Aussie researchers rewrite Big Bang theory

Originally posted by dragnik
reply to post by Freedom_is_Slavery

 

These are still speculations, not complete science theories, yet.
First, can we know what is happening in outer space prior to light coming here and getting informations of?
Light speed is still the informative limit.

Is it though?

Just last week a couple of physicists succeeded in an instantaneous transmission of a couple of bits of data using quantum entanglement. Quantum communication doesn't travel "faster" than the speed of light...because the word "travel" doesn't really apply. It's a phenomenon that exists outside the traditional four-dimensional paradigm we are accustomed to.

Originally posted by luciddream

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by luciddream

 

OK, just to make sure we are clear on this....you don't like God. Well....maybe just the smallest bit. But only about 1%.

Got it.

I would say i believe in god 0% but that would not be scientific of me :/, thus i give the 1%.

Actually, if you really want to be scientific you would say that you hypothesize a 0% probability of God's existence, calculated at a 99% confidence interval.

...this is quite different than been "99% sure" of something.

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by Freedom_is_Slavery

 

I am more and more puzzled by the attempts, by physicists, to absolutely prove Big Bang right, even if they don't make sense and try to patch everything up. Now they are patching things up with cracks... I know that quantum predictions itself collapses the further you go back to the point of singularity which the universe came from, but it still hardly explains why the universe is 40 billion l.y. across but "only" 13.7 billion years old. It would mean that the first billion years of the Universe was undergoing an expansion about double the speed of light - yet this powerfull energy did not influence complex molecular formation? Ridiculous.

Think about it, the universe is expanding from a single point, if you hypotheticaly draw a line straight through the the middle cutting the universe in to 2 equal halves then the universe is expanding in both directions from the central point, its going at the speed of light one way and the same the other way, ergo...its expanding at twice the speed of light! (that's the way I look at it anyway) . But in your defence, that still doesnt explain why its 40 billion light years across, but i will have to check as i have never heard its 40 billion lyrs across before now..

reply to post by DARREN1976


The observable universe has a 46.6 billion light-year radius because the particle horizon that we currently see was 13.7 billion years ago and 13.7 billion light-years away. We know how much the universe has expanded since then, so we know that an object that was 13.7 billion light-years away 13.7 billion years ago is 46 billion light-years away now.

The closed minded certainty by which so many of you view this reality you inhabit is laughable.
You try and out quote each other with brilliant man made principia mathematica as though once stated,
it becomes an immutable law.

All this talk about red shift of light, as it reaches us, as being "proof" that it or space is moving away from us at amazing real or relative velocities is truely meaningless. What have you actually SEEN with your own eyes. Even if you can look up at the night sky and perceive some objects redder than others, what REAL, tangible proof does anyone have they are actually moving? Aren't you asking us to take it on faith that the Natural Laws puzzled out by man provide a logical proof? When none of this can actually be seen? It is a literal house of mathematical cards. If one or more of the foundational theories is proven wrong then all that was built upon it
is false.

Only Swan posited that such Laws are not immutable, and took in a larger perspective. You'd all do well to think outside your self imposed boxes.

What did the "Big Bang" expand into? If the BB created space-time then in what medium was it suspended previous to that? Obviously there must have been some physical laws at work before the trigger event , otherwise what could have caused the change to occur?

The BB theory is just another creation myth imho. In fact, it was a Jesuit Priest that first published the hypothesis.
I don't claim to know the answer. I am open to other theories - especially ones that don't require fictitious mathematical entities like "Dark Matter" and "Black holes".

this just reminds me of the fact that there was the possibility of the computer code within string theory. i'm aware this is a very loose tie but i can't help link the code and the "pixels" ahaha. i want to be someone important, like an actor.

Wow, the Big bang is almost as fantastic and out of it as the Bibles' version of the creation. Both require incredible amounts of faith, but the Big Bang even more so purely from a rational perspective. Of course if the possibility of a being outside our known time and space exists that we are accountable to worries you then the BB would seem more plausible.

However, the start was the being of time as 'we' know it. If nothing exists, nothing can exist.

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Wow, the Big bang is almost as fantastic and out of it as the Bibles' version of the creation. Both require incredible amounts of faith, but the Big Bang even more so purely from a rational perspective. Of course if the possibility of a being outside our known time and space exists that we are accountable to worries you then the BB would seem more plausible.

However, the start was the being of time as 'we' know it. If nothing exists, nothing can exist.

Wait...the theory of the big bang was arrived at using a series of logical steps derived from proven mathematical models.

The bible was written by we don't know who back in we don't know when We can't even verify the existence of the people talked about in the bible.

