Before The Big Bang

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
how cute

man thinks he understands the universe

I don't claim to understand anything. The only truth is in knowing you know nothing.

This is just a theory, and that was stated in the title but I shortened it.

edit on 2-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

not you, mankind

interesting info. just makes me giggle a little the "big bang" doesn't explain anything. our minds simply can't comprehend the big questions like the infinite nature of space and time

even if you make the argument it is a cycle/circle, it still doesn't answer the question of how everything started

even if you say "it has always been and always will be"

reminds me of a vonnegut quote

“Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?'
Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.”;

Originally posted by Ajax84
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

Hawking is right about the wave-function of the universe producing the Big Bang. There is one "tiny" problem though if he wants to use this to argue that God doesn't exist:

He neglects that zero doesn't mean "nothing", it just means "balance". That balance could have been from the first possible particle that broke apart producing charge which led to energy which led to atoms which led to matter which led to gravity which led to ... us. And where did that first particle come from?

The topic title lead me to expect some discussion of a "singularity"... it wasn't even mentioned.

To the OP and others with greater knowledge on these issues, please explain how the concept of a 'singularity' fits into this discussion.

Also, doesn't the dispute of finite vs. infinite universe still rage? Several years ago, that was a hotly disputed topic. Has something changed in that regard?

Very interesting topic (tho difficult)... congrats to the OP.

Originally posted by Cataclysm
The topic title lead me to expect some discussion of a "singularity"... it wasn't even mentioned.

To the OP and others with greater knowledge on these issues, please explain how the concept of a 'singularity' fits into this discussion.

Also, doesn't the dispute of finite vs. infinite universe still rage? Several years ago, that was a hotly disputed topic. Has something changed in that regard?

Very interesting topic (tho difficult)... congrats to the OP.

IMO the singularity would have been that original particle that split and created the charged and uncharged particles that built up into everything else. Basically, it started "tiime" and everything else was propogated from it.... my idea of the "God Particle" only this one was put forth by God, so to speak

reply to post by PurpleChiten


The nature of gravitational attraction and repulsion is actually a little different from electromagnetic attraction and repulsion. Here's the deal:

Electromagnetism

+ charge and - charge: attraction, causing mutual centripetal acceleration
+ charge and + charge: repulsion, causing mutual centrifugal acceleration
- charge and - charge: repulsion


Now here's the funny part...

Gravitation

+ mass and + mass: attraction, the centripetal gravitational force we're all familiar with
- mass and - mass: attraction, but the masses accelerate away from each other (I'll explain below)
+ mass and - mass: pursual, with the two masses accelerating off in a straight line to infinity


Now, to explain the last two...

I'm sure you know all about F = ma (force = mass x acceleration). Well, when you have two negative masses, (-m), the gravitational force between them is positive (+F), which means, technically, the force is still attraction. But, to cancel out the other negative sign, the acceleration will be negative (-a). This causes the masses to accelerate away from each other.
Put simply, negative mass is negative inertia, so positive forces cause negative acceleration.

A positive and negative mass is a combination of the first two cases. The negative mass accelerates toward the center of the positive mass, but the positive mass accelerates away from the center of the negative mass. The result is the negative mass will chase the positive mass off to the far reaches of the universe, constantly accelerating the whole way.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

The nature of gravitational attraction and repulsion is actually a little different from electromagnetic attraction and repulsion. Here's the deal:

Electromagnetism

+ charge and - charge: attraction, causing mutual centripetal acceleration
+ charge and + charge: repulsion, causing mutual centrifugal acceleration
- charge and - charge: repulsion


Now here's the funny part...

Gravitation

+ mass and + mass: attraction, the centripetal gravitational force we're all familiar with
- mass and - mass: attraction, but the masses accelerate away from each other (I'll explain below)
+ mass and - mass: pursual, with the two masses accelerating off in a straight line to infinity


Now, to explain the last two...

