The 'Big Bang' was an expansion instead of an explosion as most know now, but the speed at witch this happened was ridiculis. They had to make a new measurement scale, they call it planktime, I believe. One planktime is a billionth, of a billionth, of a billionth, of a blillionth of a second... that's about . 00000000000000000000000000000000001 of a second. In this time the universe went from the size of an atom, to the size of a golf ball. That's the same as a baceball to the earth. Any one who has a theorie of this topic, the big bang or planktime, feel free. Thanks-Tylor
Oh, one other thing to add. This happened faster than the speed of light. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, nothing can travel faster than light... What he said was nothing can travel throughout space faster than light, light is the speed limit in space. But space can travel faster then the speed of light. I did a little math to try and find how fast the big bang had to travle in one planktime, from the size of an atom to golf ball that is... I got about 1x10^1000000000^4 meteors/second and light travles about 300million meaters/second.
All the fascinating thing during the Big Bang, which we are supposedly to believe . How true they are ?.
Well I'm not sure exactly how they did it , but id imagine if you look at how fast the universe is moving apart from itself, expanding, and backtracked it to, first its point of origin, and how fast it happened. Thus you still have a theory, but only because of no evidence, or lack of.
Interesting that believers originally considered the Big Bang to be proof of God - until they realized that it was longer than 6,000 years ago.
Who knows. We can be like that with our current knowledge... "Question everything, even when proven."
Sigh. The so-called Big Bang theory is a part of General Relativity, which is Einstein's theory. It does not say that nothing can travel faster than light, it says that there can be no motion relative to a well-formed coordinate system that is faster than the speed of light. The expansion of the universe is an expansion of the spacial coordinates of a well-formed coordinate system, not a motion of things relative to that system.
Scientist are aware of the fact that proprosed Big Bang Theories do imply that it happened faster than the speed of light. They say in most documentries that mention this subject, "that it is okay, because it is the expansion of space itself". So they have taken away the FTL barrier when it comes to the expansion of space. But, they still hold on to the idea that an object cannot travel FTL relative to another in space that is traveling at the same speed. This allows space to be infinite and be able to expand forever. Galaxies are traveling close to the speed of light that we have seen. Scientist do not expect them to hit a invisable wall because they are going to travel FTL relative to the Milky Way. They are allowed to accelerate at the same rate even though that would be FTL because they are traveling with the expansion of space.
Tray to remember my friend , I never said the world is only 6000 years , I believe is billions , I am not going to say either 13.7 billion because this is when the count started for our measurement, other wise it would be necessary to say how long existed before big Bang.
I know it isn't considered terribly nice to say things like this, given it is irrelevant to the discussion, but your spelling and sentence construction is terrible. Doesn't your browser have an automatic spell check? Ridiculous, baseball, which. Get a browser with a spell check and get into good habits. No, the BBM is not 'scientific faith' aka religion. Faith is the excuse people give when they don't have a good reason. There's no testable predictions which come from religious belief in a deity and thus the only basis for belief is 'faith', the absence of reason. The BBM makes testable predictions about a variety of phenomena, all of which have been verified as accurate by experiments. It gives quantitative models and explanations for the Hubble redshifting, the existence of the cosmic microwave background as well as its power spectrum and perturbations thereof and ratios of the lightest elements. The CMB power spectrum is the most striking, due to the precision of the predictions and the tightness of the confidence limits. If you think that making testable predictions which are then verified as accurate using multiple data sources is 'scientific faith' then I suggest you stay out of this sub-forum because you have zero idea about science. Nothing can travel faster than light in a local frame but globally it is possible for space-time dynamics to be such that light emitted from one object will never reach the other. Yes, how true are they? What can we do to check? We can do experiments and make observations and compare them with proposed models of universe dynamics and see if they are consistent with one another. And we did. And they are. How true are various religions? Shame we cannot do experiments with them due to their lack of anything scientific
Here's the clue everyone has missed. Tylor - one should never try and mix disparate units. We all know meteors can't be directly compared to meaters (should that be meat-eaters?), right? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Then I wish you would come to Texas and talk to the idiots believers who are trying to get their 6,000 year mythology taught as science.
It's not about simply questioning what is proven. It's a matter of comprehending the basis for a given hypothesis, the evidence, and being able to step through the same logic yourself posed by the theorists without making common errors. The point isn't that the universe was ever the size of a golf ball, but that no space existed which currently separates particles. If no space existed, it's arguable how you might ascribe it a particular size. However, you can try to wrap your mind around this idea by imagining how small an object would be if space were collapsed inside it. There is an exhibit at the Smithsonian that consists of two models, one of a nucleus of an atom, and another an electron. It takes several minutes to walk from one to the other. The purpose of this is to teach the scale of space between the regions occupied by the particles of an atom. Understand this and you're on the road to understanding why the Big Bang theory begins with matter in a state of perfect density. Consider the density of neutrons inside a collapsing star. Figure out what "size" the Sun would be if it were reduced to the density of a neutron star. It's an analogous problem to wrap your mind around. Then consider the black hole that may be left behind by the supernova. Here again we find unusually high densities and vast distortion of spacetime. As for expansion happening faster than light, you ought to consider what that means. Just as "the Beginning" was devoid of space, there was no time either. How fast is the speed of light when there is no space or time?
Tylor, cosmology is cool, and if you haven't already done so, simply look up the wiki page on inflation. This thread seems a tad likely to veer off on politics and the scientific method before a more solid discussion about the universe starts. Concisely after the big bang, 10^-43 seconds is the earliest time we can say anything meaningful about the universe... 10^-34 seconds after, the universe has undergone rapid inflation increasing in size to about a factor of 10^30... 10^-4 seconds after, quarks could then combine to form protons and neutrons... 1 minute after the big bang protons and neutrons can begin to stick together and form low mass nuclei... And after 379 000 years, the temperature is about 2970 kelvin and electrons can now stick to the nuclei when they hit each other...
How can we know anything about the universe that is in a time length shorter than the Planck Time? Wouldn't you have to assume that the Big Bang started as infinite energy in order for these events to have any effect on the rest of the universe?
No, that would be silly. If it started with infinite energy the universe would still contain infinite energy.
I don't think it would really be any more silly than saying that the universe is infinite and continues out forever. This is an unkown in science. It is not scientific fact that we know that the universe is not infinite. The problem I think would arrise from this is that if things at the moment of the Big Bang did have an effect on the outside universe, then it would have had infinite energy and then it could have more mass that could allow it to escape from becoming a black hole. It could mean that even an infinte amount of energy would not create a black hole or an early closed universe because it would have taken it too long to convert into the required mass. If this was shown to be true then it could prove that the universe is actually infinite. It would have had infinite energy at one time.