But it takes MORE faith to believe the big bang?

reply to post by milominderbinder

Except for the parts about magical beings, talking snakes, fortune-telling, soothsaying, necromancy, impossibly large watercraft, a guy spending time inside of a whale's stomach with no ill effect, faith-healing, the telekinetic transubstantiation of matter, immaculate conception, horns with imbued with divine powers capable of leveling fortified stone walls, cursed apples, incendiary law-making shrubbery, humans routinely living until for several hundred years despite a lack of even rudimentary antibiotics, magical levitation, the brief cessation of gravity in the Red Sea, along with about 800 other completely ludicrous claims.

Other than that though...yeah...science once again "confirms" the bible.

So religion got it wrong. Imagine the copy that all religions read from. Its hundreds of years old. The "bible stories" that we have today were translated by men that lived 500 years ago. They though the world was flat and that you would fall off if you sailed to far. Don't let it spoil the truth, that part that is the real science and infinite too.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

But it takes MORE faith to believe the big bang?

MORE faith?

Nobody saw it happen either. "It" supposedly happened x billion years ago, right? So, what happened before? And what exists outside the "Known" universe? Put a circle of string on the ground. Thats the Universe, right? Wrong. As soon as you place limits on size of Universe or time its been around, you de-invent "infinity".

You don't need any faith to know that space and time go on and on and on... I don't care how many people say otherwise, religulous or scientific.

Space does not "end".

And time did not "begin".

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by DARREN1976

 

The observable universe has a 46.6 billion light-year radius because the particle horizon that we currently see was 13.7 billion years ago and 13.7 billion light-years away. We know how much the universe has expanded since then, so we know that an object that was 13.7 billion light-years away 13.7 billion years ago is 46 billion light-years away now.

edit on 21-8-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

The Universe is truly amazing isnt it? I love studying astronomy and physics, it is my pet subject, absolutely luuurrrvve it!!! And the best thing about it is, most of it is just theory....which gives the subject room to constantly change!! I am always astounded whenever a given theory about physics concerning the Universe is changed and the usual dogma that everyone has stuck to religiously for years gets turned upside down on its head and everyone has to change there way of thinking, dragged kicking and screaming in to another mindset when they where fighting hand, claw and tooth to uphold there version/theory of things, I just love seeing those type of people get egg on their faces!

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

But it takes MORE faith to believe the big bang?

MORE faith?

Nobody saw it happen either. "It" supposedly happened x billion years ago, right? So, what happened before? And what exists outside the "Known" universe? Put a circle of string on the ground. Thats the Universe, right? Wrong. As soon as you place limits on size of Universe or time its been around, you de-invent "infinity".

You don't need any faith to know that space and time go on and on and on... I don't care how many people say otherwise, religulous or scientific.

Space does not "end".

And time did not "begin".

Time is a man made concept, and what your talking abut is the "steady state theory" (I think) some people believe everything that's happened or will happen has already happened, all at once, we are just moving through "time" as we have come to know it by a snippet at a TIME (pun not intended), piece by piece, and that it's theoreticaly possible to go back or forward and visit these other "snippets"... what do you believe? I would like to know, for curiosity's sake...

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

Except for the parts about magical beings, talking snakes, fortune-telling, soothsaying, necromancy, impossibly large watercraft, a guy spending time inside of a whale's stomach with no ill effect, faith-healing, the telekinetic transubstantiation of matter, immaculate conception, horns with imbued with divine powers capable of leveling fortified stone walls, cursed apples, incendiary law-making shrubbery, humans routinely living until for several hundred years despite a lack of even rudimentary antibiotics, magical levitation, the brief cessation of gravity in the Red Sea, along with about 800 other completely ludicrous claims.

Other than that though...yeah...science once again "confirms" the bible.

So religion got it wrong. Imagine the copy that all religions read from. Its hundreds of years old. The "bible stories" that we have today were translated by men that lived 500 years ago. They though the world was flat and that you would fall off if you sailed to far. Don't let it spoil the truth, that part that is the real science and infinite too.

As far as the horns levelling walls go, i take it your talking about jericho? a scientific study showed that if the walls where weak anyway, and you had peope walking round the wallls for 3 days and then stopping in the same spot at screaming/shouting at it (like it says in the biblical story), then the noise/air displacement of the shouting might be enough to topple the walls after all!! science is crazy isnt it?
PEACE!!

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Wow, the Big bang is almost as fantastic and out of it as the Bibles' version of the creation. Both require incredible amounts of faith, but the Big Bang even more so purely from a rational perspective. Of course if the possibility of a being outside our known time and space exists that we are accountable to worries you then the BB would seem more plausible.

However, the start was the being of time as 'we' know it. If nothing exists, nothing can exist.