I'm sure you know all about F = ma (force = mass x acceleration). Well, when you have two negative masses, (-m), the gravitational force between them is positive (+F), which means, technically, the force is still attraction. But, to cancel out the other negative sign, the acceleration will be negative (-a). This causes the masses to accelerate away from each other.
Put simply, negative mass is negative inertia, so positive forces cause negative acceleration.

A positive and negative mass is a combination of the first two cases. The negative mass accelerates toward the center of the positive mass, but the positive mass accelerates away from the center of the negative mass. The result is the negative mass will chase the positive mass off to the far reaches of the universe, constantly accelerating the whole way.

edit on 2-6-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

Yes, I was inferring that perhaps there is a closer bond than we are presently aware of, that perhaps they are more interconnected than our present knowledge would lead us to believe.... looking for the "unification" of them in some way. Sorry to have been fuzzy on that part.

reply to post by PurpleChiten


I knew what you were getting at...I just took the opportunity to explain a couple things: 1) that the simple push-pull of electromagnetism doesn't really translate to gravity as easily as some people would like it to (the two are similar, but fundamentally different); and 2) just the really cool nature of attraction/repulsion when dealing with positive and negative masses.

The second one was really my intention. I thought people might be intrigued by the idea of two masses chasing each other around the universe.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

I knew what you were getting at...I just took the opportunity to explain a couple things: 1) that the simple push-pull of electromagnetism doesn't really translate to gravity as easily as some people would like it to (the two are similar, but fundamentally different); and 2) just the really cool nature of attraction/repulsion when dealing with positive and negative masses.

The second one was really my intention. I thought people might be intrigued by the idea of two masses chasing each other around the universe.

edit on 2-6-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

ahhh gotcha! It was an excellent explanation too, very straightfoward, I'll give it two thumbs up!

Originally posted by Konduit
I believe that before the big bang there was Unity.

After the big bang, there was Duality, the creation of Light and Dark, Good and Bad, Hot and Cold, Male and Female, Past and Future. This is the very nature of our universe, opposites.

This is putting into words something that is beyond human comprehension.

edit on 2-6-2012 by Konduit because: (no reason given)

God wanted a Bride, She had to be also infinite. So a "rib" was extracted from the Adam. All finites throughout Her infinite womb (space) over eternal time are their offspring. That be us too.

material came from immaterial. universe arose from something (which isn't a thing as it's immaterial) who #ing cares if you call it god or not?

Still does not answer WHY does it work? Who decided the math? Whats the point? Why can't Hawkin just say, I haven't got a fuking clue.

So, if there is a black hole where everything gets sucked into it then that matter has to go somewhere...right?
Correct me if I am wrong because I know next to nothing about this stuff.

So everything that gets sucked in could possibly be spit out somewhere else?

So a black hole in another universe could spit everything sucked in into ours???

A couple of humans sat on a train one day and had a discussion. They asked the question where did our universe come from. The conclusion was that there must be a fabric of multiple universes and they collide creating new universes. That way we don't have to think about the creation of the others and only that they created ours. If science continues to ignore the mystery of consciousness then they will never have a complete theory. Maybe the human race is just not intelligent enough to find an answer but science will never admit it.

I would like to propose that the Fibonacci sequence is the key to the creation of the universe and perspective conciousness is the lock which the key fits into.

Concious thought brought forth energy, in which the movement of energy creates conciousness.

Originally posted by mwood

So, if there is a black hole where everything gets sucked into it then that matter has to go somewhere...right

It does go somewhere...it goes to the center of the black hole.
I know people like to visualize black holes as flat discs, but they're not...they're spheres, and they have centers (singularities), and that's where all the matter goes. They only appear as discs because they rotate rapidly and form flat accretion discs of infalling matter around their equators (sort of like Saturn's rings).

