Before The Big Bang

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Cataclysm
 



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?

Yes there is still a dispute over whether the Universe is actually infinite. A lot of the recent evidence does suggest it is infinite and flat, but it could actually just be so ridiculously massive that it's virtually impossible to detect the curve. I still think infinite flat space makes the most logical sense.


The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has confirmed that the observable 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]

Shape of the Universe
edit on 2-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mwood
 



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?

All black holes eventually evaporate because of a process called "Hawking Radiation". This was mentioned by CLPrime but you may have missed it:

"since a black hole is a black body, it emits black body radiation, called Hawking radiation."

So to answer your question more precisely... no the matter that goes into a black hole is not spat out in another Universe, from what I understand.
edit on 2-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by CallYourBluff
 



Originally posted by CallYourBluff
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.

That is a legitimate point and I can't claim to know the answer. However, if I were to guess I would say the mathematical rules of the Universe arise from the most fundamental rules. The most fundamental rules probably being related to the uncertainty principle and the nature of reality as a wave form. Hawking claims even such fundamental rules of quantum mechanics can't possibly be created by God because he believes time didn't exist before the Big Bang. However, I believe that's just an easy way to squirm out of answering the questions in a more consistent and logical manner. I just believe the fabric of reality naturally acts like a wave, the vacuum turbulence (from which everything else arises) is just an inherent feature of reality. I'm sure it can be explained in more conclusive terms but I'm not able to.
edit on 2-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
This is a very interesting theory, well done Steven for putting it over Douglas Adams with his answer of 42. There is still a lot that needs explaining, but the primordial conclusion of balance is brilliance at its most simple


As for being able to detect this other plane, it should be simple and looks like we already can within the quantum fluxuations. Where we find a hill, there must be a hole and vica versa. I am very much leaning towards the functions of time and space both being infinite, but what does this really mean. As a programmer, there are just as many float numbers between 0 and 1 as there are between 0 and infinity. So on the grand scale of things there is very little distinction between the plank length and the measurable universe. In coming across theories that establish energy and matter are built on time and space, the concept of three dimensional time is important to get things adding up. This sends me down the track of infinite universes, I better stop before my head explodes.

For the discussions on black holes, most of an atom is just empty space so I see no problem packing all this collected matter into such a small space. With the presence of radiation it is a clear sign of atomic deconstruction so it all adding up as far as I can perceive. It is very interesting CLPrime to hear that there are similarities betweens suns and black holes as I do entertain that a black hole is star seed, just sitting their feeding until it is time to break out of its shell and grow into its next stage of life.

On a metaphysical level is also helps put a lot in perspective, where we have good people there must be bad people. To even be able to make a distinction between good and bad there must be a balance between the two with the average person. Or, a good person cannot exist unless there is a bad person, this no longer becomes a perception between good and bad, but a fundamental requirement. Looking around the world it does seam to add up but have not done all the numbers. In some ways I am saddened by this prospect as the more good I try to achieve, the more bad is required to counteract it. I expect such a though will makes someone happy.

reply to post by CLPrime
 


What do you mean by negative mass? Are you trying to venture into this alternate dimension to find the balance or is there some example of this in our perceivable world?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by CallYourBluff
 



Originally posted by CallYourBluff
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.

That is a legitimate point and I can't claim to know the answer. However, if I were to guess I would say the mathematical rules of the Universe arise from the most fundamental rules. The most fundamental rules probably being related to the uncertainty principle and the nature of reality as a wave form. Hawking claims even such fundamental rules of quantum mechanics can't possibly be created by God because he believes time didn't exist before the Big Bang. However, I believe that's just an easy way to squirm out of answering the questions in a more consistent and logical manner. I just believe the fabric of reality naturally acts like a wave, the vacuum turbulence (from which everything else arises) is just an inherent feature of reality. I'm sure it can be explained in more conclusive terms but I'm not able to.
edit on 2-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)


How can time exist when there is no universe for it to exist in?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 



How can time exist when there is no universe for it to exist in?

