Before The Big Bang

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


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

But when did that cycle start and where did the energy come from? There needs to a logical reason why such a cycle would initiate. My theory does describe a cycle of sorts, however it explains where the energy required for that cycle comes from (negative energy) as well as why the energy comes into existence (space-time turbulence).




posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Holy hell that was funny... I'm watching that lecture by Lawrence Krauss at the moment and I'm at the bit where he's explaining how we are all made of star dust. The elements required for evolution and the elements which we are made of (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen etc) were not created during the Big Bang, they are only created in the nuclear furnace of stars and they release such materials when they explode and die...

"So forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here today" ~ Lawrence Krauss




posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev

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.


Stars collapse to form black holes, not the other way around (though, your idea makes me think of popcorn...and I'm always a fan of popcorn). A black hole is the second-to-last stage of a star's life.



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?


Negative matter has never been observed, it's just a theoretical extension of normal matter. In physical equations, it's not all that hard to put a negative sign on a value of mass, so it's easy to work with (and theorize about) negative matter without any actually being observed.
Mass, technically, is inertia - resistance to being accelerated. Things like photons have no mass to resist acceleration, so they always travel at the fastest possible speed. The only thing unable to be accelerated at all would be something with infinite mass, which, of course, is impossible. Negative mass just means negative inertia, which means a push in the +x direction, for example, will cause it to go in the -x direction.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


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


Hiya guys! My friend here, LilDude, is actually wanting to get into a discussion about something that's been puzzling him (and me too I guess) about the cyclic possibilities of existance.
I realize this thread has its own purpose involving the singularity and the beginning, but if any of you would be willing to also look at this concept on another thread, it would be very usefull as well as appreciated.
I made a thread and left it as "clear as mud" so we could possibly use all the great minds and accumulated knowledge of the great folks here to help him out a little. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated!!
Thanks!!!

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


The important thing to remember when dealing with space-time is that it is space-time - space and time combined. According to the standard cosmological model, it's not just space that's been expanding since the Big Bang, it's the entirety of space-time. People tend to forget this when they talk about the singularity of the Big Bang. That singularity isn't just a singularity of space, it's also a singularity of time. Within the singularity, the 3 space and 1 time dimensions would be infinitely compressed - essentially, neither space nor time exist at this point. The inflation of the singularity is the creation of both space and time.

I don't care much for the idea, but whatever.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

"So forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here today" ~ Lawrence Krauss


Nothing like injecting a little blasphemy into a secular physics lecture.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 



That singularity isn't just a singularity of space, it's also a singularity of time. Within the singularity, the 3 space and 1 time dimensions would be infinitely compressed - essentially, neither space nor time exist at this point. The inflation of the singularity is the creation of both space and time.

That's basically the theory Hawking proposes though. That's why he says time didn't exist before the Big Bang, because "the inflation of the singularity is the creation of both space and time". My theory assumes something completely different, that infinite flat space already existed before the Big Bang and that the energy of the Big Bang inflated inside an infinite flat space which was already there before the Big Bang ever happened. Isn't that basically what the flat infinite model would suggest... that's the way I understood it when you explained it to me. Furthermore, my theory hinges on the idea that the energy of the Big Bang was produced via vacuum fluctuations of space-time, so it wouldn't work unless space-time existed before the Big Bang.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
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)


I am not really saying that the universe is curved. But that it is measured as a sphere. Because the measurements were made from the inside "from the satellite and out" from a specific location which the satellite orbited as it did its measurements. I am saying that the horizon measured is viewed as being flat, because of the two dimensional signal received from our measurements. The two dimensional signal we received creates a flat background. What is beyond the measured distance is what becomes pure speculation.

I am not saying that the scientists are wrong at all. I will rather say that their information is misunderstood by the public who reads it. Because the scientists know that a two dimensional signal creates a flat back ground, they have even displayed images of this.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Right, and that's why I favour an infinite universe. I loathe the initial singularity theory, and the infinite flat universe is both supported by evidence (no matter what Spy66 says, as you well know) and the simplest way to solve both the "where did time come from?" and the "what is the universe expanding into?" questions. It takes the least amount of effort to just exist.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Ok now I get what you were saying, that's why I don't like the singularity theory either.

On a related note, Lawrence Krauss (in the lecture I linked to) describes this whole theory in a very eloquent manner. This is pretty much exactly what I'm theorizing, except that I described the negative energy thing a little bit differently. It seems he is saying gravity should act as the negative energy, which is what Hawking said too. That probably is the case actually, there might not be any need for a mysterious hidden "negative universe".