Nobody is saying it's the real deal, it's just a theory, amongst many other theories, and as such, is subject to change. When a better explanation comes along, or should I say "IF" a better explanation comes along, then the BB theory will be thrown out with yesterdays trash, it's just at the moment, it happens to be the most plausible, but like I said...it's only a THEORY, and if you look at it technically, there was no bang at all!! there is no air in space and because of that, you cant get any air displacement/soundwaves travelling so ergo...no bang!!

reply to post by Freedom_is_Slavery


this is bbang remodeled once more........to fit against inconsistencies, that latelly have appeared at the speed of light, backed up by observational data and math..........the bbang nonsense is falling up for years.....it is a lie imposed to the public, and its mainstream cientific comunity.............its a religious lie ............and its catolic manipulation.............. it makes me wonder in the 21º century, how people are so brainwashed, and still confused trying to pull explanation to the universe from the book of lies (bible)............and acepting that all things that have a beguining must have an end............

reply to post by DARREN1976

Time is a man made concept, and what your talking abut is the "steady state theory"

Steady State... um not sure what that implies. If you mean that nothing changes, I don't agree with the steady state. Things change in that they move about. Albeit very slowly as far as we are concerned. We have to extrapolate about where from and where to. And we are really guessing about that ultimately.

But I do know this. Stretch out your arm and reach as far as you can. Now imagine that in an instant you could reach farther than anyone has ever seen with instruments. There is no wall out there where space ends, right?

And you know of the Hubble Deep Feld? So lets put a Hubble on the farthest thing we can see and look even further... all the way... to... more galaxies is my guess.

Like this:

infinity_______________earth______________Hubble Deep Field__________infinity

I think there are many Universes and many a "big bang" out there. Our instruments just can't see that far (yet). The Universe is unbounded, full and forever. It is dynamic and ever changing. You are reading this at thousands of miles per hour.

(I think) some people believe everything that's happened or will happen has already happened, all at once, we are just moving through "time" as we have come to know it by a snippet at a TIME (pun not intended), piece by piece, and that it's theoreticaly possible to go back or forward and visit these other "snippets"... what do you believe? I would like to know, for curiosity's sake...

I am going to answer that one tomorrow. Its late here. Very late.

reply to post by DARREN1976

As far as the horns levelling walls go, i take it your talking about jericho? a scientific study showed that if the walls where weak anyway, and you had peope walking round the wallls for 3 days and then stopping in the same spot at screaming/shouting at it (like it says in the biblical story), then the noise/air displacement of the shouting might be enough to topple the walls after all!! science is crazy isnt it?
PEACE!!

Maybe they made all that racket to mask the sound of them digging under those walls? Tactics are even crazier!
PEACE!!

I am going to finish this answer AM also. Very intriguing...

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by DARREN1976

 

Time is a man made concept, and what your talking abut is the "steady state theory"

Steady State... um not sure what that implies. If you mean that nothing changes, I don't agree with the steady state. Things change in that they move about. Albeit very slowly as far as we are concerned. We have to extrapolate about where from and where to. And we are really guessing about that ultimately.

But I do know this. Stretch out your arm and reach as far as you can. Now imagine that in an instant you could reach farther than anyone has ever seen with instruments. There is no wall out there where space ends, right?

And you know of the Hubble Deep Feld? So lets put a Hubble on the farthest thing we can see and look even further... all the way... to... more galaxies is my guess.

Like this:

infinity_______________earth______________Hubble Deep Field__________infinity

I think there are many Universes and many a "big bang" out there. Our instruments just can't see that far (yet). The Universe is unbounded, full and forever. It is dynamic and ever changing. You are reading this at thousands of miles per hour.

(I think) some people believe everything that's happened or will happen has already happened, all at once, we are just moving through "time" as we have come to know it by a snippet at a TIME (pun not intended), piece by piece, and that it's theoreticaly possible to go back or forward and visit these other "snippets"... what do you believe? I would like to know, for curiosity's sake...

I am going to answer that one tomorrow. Its late here. Very late.

I also believe in many universe's, have you ever read up on "brane theory"? It's interesting to say the least.
PEACE!!!

reply to post by intrptr
i almost agree with you man..........except steady state doesnt mean an universe in inertia, its a universe that is always in change, as colossal recycling machine of energy and matter impliing all of its dinamics...........of course time its an human measurement, and it only apllys to this universe by our point of view........i totally agree with infinity, with no beguinning and no end, being me off course a strong advocate of the steady state universe, i strongly believe in the multiverse theory................its totally inconsistent the idea of obs data that regard galaxies formed 2 bilion years after that bang, where could stars aging fit within this??? and i just call the case of red dwarfs, that could last from 10 to 20 bilion years, i never read about one entering a supernova phase or entering a nebulosity phase, these stars last even more that the so called bbang itself......and w dwarfs too, they could be everlasting if they not have an encounter..............and when james webb go upstairs??, will they obserse behind the bang particle itself..............
............
i think not............
all the best..........