If the Universe is flat and infinite as the evidence suggests (and as my theory assumes), then space-time did indeed exist before the Big Bang took place. The way in which you are probably defining "Universe" is the spherical grouping of energy released from the Big Bang, but in actuality if space-time is infinite and flat there could be countless other Big Bangs happening in other parts of space-time, in fact that is definitely the case assuming my theory is correct. You might label each of them a Universe, however I would assume it's more accurate to label the actual Universe as the entire extent of space-time. I'm sure CLPrime will have a few words to say about this if he checks back into this thread.

edit: however it may be more accurate to label space-time as the multiverse and each big-bang-cluster as a universe. I guess it really depends on the theory you are using to describe reality.
edit on 3-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   

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



This theory dosent tell me much. If there is a distance between the event horizon and center. There must be a atmosphere of something between them, reducing the gravitational force. "This atmosphere is not sucked in by the "singularity". If the distance between the event horizon is empty. It must be as or equal in strength as the center of the black hole.

This atmosphere must also act as friction because it weaker than the gravitational force of the center.

This means that the black hole dosent suck in everything.

- I also have a question:

Why do you say that the core of the black hole is a singularity? What if it is nothing but a vacuum with different gravitational force depending on its polarisation?

The black hole can not have equal gravitational force in all direction. This would mean that it would light up as a star because the energy sucked in would stack up on each other. The singularity would light up because it is being compressed with matter.

When something is being compressed. Energy from the compression would create a differential between the matter being compressed and the source causing the compression. This would affect the gravity force working on the matter. That is why the black hole has a sphere.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by buster2010
 



How can time exist when there is no universe for it to exist in?

If the Universe is flat and infinite as the evidence suggests (and as my theory assumes), then space-time did indeed exist before the Big Bang took place. They way in which you are probably defining "Universe" is the spherical grouping of energy released from the Big Bang, but in actuality if space-time is infinite and flat there could be countless other Big Bangs happening in other parts of space-time, in fact that is definitely the case assuming my theory is correct. You might label each of them a Universe, however I would assume it's more accurate to label the actual Universe as the entire extent of space-time. I'm sure CLPrime will have a few words to say about this if he checks back into this thread.
edit on 3-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)


The universe only seams to be flat because of the curvature is so low because of its size.
Our universe is also only been exposed to different frequencies. These frequencies only detect specific densities at specific distances. Because of the movement of the measuring device in a orbit it can only detect at a specific distance.

If our universe horizon expand just as fast or faster than our measuring signals there is no way we can tell how our universe really looks or if it is infinite. And if it expands it is not infinite. Our universe wouldn't expand if it was infinite. It would be static, a constant.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 

God didnt create the universe... Because God is the Universe.

GOD...God is is an entity both female, and male twisted together as one.

We are inside of God, therefore the big bang and time has nothing to do with...lol,such knowledge.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



The universe only seams to be flat because of the curvature is so low because of its size.

Try reading my post at the very top of this page. And don't state things as if they were a fact when they aren't a fact. There is no proof the Universe is curved, just as there is no conclusive proof the Universe is flat, but the flat infinite model is currently the most accepted because it fits the data better than most other models, and for the sake of this theory it is assumed to be flat.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by LastProphet527
 



GOD...God is is an entity both female, and male twisted together as one.

Male and female are terms used to describe human derived concepts which explain the nature of the two human genders. There may be a species out there which has 3 genders, or 5 genders, or 10 genders. Some species on Earth only have 1 gender. God, if such an entity exists, cannot be described in any way using such terms as "male" and "female" because those terms are used to describe physical mortal entities of a 3 dimensional space, whilst God is supposedly some type of omnipresent interdimensional being of infinite complexity. Your attempt to describe such a being with such Earthling terms is absolutely meaningless.

