Big Bang - Where's the hole?

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by LifeInDeath
the Universe isn't "pulling from the center," the Universe is pulling in all directions at once. Every part of it is pulling away from every other part of it.


Say it ain't so! lol

I thought all the galaxies were moving further and further away from each other in one direction, outward? If the dark energy is filling in the space between galaxies from all directions, then the galaxies wouldn't be moving at all. Example: The space between two galaxies is filling in, pushing them away from each other. But wait! The space between one of those galaxies and the NEXT galaxy is also filling in, pushing back against the force between the first two galaxies. I dunno.




posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

I wonder how physicists came up with the idea of the space filling in between galaxies? Where is this dark energy coming from? Is it like a cloud of ever swirling of smoke?


No physicist came up with that idea. You did.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by BobbyTarass
reply to post by TiM3LoRd
 


You are living in a fairy tale.


HAHHAHAHAHAH ooh the irony *wipes tear from eye from the laughter and walks out*

Glad to see you have it all figured out skippy.. keep on trucking



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
double post
edit on 6-7-2012 by TiM3LoRd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by rival
Sorry Jiggerj...as hard as I try to focus all my mental facilities on your question in the hopes
of supplying you with a succinct and elegant answer some sarcastic guy from New Jersey
pops up in my head and says...

"Hey...why don'tcha ask your sister about the hole I left after I gave her a big bang last night, eh?"

THIS REPLY IS OFF TOPIC AND SUBJECT TO CENSOR

*guy from Jersey* "Oh yea...I got yer censor right here..."

.....Oh Man, I can't seem to shut that guy up now....



LMAO That's too funny to be censored.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


ImaFungi was talking about the definition of movement being increasing distance between two objects. I corrected that definition, in that, in the case of an expanding universe, there is no actual movement.
What's the problem?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


say there are 10 light years of space between 2 galaxies....

how does the distance of 10 light years increase,,, without the galaxies moving?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


"By saying that the universe has an edge, then we arrive at the "well, what's on the outside?" issue."


also about this..,.,,.., even if the universe was infinitely expanding in every direction,,, there would still be edges..... are you saying energy itself is infinite and if were to travel any/every direction and distance for 9345993495643963442^338058943534534530845 light years at 324793242 times the speed of light we would never reach the farthest edges of the universe,,,,,, even if those edges are always traveling outwards,,, and the light from those edges are traveling further and faster outwards....... there would still be those closest to edge no?
edit on 6-7-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


A hole implies impact of some kind. For there to be an impact there would have to be a medium for the impact to react upon. If the BB was truly the originator of this Universe there couldn't be a medium.
If, however, our Universe is an offshoot of an older, larger Universe the impacted medium may exist but be in a form we either cannot see or doesn't actually exist inside this Universe.
Also, and more importantly., we can only see a tiny fraction of the actual universe. The simplest answer could be that we just haven't found the impact sight yet.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by LifeInDeath
 

But the Universe isn't "pulling from the center," the Universe is pulling in all directions at once. Every part of it is pulling away from every other part of it. The Big Rip is a theory about the eventual fate of the Universe where as space expands faster and faster, the expansion starts to overcome even the forces holding matter together and even the atoms and sub-atomic particles that make up the matter in the Universe can no longer overcome it and are ripped apart, not from one point at the center, but every point in the Universe this pulls apart from every other point.


Do you really buy this concept? I have a hard time with it. Again, I know physicists are smart, but, an expansion so powerful it will actually pull all matter apart? Wouldn't they be able to detect an increase in (let's call it) pressure in outer space?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by PragmaticBeliever

It wasn´t "and explosion" or even "an expansion" from "nothing". It was a kind of RIP, from a multidimensional Universe, wich was already "everywhere" (and it still is, if M-theory gets to be confirmed some day) and that´s why we doesn´t need a "BANG" or a "INFLATION". And by RIP we mean a multidimensional RIP.

...

BTW, all the post WASN´T an answer in strict sense. It was more of an approximation, and it raises even more questions, wich we can´t answer . Quite a paradox..



hint: we ARE the hole...




Basically it's a bunch of fancy words ...

It doesn't matter how many dimensions you put up there, any 3+n D universe, *MUST* exist in the 3D universe. No buts ... what these theories are basically saying, is that you have 3D space, and then you have time, and speed etc ... so, any matter can increase in speed, and decrease in matter ... that is, there x,y,z variants can decrease ... but they can never become "non-existant" in the 3D Universe. Even if we use 0 in our every day math, 0 is a paradoxical value ... space isn't a vacuum, vacuum isn't zero material.

So, back to basics ... whatever ... you can't have speed, without space ... nor can you have time, without space. All these are derived from matter, which is the fundamental thing ...

