big bang "pillars" of proof

No worries---nothing makes me happier than to hear people say they want to learn physics. But you challenged the current cosmological theory in the original post. If you want to challenge the theory, then you should understand it first.

People who claim that all of physics should be challenged are completely right---this is how physics works. But people who try to challenge the physics without first understanding it are just foolish

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You are not foolish, because you understand that there is much to learn. Other members at SciForums do not share this admirable trait.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

physics is the hardest thing i have ever tried to learn, its fun though.

peace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

breeding is pointless. you just keep perpetuating all problems for eternity. it doesn't matter how many times you multiply 0, it can't become 1.

0 can only become 1 by division. (interestingly, many creatures, like cells, seem to multiply by dividing)

i'm a much bigger idiot than scientists will ever understand. you're probably not even as smart as einstein, so what hope do you have to grasp my infinity?

you're very foolish to think you're unfoolish..

physicists are no more right than anybody else, physics is just one philosophy among many others.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

These experts have no idea how Gravity works and they are not shocked by Dark energy.

But they are always right.


If u r interested in knowing if Space can actually bend then try this and dont forget those two questions there, http://sciforums.com/newthread.php?do=postthread&f=33

Ask these questions to the Crakpot physicist if they ever insult u.

 

sorry i mean this link, http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1387441#post1387441

 

maybe it is a simular effect to light bending as it enters water. i dont know i will go and research it now.

peace.

 

Yup, you got it. We experience Physics at a Newtonian level, nothing odd happens. Everything appears to follow simple formulae, and we can make good predictions; that if we throw a ball so fast at a certain angle, where it will land, etc.

But at smaller scales, things get weird. At larger scales, things get weird. There's a lot of learning to be done here, we cannot take our everyday logic garnered from understanding Newtonian relationships to the quantum or relatavistic realm, as it fails us, and badly.

To start challenging the status quo, you need to be working on a PhD at the very least. My mathematical prowess dried up at degree level, and I struggled with QM. I know my limitations therefore, and do not challenge people who are better at that stuff than me.

 

people who you see as better might have over looked a more simple approach to the problem though, i agree that research must be done for you to oppose something,


i get people all the time questioning self defence tactics and techniques, so i show them that it works.


peace.

 

how did all of this mass in the universe come from a singularity?

peace.

 

Sadly, there are no shortcuts. The simple approaches have been tried, and are just too simple to describe the way things are.

Indeed, if you got a student that reckoned they could shoot you dead with 'mind bullets' but daren't demonstrate because it was too dangerous, you aren't going to believe them are you? Whereas if you have a student that says he has a good left hook, you're gonna pad up and have some.

 

That is THE question! Physics starts to break down when we back track to very near the event itself, as it was very energetic and dense, and we cannot fully understand how everything interacted.

BUT, as we know that E=mc^2, therefore that matter is energy, and that energy can be described as a wave, and a wave is comprosed of both positive and negative aspects, ... what was actually created?

Surely, nothing more than an imbalance. Like ripples on the surface of a pond, the volume of the pond doesn't change, so the sum of everything in the Universe is quite possibly still zero, it's just not evenly distributed.

 

touche,

peace.

 

so the further we backtrack the harder it is to understand.

would you say it is more likely that the universe or existence as a whole is infinite just constantly undergoing different changes and transformations?


peace.

 

Yes, we make formulae partly based on what we can observe, but the more we stretch it, the less accurate it can be. It's hard to use models based on how things are now, to try and see the Universe 14 billions years ago.

Well, beginnings just beg more questions, don't they? A neater idea, is a cyclic Universe. Maybe there is a big bang, but for whatever reasons, (the fundamental constants don't allow it) it cannot sustain itself and collapses, to try again, until, after the umpteenth attempt, it lasts for a while, and collapse takes thousands of billions of years. Then it happens again.

Of course, physics cannot prove this, but it's fun to muse on!

 

yeah finite universal theories always confuse the hell out of me, i have spend hours at a time busting my brain trying to figure out how nothing can turn into something,


and an equal amount of time trying to comprehend true infinity with no start, its equally confusing, brain malfunction. :runaway: i give up. :truce:


yeah those ideas and many others are fun to play around with, this is the real reason cho seng hui went on a rampage he tried to figure out how something can be infinite or finite,




peace.

 

You can say that again.

And you're very foolish to think that you can divide zero by something and get anything other than zero.

Why dont you point to the problem with this:

\( \lim_{a \rightarrow \infty} \frac{0}{a} = 1\)

Then multiply both sides by two:

\( 2 \times \lim_{a \rightarrow \infty} \frac{0}{a} = \lim_{a \rightarrow \infty} \frac{2 \times 0}{a} = \lim_{a \rightarrow \infty} \frac{0}{a} = 2\).

Therefore \( 1 = 2 \).

Show me where I have made a mistake in showing your logic to be grossly inadequate.

 

The only problem is that it seems that our current epoch of accelerated expansion doesn't have an end. The universe ends in a big rip as opposed to a big crunch---there is so much space between individual particles that they can't communicate. The universe ends a cold and dark death, sixty billion years in the future.

Then the flying spaghetti monster starts again.

 

Yeah, ... heat death, or big crunch,... I prefer the crunch idea, but we may never know. I guess it depends if we can deternine the value of the Cosmological Constant to any degree of accuracy.

The problem I have with heat death, is what happens to the matter formed, I don't like the idea of cold dark lumps floating around, it means the laws of physics still apply. Unless radioactive decay eventually sees all the matter slowly unravel over a very long period of time, the liberated energy dissipates, and we are back to a blank canvas. What are the half lives of 'stable' elements? Would they suffer radioactive decay given sufficient time? Surely nothing last for ever in the quantum world, there must be a chance of them decaying?

 

if you divide zero with something you get zero, except when you divide with infinity you get 1 (because infinity is not something).

\(\frac{0}{\infty} = 2\) is not true

but

\(\frac{0}{\infty} + \frac{0}{\infty} = 1 + 1\) is true

 

But since 0+0 = 0 and infinity + infinity is infinity then Ben's equation holds true, your way: 1 = 2 and you're wrong Yorda.