Having said that, I don't discount the possibility that this Universe is conscious. That however, doesn't mean I believe it's some type of divine god. Such a consciousnesses can be explained with science and the neural network of the Universe could be mapped and studied, if indeed it is conscious.
edit on 3-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by spy66
 



The universe only seams to be flat because of the curvature is so low because of its size.

Try reading my post at the very top of this page. And don't state things as if they were a fact when they aren't a fact. There is no proof the Universe is curved, just as there is no conclusive proof the Universe is flat, but the flat infinite model is currently the most accepted because it fits the data better than most other models, and for the sake of this theory it is assumed to be flat.


It is a fact that our universe has curvature. It only seams flat at the horizon. Our universe is in reality measured as a sphere because of the orbit the satellite traveled in and the angle of measurement.

We can only measure from the inside and out. And since we are dependent on using a radio signal as measurement, the distance which we can measure is strict, also do to the orbit of the measuring device.

This is a fact. The measured universe so far is not flat. You better read your facts again. The measuring signals are two dimensional. That makes the horizon seam flat. That is a totally different thing. It dosent mean it is flat at all.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   
The problem with Hawking is that what he says is just as speculative as believing in a god. He's quite an annoying guy, sort of has a complex of thinking he is smarter than he is.

Probably trying to make a mark before he bites the dust, but i've known him my whole life and I already know nothing more is going to come from him. Reminds me of Descartes trying to prove God using thinking he can't understand


The reason his attempts of disproving God using science is that science is just about to do the opposite this year.
edit on 3/6/12 by Swamper because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
It is a fact that our universe has curvature.

No it's not a fact, stop pouring nonsense into the thread as if you know what you are talking about... of course we can only measure to a certain distance, the only thing we have proven is that the local/observable Universe is flat, but of course the Universe may actually be so huge it appears to be flat from our perspective because we can't see far enough... but there is no absolute solid proof either way to indicate whether it is actually curved or flat. And you trying to claim anything else is a lie and false information.


The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has confirmed that the observable 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]

Shape of the Universe - Wikipedia


WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe.

Shape of the Universe - NASA


How Do We Know the Universe is Flat?
edit on 3-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Extremely relevant video to this debate:


It appears that clip was taken from this hour long lecture (which I'm about to watch)
'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009

It seems like he will be explaining a theory extremely similar to the one I presented here and here will probably go into much more detail. Although I haven't watched it yet, it will be fascinating to hear his perspective and theories.
edit on 3-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


You should really learn how to read information. Because you are getting it wrong.

The universe is not flat. Period.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



The universe is not flat. Period.

What ever you say....


And if you want me to understand what you're saying then provide a legitimate source that explains it properly because the only thing you produce is babbling nonsense.
edit on 3-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by spy66
 



The universe is not flat. Period.

What ever you say....


And if you want me to understand what you're saying then provide a legitimate source that explains it properly because the only thing you produce is babbling nonsense.
edit on 3-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)


Read about the signal used to observe our universe. You will learn that it is two dimensional. A two dimensional signal creates two dimensional prints of what ever it hits and is reflected of. The satellite is set to receive the signal at specific time intervals. From that it prints out a two dimensional image. Since the satellite is set to receive the signal at intervals each time, you get a specific distance of measurement each time. So the signal creates a image that looks like a flat wall. Because the satellite is not set to receive signals past its set intervals. Is that so hard to understand?
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


So what you are saying is that the experimented is fundamentally flawed and the scientists can't even understand what you are saying? Or are you just simply explaining that the experiment is inconclusive because it can't measure to the accuracy required? Either way, your argument would not indicate there is "conclusive" solid facts to prove the Universe is actually curved. And if such evidence exists as produced by a professional scientific institution I would like to see it. But you and I both know that no such evidence exists... or else you would have provided it by now.
edit on 3-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Before "The Big Bang" was a big crunch. The Universe recreates itself over and over again.





top topics
 
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join