The Big Bang?

Well... there are several theories on the big bang.. I am here to debunk them. First of all: Some scientists theorize that there is a finite amount of energy in the universe that one day it will all "run out." And at the same time they think that after the universe winds downs into one chunk of matter it will blow up again. Then wind down again, add infinitum. Well.. that sounds more like perpetual motion... then that really destroys thier theory doesn't it? That means there is INFINITE energy! Free engery. I would like someone to post something that I may agree with or have fun arguing against. (NOTE: Have fun)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Right, there's this big obvious flaw with the theory of the big bang. All of the trained astronomers and physicists have somehow missed it, but fortunately you are here with you highschool-level understanding of physics to set us all straight. Wow, lucky us.

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence pointing to the big bang: the Hubble expansion, background microwave radiation, etc. Simply because we don't have a perfect theory for WHY or HOW it happened does not mean that it didn't happen; it just means that we haven't figured it out yet.

Additionally, you are not making an argument against the big bang here; you are merely making an argument against the idea of a perpetual bang/crunch cycle. Even if it could be proven that this sort of cycle does not occur, it would not prove anything more than that - you would not have proved that the big bang did not occur.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Universe Beginning?

I am gonna take the "conversation" around a "different swerve." I am just curious as to your (anyone reading this) opinion on "the beginning" of the universe.. that is... IF there was a beginning.

 

Forever

I believe that there was no beginning, the universe has allways been and always will be, and maybe it has cycled through the "bingbang/bigcrunch" process infinite times. I say infinite because if it has always been, there is NO number you can place on that. You cannot make something from nothing.

 

the universe that we have today came into being after the big bang.universe today is operated on by 4 fundamental forces,contains energy and matter,has 4 dimensions(possibly more)called space time and follows the law of physics(including conservation of energy).none of these facts were true before the big bang itself.the universe changed after the big bang .no use using our current logic to rationalise what happened at the time of the bang and the time before(if time existed then i.e

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)it happened and then the universe happened.

 

You cannot possibly comprehend what was "before" the begaining of the universe, or for that matter, what was before the big bang (if in fact it happened. Also you could say we have gone through a whole bunch of crunches and expansions). But I guarnatee you if some being plucked you off the earth and said, "Look, that is what was!", you'd be like I got it! Same thing as with a 2 spatial dimensional being that in no way comprehend "height", yet If I went into his dimension, and picked him up into the air and said "This is height!" He would be like, OH!.


Just a thought I was having.

Whats this doing in Earth Science anyway? I might move it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Later
T

 

Tired light theories predicted a background radiation well before the big bang (early and mid 1900's). I can give you the names and the temperature they yielded (one was even correct). But I'm too lazy to do that because it costs me energy and for what? For nothing.

Further, all the rest of the big bang "evidence" (red shift, etc.) can and is explained by other theories. Saying that every shred of evidence leads to the big bang is not knowing your history of the 1900's. It is because the discovery of BGR that the BB was favoured over other models ... "none other model had predicted this!", they said --> they were and are wrong.

Lastly, it is a creationistic theory, you might as well say that god created the universe - that's the same calibre of "explanation" (the negative reservoir got a boost etc. etc. nicely explained by Paul Davies in The matter myth).

Very lastly, I do not favour any theory. We cannot even explain why a fire fly doesn't burn itself to ashes (or has this finaly been cracked?), let alone that we explain the whole universe. If I'd take a pick, I'd say it's been there forever.

 

great reply james.

 

james r, i could have written your own predictable reply
why take the time?
the bb is compatible with all the evidence and then bundles it into one singularity which no one understands - it is as mystical as god himself - most disturbing.


"Based on what? Anything?"

Explain why the universe is finetuned for live?

 

exactly James R

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

from APOLO

I think I have to agree with "ce moy' The big bang theory is based on a false premise (and invite the wrath of James R) namely that the universe is expanding? But Mr. Hubble himself insisted, that the redshift he discovered does not mean acceleration but only distance ! !
Many astronomers (including Fred Hoyle and Halton Arp) agreed with Hoyle and insisted that the universe is not expanding ! Halton Arp was even denied further use of the Mt Palomar telescope becaouse his observations did not agree with the majority theory.-Galileo would be turning in his grave- I know 2 graduate students who would like to enter the field of astro physics, but they dont dare to argue against the BBT because it would limit their chances for advancement
To conclude, thr BBT is a religion, not a scientific theory.
If The redshift is finaly proven to not indicate velocity, the whole house of cards (BBT) falls down
APOLO

 

I understand all the evidence that supports the theory of the big bang. Am I correct that the theory states that all matter or energy came from a singularity? Or was there a larger area of matter or energy that exploded?

I can't undertand how you could pack all of the matter and energy currently in the universe into an infinitely small point (nothing)

Also, was zero point energy around before the big bang? And if so, how does this fit with the notion that space is expanding into "nothing" like a balloon? If there was zero point energy outside the singularity, doesn't this constitute some kind of universe?

Thanks

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The universe is not fine tuned for life. Next question?

 

The universe is not fine tuned for life. Next question?
What about the carbon resonance?

Well, to answer my own question, I think I could imagine a universe which was a little bit better tuned for life than this one- it would probably be chock full of alien species, on the Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Rigel 4,
everywhere.

Am I correct that the theory states that all matter or energy came from a singularity? Or was there a larger area of matter or energy that exploded?

If the Ekpyrotic theory is correct, our universe started as a volume, not a point.


__________________
SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html

 

If all that is at stake is that there would be no life as we know it if the universe were substantially different than it is, I'm willing to grant that. Though I think we have little or no evidence for the claim.

However, this fact calls for absolutely no explanation. It is a misunderstanding of probability to think that the occurence of an unlikely event calls for explanation merely on the grounds that it is unlikely. Take any coin you choose. Flip it 100 times and record the sequence of heads and tails that you get. The chance that you would get that particular sequence is astronomically low. But it is rather silly to ask for an explanation of why the world was fine tuned for you to get that particular sequence. You had to get some sequence, and that sequence was as likely as any other. The case is similar with respect to the conditions for life.

 

Many (most?) physicists consider the singularity at the center of a Black Hole to be an indication that General Relativity needs some tweaking. It is the reason many are searching for some Quantum Gravity theory.

Do any of the experts consider the singularity at the start of the Big Bang to be suggestive of a problem requiring some tweaking of the Big Bang theory? There seems to be a lot of evidence for an expanding universe, but how much evidence is there for it originating with a singularity? It seems to me that they are extrapolating back to a singularity, rather than having evidence of a singularity.

The inflationary fix to the original Big Bang theory makes me wonder if they can extrapolate to any time prior to the inflation.

Inflation seems to be a bit hokey. If there is anything wrong with the Big Bang, it seems to me that the inflationary part of it is suspect. Other than needing it to explain away some problems, what evidence is there for inflation?