The Universe must be flat. Why? Well there are two reasons... there's the one I normally say, which is it's the only mathematically beautiful Universe... which is true. But there's another reason I don't usually talk about, but I'll talk about here. It turns out, that in a flat Universe the total energy of the Universe is precisely zero, because gravity can have negative energy, so the negative energy of gravity balances out the positive energy of matter. What's so beautiful about a Universe with a total energy of zero? Well only such a Universe can begin from nothing... and that is remarkable. Because the laws of physics allow the Universe to begin from nothing. You don't need a diety. You have nothing, zero total energy and quantum fluctuations can produce a Universe.
edit on 3-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
I have to say this was one of the best reads i have had in a while. Awesome post. I've only thought of the universe as an "Expanding balloon " if you will rather than a bang like you've mentioned. But i never thought of it as a being of opposites. A knowledgeable read



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I myself have always had a problem accepting the start of our universe as the greatly postulated "Big Bang"...it just doesn't make sense to my (mostly)logical mind.

My objections to the big bang are that it violates/ignores the universe's own laws to happen.


When a star collaspes into a black hole nothing can escape the massive gravity well; not even the light created by the exploding star itself. Captured by the gravity well, everything sinks into a massive singularity... from which absolutely nothing can escape.

Now in the "Big Bang" model the entire universe itself is collected into a single massive singularity. A single point that contains everything...my qestion?

How the hell did the "big bang" escape it's own unimaginable, monstrous gravity well?

According to laws of physics it could not. The answer most commonly accepted by mainstream scientists is absolutely absurd to me.... they believe "for the first few seconds of the universe, the laws of physics did not yet apply".

That is really the best they've got to back them up? To me this is the MIT equivalent of magic.

I honestly believe the theory of the big bang was developed by christian theorists attempting to scientifically explain the book of genesis("Let there be light").

Unfortunately from where I am observing, they haven't done that(yet, I am open minded
) The pieces do not seem to fit together...maybe they are from 2 different puzzles?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Shark_Feeder
 



Now in the "Big Bang" model the entire universe itself is collected into a single massive singularity. A single point that contains everything...my qestion?

How the hell did the "big bang" escape it's own unimaginable, monstrous gravity well?

According to laws of physics it could not. The answer most commonly accepted by mainstream scientists is absolutely absurd to me.... they believe "for the first few seconds of the universe, the laws of physics did not yet apply".

Exactly... and that folks is why the Universe did not start as a singularity.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Shark_Feeder
 



Now in the "Big Bang" model the entire universe itself is collected into a single massive singularity. A single point that contains everything...my qestion?

How the hell did the "big bang" escape it's own unimaginable, monstrous gravity well?

According to laws of physics it could not. The answer most commonly accepted by mainstream scientists is absolutely absurd to me.... they believe "for the first few seconds of the universe, the laws of physics did not yet apply".

Exactly... and that folks is why the Universe did not start as a singularity.


Our universe must have started as a singularity of some kind because. The infinite is the first dimension our universe is a part of the second dimension. A changing and expanding dimension.

From a earlier post you explained this but not with the exact same wording: You can't have the second dimension without first having the infinite (the first dimension). Because it is not possible to have it any other way.

In other words: space than time.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Funny how he says you don't need a deity for quantum fluctuations to form a universe...as if quantum fluctuations and the laws that govern them are self-creating (that is, that they were able to create themselves).
edit on 3-6-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



The infinite is the first dimension our universe is a part of the second dimension.

I honestly do not even know what that is supposed to mean. Space-time is 4 dimensional, 3 of those dimensions describe 3D space and the 4th is time... your terminology and the way you describe things is completely confusing and I fail to understand anything you say.
edit on 3-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Funny how he says you don't need a deity for quantum fluctuations to form a universe...as if quantum fluctuations and the laws that govern them are self-creating (that is, that they were able to create themselves).
edit on 3-6-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)


I agree. The infinite is a constant. That means it has no reason to change.

If the infinite is the first dimension. Nothing else exists. That means there is no external power to make changes. Because that power would be a different dimension.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by spy66
 



The infinite is the first dimension our universe is a part of the second dimension.

I honestly do not even know what that is supposed to mean. Space-time is 4 dimensional, 3 of those dimensions describe 3D space and the 4th is time... your terminology and the way you describe things is completely confusing and I fail to understand anything you say.
edit on 3-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)


I know you dont know what this means.

The infinite is a dimension right? would you agree?

Lets say this image shows a portion of the infinite dimension. Would you agree that it would look like this?
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 



Funny how he says you don't need a deity for quantum fluctuations to form a universe...as if quantum fluctuations and the laws that govern them are self-creating (that is, that they were able to create themselves).


Yes that's true, although I don't necessarily believe any type of deity is required to to make such laws... then we would simply be right back where we started... how did the deity come into existence and if such a deity exists it must have some sort of structure, implying it is governed by some sort of rules... this just leads us into an infinite loop of who created what. I believe it just comes down to pure chaos, undeterministic probabilities... like I said on the last page "the vacuum turbulence (from which everything else arises) is just an inherent feature of reality".


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 3-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



The infinite is a dimension right? would you agree?

No I wouldn't agree... I would say the dimensions of 3D space could extend in all directions for an infinite length, but I would not say infinity is a dimension. Although when I think about it more carefully, it's possible to have an infinite amount of points between any given space, the result of which is something like a dimension of infinity. That's the only way I can understand it.
edit on 3-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join