The big bang is not logical

sooooo it would be hard for anyone to break thru to any big bang
is what i was taught

it has to do with they after more thn they can chew

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

when youn touch gun pwder it gives you a headache
if the chinese spread there weapn and give it to every one
they have a chain reaction even the bigger the weapn the bigger the chain reaction
ahmm the wether has a chin action events over and over
like a weapn
this only happened when they dabbled in the anti and matters colliding

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

nothing to do with big bang

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i don't think a field of knowledge would collapse... it would contribute in some way even if disproved... but i follow your point... a sound point at that...

this is very much what the 'big bang' theory is... an assertion on other assertions... it is quite tenuous stuff really... but it fits the small amount of data we now have so we 'run with it'...

imagination is always more important than knowledge is it not?...

what about a field of work where someone imagines a surfer riding on a wave of light... and bases science on it... talk about something that is not even an assertion... what good could come from it?...

 

A few years back a lot of people left the STRINGS field as they saw it as a scientific dead end (reported in the newspapers.) I know a lot of totally theoretical stuff is still going on in the field but to me it always seemed that everything was too small. It's basically go down to the size of an atom, then do it again, then yet again.

Can the knowledge ever be proven, and can it ever be of any use?

 

I am folowing this... don't worry... it;s all very ineresting indeed.

 

More news againts big bang...

"The Big Bang theory of the origin of our universe is widely accepted by the physics community. The idea that our universe started out as some infinitesimally small point, which expanded out to what we see today, makes a lot of sense. Except for one small thing. That initial point, called a singularity by physicists, is a physical impossibility. According to the models we have today, the temperature of the universe at that first moment would have had to be infinite, which mathematically makes no sense. Also, the singularity doesn't do a good job of explaining where all the matter and energy we see today in the universe came from. So, physicists are increasingly starting to look at other branches of physics to see what they can do to replace the singularity with a more reasonable proposition, one which can actually be explained by existing science. "

http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/07-08/nov10.html

 

Indeed, most cosmologists, when they talk of the classical bigbang `singularity`, don't actually mean a mathematical singularity (the usual physical tools lead to nonsensical answers, so a Planck size is usually chosen as a point on a multidimentional surface where space and time start to smudge together). The temperatures and densities therefore are not infinite.

Indeed, but there are now better theories (ie, M theory) that provide better answers to the early CPT violation type theories.

Indeed - `done and dusted`. Now we have gone past the big bang `singularity`.

 

Where is your source for this information?

Or perhaps you mean that they moved onto M-theory, or took a skiing holiday ?

 

just for the record...

the 'imagination' thing is an Einstein quote...

and the surfer riding on a wave of light is how Einstein formed his theory of relativity...

 

illogical...
depends on whose logic we are talking about. it is absurd to look for "logic" at the beginning of the universe, where today's physics dont apply to infinite heat and pressure.
unfortunately, you wont be able to explain it "logically", since your logic is bound to 4 dimensions only. however, we dont know how many dimensions exist, especially when we talk about BB.
regards

 

It was in various British newspapers, with photos, etc. I mentioned it on the Physorg forum and AlphaNumeric who is training to go into that field got quite irate and assured me it was business as usual (with the remaining people).

It was said (by Archbishop David Jenkyns) that 1 in 3 priests in the UK do not believe in certain basic tenets of christian faith (virgin birth, resurrection, etc) but do they just denounce the lot and are out of a job or do they just keep nodding their head and taking the money? The latter, obviously. I think it may be the same for many people in strings, that they are producing theories that will ultimately be of no use, except to other people in the field. Meanwhile, they have a relatively secure job.

 

Ok,
while British newspapers are generally quite accurate, i would dismiss that bit of information.

A good scientist will look for flaws in their work.

 

Why dismiss it? They had photos of the people concerned with details to back up the story.

Not many good scientists about nowadays.

 

Because i generally know about these things.

It is no big-deal / off-topic , but please post/PM your sources, if you feel that am mistaken.

 

None of our speculations and answers make any sense. Why would a big ball of matter just happen to be sitting there one day, and happen to explode? How would a supreme being happen by and create the world? Nothing makes sense. Nothing is something. You choose a path, and stick with it. Or, in the words of Rush from their song Free Will,
"And if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice!"

 

Fabio4all. The big bang was contemptuously named by Fred Hoyle. It is an expansion rather than an explosion. The big bang idea, even if correct (and I doubt that) relies on something happening "elsewhere", maybe in a multiverse and producing our universe. It effectively just pushes the first cause back one step so is not really an answer.

 

blobrana. If you dismiss something because you do not like it, that is upto you. I know a lot of people still work in the superstring field but it seems to be purely exotic research in that nothing we can use is ever going to come from it. Worse, we may never have the slightest evidence of what can be shown to be OK theoretically because they are just too small.