ok was it possible for all of those things to come out as they did from the big bang?,

also is gravety like magnetism, if not then how did gravity come to exist?

also does anybody know why all of the things in the universe are sphears, including the stars, or is that just to do with gravity also making them round,

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Q1: The big bang happened (based on the evidence that we have) and things are the way they are. What is your question?

Q2: Gravity is "explained" by general relativity. Electromagnetism is described via quantum theory.

Q3: Gravity tends to make things spherical. However, small things (like asteroids or comets) are lumpier (less rouind).

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/3281/bcoverrrr1by.th.jpg (http://img98.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bcoverrrr1by.jpg)

big questions require big answers...

be careful what you ask for...

gravity is not like magnetism.. it is like .. like.. a nuetral electric field.

there was kind of a big bang.. but it wasnt at the beginning...

and everything is a circle because Pi is the fundamental design value of our universe's formation... i.e. the fundamental quality of the applied energy.

thus we have circles...

if Pi was 2.75 we would have footballs..
if Pi was 4.35 we would have bubbly circles with bulges....

luckily for us... it was 3.1415962........etc...

-MT

Sphere is the most natural form, where all influences are equivalent. Another shape requires special circumstances. We humans aren't spherical for example.

Stars are like planets and moons, just under different circumstances.

In fact, some of these things didn't appear immediately after the BB. The first stars (III Population stars) didn't appear until 200 millions after Big Bang. Planets formed in the circumstellar disks of stars

Shortly after the Big Bang, the distribution of matter was very homogeneous. It's believed that quantum fluctuations (approximately 10^-32 s. after Big Bang) in a scalar field called inflaton, provoked perturbations in the density of energy of the Universe. These perturbations acted as an anchorage around which matter was concentrated to form galaxies and stars (thanks to the process known as gravitational instability)

Q1: The big bang happened (based on the evidence that we have) and things are the way they are. What is your question?

Q2: Gravity is "explained" by general relativity. Electromagnetism is described via quantum theory.

Q3: Gravity tends to make things spherical. However, small things (like asteroids or comets) are lumpier (less rouind).


quantum theory is but what it is,


a theory and holds no real fact, but i accept all theorys, as possible


peace,

quantum theory is but what it is,

a theory and holds no real fact, but i accept all theorys, as possible



It's a theory that has been used to make some very real predictions. We would not have such things as atomic weapons were it not for quantum theory. So I think it has enough factual content.

It doesn't have all the answers, but that doesn't invalidate the entirety of it.

but i accept all theorys, as possible
you should not hold all "theories" equal. they should be judged individually for their use, simplicity, and predictive ability, among other things, to determine their value.

for example string "theory" is a nice mathematical model, but it makes no predictions that can be verified at this time. about the only thing going for it is the fact that it post-dicts gravity. I, personally think it's on the fringe of being able to call itself a theory, and perhaps should be called sting hypothesis.

//////////////It's believed that quantum fluctuations (approximately 10-32 s. after Big Bang) in a scalar field called inflaton, provoked perturbations in the density of energy of the Universe. These perturbations acted as an anchorage around which matter was concentrated to form galaxies and stars (thanks to the process known as gravitational instability) ////////////

hilarious....

i love those kind of answers.... ha... big words... no reality.

how about...

http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/3725/theory441zl.th.jpg (http://img160.imageshack.us/my.php?image=theory441zl.jpg)

NOW.. in this way we see clearly how and why all matter is as we see it today in the heavens... and way back when... as shown by the hubble deep field images...

-MT

hilarious....

i love those kind of answers.... ha... big words... no reality.

Your complete non-understanding of that explanation does not preclude others understanding.

How could you possibly know what is and what isn't reality?

MT has his own agenda.

//////////////It's believed that quantum fluctuations (approximately 10-32 s. after Big Bang) in a scalar field called inflaton, provoked perturbations in the density of energy of the Universe. These perturbations acted as an anchorage around which matter was concentrated to form galaxies and stars (thanks to the process known as gravitational instability) ////////////

hilarious....

i love those kind of answers.... ha... big words... no reality.



Wow! I see you're no better at astrophysics than you are at electricty/electronics and nuclear physics.

Why don't you just be quiet, read and learn instead of constantly making an obvious fool of yourself????????

quantum theory is but what it is,

a theory and holds no real fact, but i accept all theorys, as possible

You probably aren't aware of the way "theory" is used in science. In science, the term "theory", as in "theory of gravity" or "theory of relativity" means a set of well-confirmed facts, along with the well-verified and accepted explanation of those facts.

YOUR the type of people who think virtual photons are actual things...

so sad.

-MT

you should not hold all "theories" equal. they should be judged individually for their use, simplicity, and predictive ability, among other things, to determine their value.

for example string "theory" is a nice mathematical model, but it makes no predictions that can be verified at this time. about the only thing going for it is the fact that it post-dicts gravity. I, personally think it's on the fringe of being able to call itself a theory, and perhaps should be called sting hypothesis.


who am i to judge a theory for usefullness, i shant predict, then claim to know, what is clearly beyond me,

i understand what your saying, but the big bang is a theory, im not going to tag along with it and put all my eggs in that basket, just because the universe appears to be expanding,

im concerned for cultism, im not calling you all cultists or anything, much appologies if you take it that way,

but it resembles cultish behaviour, i dont think its very wise to beleieve something to be fact just because someone said it is, and because it seems that way, dosent science say never believe unless there is a body. eyes decieve you know, what you think is true might be false, dont worship false idols, including god, believe god is a possibility, but dont worphip him, same wit science, just because your readings and test results tell you its black, it dosent mean black is a colour, space is black right? it says it in my book right here, well wouldent it be white if you think about it?,

and this bok tells me the big bang created the universe, and it also tells me alot of other things, if scientists turned around tommorow and said the big bang isnt true, because we found "evidence" that this other theory, (call it theory A,) dissproves it, wuld you believe that?, and throw all your other beleifs away, and now fully believe int his theory?.

if you lived 1000 years ago, would you believe the world is flat like you were told?,

sorry if any of this came off rude,


peace

You probably aren't aware of the way "theory" is used in science. In science, the term "theory", as in "theory of gravity" or "theory of relativity" means a set of well-confirmed facts, along with the well-verified and accepted explanation of those facts.


james,


seriusly man you are a clever guy, i read your argument for the existance of god, i see you realise the reality of reality,

or do you?


i admit im not as credentially acclaimed as anyone here, or as left brained and skilled in maths and the english language, im fine with this and admit im not as smart.

but howcomes i can come to terms with how univesally wrong we could be.
we dont know it all, just because in the last 200 years we got a little industrial and tech grew alot, but we are not that smart, i stand outside of science i stand away from from religion, im part of nothing apart from life. im an observer, i dont claim to know anything really, but i do know one thing, we cant know it all,

you said a theory is a set of well confirmed facts, not to be rude but who confirmed your facts? god?, how can you confirm the big bang theory?

could you please confirm the gravity, time, big bang, and relativity theorys for me please rigt now.

and can ia ctually see a body please, the true scientific way of judgement, nothing if true unless we have evidence infront of us, so can i have the full works please, i want to actually see "evidence" real proof please,


peace.