Another thing, about matter ... which is rarely talked about ... if an atom is a football field, then it's nucleus is the football in the center of it. And an electron is a fly, flying around it. What I am saying is, that distance in matter and between matter is mostly "seemingly" empty space ... but since we know, there can be no empty space ... viola.

Another thing, about the Universe. I do not know God ... maybe there is one, maybe there isn't. But, nothing in our known Universe, is a question about the existance of God, or not. Religion is just politics ... God, being the political authoratitve entity. However, to a scientist ... it should not concern him. All we know, is nature around us ... so whatever is out there, we *MUST* try and explain it from the known universe around us.

And what do we know, about the Universe around us? THERE IS NO SINGULARITY. There is nothing, that *just* happens, and then stops happening ... whatever we consider, to be a singularity ... is just a point, in that paraplex of time. So whatever is, must have been ... and must continue to be ...

However, if we'd discover that we are alone in the Universe ... that would be a pretty good evidence for the existance of a singularity. But everywhere around us, on this planet ... our known Universe. Because even if we can look into space, this planet is our only *known* universe. And in this Universe, everything is in multitude ... everywhere, there is diversity ...

And we can only measure anything in the Universe, with a measurement stick that we know. To go and say "multiple dimensions" is just as good as saying "god almighty". Because it's something "we do not know", and we're just grasping straws, to explain the unexplainable. But it doesn't matter wether you "feel" tht "Big Bang" explains it better than "Genesis" ... in both cases, you are using the Unknown to explain the Unknown ... and that, ladies and gentlemen is just "crap". It doesn't matter who is the high and mighty fella that proclaims it.

Because it's just a bunch of big fancy words, that "appear" plausable in the ear of the listener. Just as much as the book of "genesis" does to the religious. The person who "believes" it, just finds it more comforting to believe in something, even if it isn't graspable, rather than sitting under a big and empty sky, constantly afraid that one day he might fall down into that big empty nothingness. or up ... yeah, whatever.

edit on 6/7/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


and i know this is difficult to understand and maybe impossible to coherently mean anything but.....

are the smallest particles and quantum mechanics the primal stuff,,,and once this stuff was structured and ordered and obeying stable laws,,, it was able to transform into larger structures? and this happened untill the largest structures were created? or was it more like a mix of massive amounts of quanta energy that immediately made macro structures? once the quantum made stable larger forms of quanta,, would the laws of physics of the quantum rule the macro,, or the macro has its own laws which effects the quantum? when galaxies collide,,, do the laws of the macro structures react first or is everything rendered quantomly and macro follows?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I actually wonder if the Big Bang ever STOPPED. As in, what if matter or energy is still being produced? In my belief, the Big Bang was actually just preexisting energy from some other time, and it became conscious and started forming itself into the universe we see today. Everything is conscious on one level or another, because it all comes from the same energy.

We just aren't smart enough to figure it out yet. Ah, such blasphemy!



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by CLPrime
 


say there are 10 light years of space between 2 galaxies....

how does the distance of 10 light years increase,,, without the galaxies moving?


Word to the wise, don't be taken in by anyone's pretentious display of knowledge. When we have physicists claiming that the universe is a holographic image, when we have brilliant people claiming they've found lines of computer code in DNA, then these topics are wide open to our own speculation. No one can POSSIBLY know if the Big Bang actually occurred, much less what took place during the Big Bang,

Just saying, when common sense makes you squint your eyes at a comment, don't surrender your common sense simply because someone sounds smart.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I actually wonder if the Big Bang ever STOPPED. As in, what if matter or energy is still being produced? In my belief, the Big Bang was actually just preexisting energy from some other time, and it became conscious and started forming itself into the universe we see today. Everything is conscious on one level or another, because it all comes from the same energy.

We just aren't smart enough to figure it out yet. Ah, such blasphemy!


Except for the conscious part, I agree.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Do you really buy this concept? I have a hard time with it. Again, I know physicists are smart, but, ...



HA! HA! HA!

Look, it's just another "gospel" ... instead of the "Book of Genesis", that tells you that "GOD did it". They're now selling you the sequel, that is titled "How GOD did it".

Whenever an explanation, becomes so extremely complex ... that you need a Priest (I mean physicist) to understand it, because you and I are so stupid. It's time to buy another book ... this time, go buy Monty Python's "Whose this GOD person anyway". At least its fun to read, and you don't need an IQ of 5000 to be able to get a good laugh out of it.
edit on 6/7/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


You don't know enough to say it isn't conscious. You're just jealous because the energy is so much more awesome than you...



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


Anything written by man is too stupid to understand anything godly.






top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join