc,

OR WHERE IT WAS...

IMH understanding...

seeya



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by shaneR
 


The same place as the rest of the universe... In your mind....
You want to reach the end of the universe, try reaching the end of your mind..

kx



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


i am the same, and was interested in some facets of this theory...

from... www.spacedaily.com...

(thanks for the link - Elentarri )



The cyclic universe theory represents a combination of standard physical concepts
and ideas from the emerging fields of string theory and M-theory,
which are ambitious efforts to develop a unified theory of all physical forces and particles.

Although these theories are rooted in complex mathematics,
they offer a compelling graphic picture of the cyclic universe theory.
Under these theories, the universe would exist as two infinitely large parallel sheets,
like two sheets of paper separated by a microscopic distance.

This distance is a extra, or fifth dimension, that is not apparent us.
At our current phase in the history of the universe, the sheets are expanding
in all directions, gradually spreading out and dispersing all the matter and energy they contain.

After trillions of years, when they become essentially empty, they enter a "stagnant" period
in which they stop stretching and, instead, begin to move toward each other as the fifth dimension
undergoes a collapse. The sheets meet and "bounce" off each other.

The impact causes the sheets to be charged with the extraordinarily hot and dense matter
that is commonly associated with the big bang. After the sheets move apart, they resume
their expansion, spreading out the matter, which cools and coalesces into stars and galaxies
as in our present universe.

The sheets, or branes, as physicists call them, are not parallel universes,
but rather are facets of the same universe, with one containing all the ordinary matter
we know and the other containing "we know not what," said Steinhardt.
It is conceivable, he said, that a material called dark matter, which is widely believed
to make up a significant part of the universe, resides on this other brane.

The two sheets interact only by gravity, with massive objects in one sheet exerting
a tug on matter in the other, which is what dark matter does to ordinary matter.
The movements and properties of these sheets all arise naturally from the underlying
mathematics of the model, noted Steinhardt.

That is in contrast to the big bang model, in which dark energy
has been added simply to explain current observations.


interesting stuff...i thought...

thanks again

edit on 14/9/2011 by shaneR because: typo



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by shaneR
 








If each atom is mostly space, and everything is made of atoms, why can't I walk through walls?
It's quite simple really. Each atom may be mostly empty space but the particles which make it up move around so fast the atom appears to be a much more compact/dense unit than it actually is. Now bunch trillions of atoms together into a piece of sizable matter and it's virtually impossible to tell it's made up from little atoms which are mostly empty space.
edit on 14-9-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

Ummm...no. You can't walk through walls because of the electro-magnetic force. The polarity of your hands and the walls are like two magnets that repel each other. If you could literally reverse the polarity of the atoms in your body then you would be able to walk through walls (of course you will have sunk through the floor first).



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by shaneR
 


Maybe this will help..The Mother of all theory's..M theory..


Here is a link describing M- theory in layman's terms.


Link
edit on 14-9-2011 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2011 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join