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by mwood

So, if there is a black hole where everything gets sucked into it then that matter has to go somewhere...right

It does go somewhere...it goes to the center of the black hole.
I know people like to visualize black holes as flat discs, but they're not...they're spheres, and they have centers (singularities), and that's where all the matter goes. They only appear as discs because they rotate rapidly and form flat accretion discs of infalling matter around their equators (sort of like Saturn's rings).

Everything can not go to the center of a black whole because: When something is compressed, something is also emitted. The emitted energies is a part of the gravitational sphere. The emitted energy is stronger than the gravity force of the center and will search out wards. Or is it more correct to say lighter in mass so that it will drift away from the center? You did say the black hole was a sphere! That means gravity differential.

A black whole is not infinite. There by it can not absorb everything.

reply to post by spy66


A black hole is a black body - meaning every photon (and therefore any particle at all) that falls on its "surface" is captured by the black hole. This means two things:

1) all matter that comes into contact with the event horizon will be captured and fall into the center of the black hole. The more matter is captured, the bigger the black hole gets. Of course the black hole isn't infinite, but it doesn't need to be - if a black hole were ever able to capture an infinite amount of mass, then the resultant black hole would be infinite...but seeing as how this is a physical impossibility, it's not something that could actually happen.

2) since a black hole is a black body, it emits black body radiation, called Hawking radiation. This is true of all black bodies. Even stars, which are approximate black bodies do this (though the black body radiation they emit is overwhelmed by their natural luminosity). Also, the Cosmic Microwave Background is a near-perfect black body spectrum, since it represent light emitted by the universe at a time when it absorbed all light that existed within it.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Konduit

 

This is putting into words something that is beyond human comprehension.

If my theory is correct then it certainly isn't beyond our comprehension. Your vague theory probably would be though.

Ouch.

Originally posted by NowanKenubi
reply to post by Konduit

 

You are forgetting Twilight, Neutral, Warm, Androgynous, and Present, the thin line that links opposites.

The holy trinity, the third being the sum of the other two. Hot and cold you get warm, past future and present, father mother child, earth sun moon, X Y Z axis and so on. Seems to be the nature of our reality as we see it, but obviously there is much more to it than this.

Check out The Urantia Papers, interesting stuff in there about the creation of the universe, such as Lucifer being the creator of our reality on the basis of the idea of separation or opposites, in an attempt to imitate the Creator without the Creators help. If you ask any hardcore Satanist if there is a Hell they will say no, we are already on the lowest level.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by spy66

 

A black hole is a black body - meaning every photon (and therefore any particle at all) that falls on its "surface" is captured by the black hole. This means two things:

1) all matter that comes into contact with the event horizon will be captured and fall into the center of the black hole. The more matter is captured, the bigger the black hole gets. Of course the black hole isn't infinite, but it doesn't need to be - if a black hole were ever able to capture an infinite amount of mass, then the resultant black hole would be infinite...but seeing as how this is a physical impossibility, it's not something that could actually happen.

2) since a black hole is a black body, it emits black body radiation, called Hawking radiation. This is true of all black bodies. Even stars, which are approximate black bodies do this (though the black body radiation they emit is overwhelmed by their natural luminosity). Also, the Cosmic Microwave Background is a near-perfect black body spectrum, since it represent light emitted by the universe at a time when it absorbed all light that existed within it.

All matter can not fall to the center of the black hole if the black hole is a sphere. How can it? The sphere proves that it dosent.

reply to post by spy66


The black hole is defined by its event horizon... that's what's spherical. The event horizon is the distance from the center at which the gravity becomes so strong that nothing - not even light - can escape. But there is nothing physical at this distance, it's just a specific strength of the black hole's gravitational field. Further out and the black hole's gravity is too weak to capture all light... closer in and the gravity gets even stronger, right in to the center, where all matter that falls into the black hole goes.

So, yes, all matter goes to the center of the black hole.
Technically, the physical structure of the black hole is a point in the middle of the spherical event horizon, called the singularity. This is what all matter falls into.