Cause of the Big Bang

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by machiaventa, Jun 11, 2008.

  1. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Can you provide sources?

    The effect from dark energy has been tiny. That's part of the problem models have with it, it's very fine tuned because the universe is very close to being flat (ie no dark energy).

    If the universe was just a little bit different in it's behaviour we'd not need dark energy in our models. Until 10 years ago we couldn't even measure the derivation from 'flat' enough to know it wasn't. The universe has been expanding since the big bang and a tiny tiny amount of that has been increased by dark energy. But since it's an exponential effect, it gets more and more powerful as time passes. However, the derivation from the "No dark energy, usual expansion" to "A tiny amount of dark energy, accelerating expansion" is only now coming to light.

    If the universe wasn't expanding and was static, then we'd need dark energy again, as something to hold off the collapse due to gravity. This was the original view point of Einstein when he first proposed the cosmological constant.
    No, I think you're ignorant because you post things like this when a simple Google or Wiki would tell you there's more evidence for the BB. You talk about how the stuff I say is easy to find and yet... you haven't found it...

    Then there's things like not knowing any GR but claiming to know better than everyone else in the world who does do GR.

    Things like that. We don't have to jump to conclusions about your ignorance. You provide us with plenty of evidence.
    So the first is nonsense and the second you don't know how to critique?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    How would anybody expain where all of the mass come from ie trillions of stars/planets/rock etc, also empty void/space I find it hard to grasp how dimensional emptyness was created in the first place.

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. blobrana Registered Senior Member

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    I graph time on a log scale. You can get closer and closer to the Big Bang but you can never quite reach it. And you can certainly never go past it and start asking "What came before the Big Bang?"

    This model gives time an Absolute Zero like temperature. There is no such thing as "before the Big Bang" just like there is no such thing as "five degrees below Absolute Zero." We can put the words into a grammatically correct sentence, but the question is meaningless. Not everything we can say has meaning.

    We model time as passing at a constant rate. But that's just the way we perceive it with these senses and cognitive abilities we happen to be born with. It doesn't mean that rate of passage is "reality," whatever that means. Not to mention, we've only been observing it for a few hundreds of thousands of years and we have no idea how time passed billions of years ago. Maybe it was much slower. Maybe my log scale isn't just a model but an accurate representation of reality.
  8. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Never saw that pre-bing bang theory. Any references available?

    Wouldn't work as atoms didn't weren't around for quite some time after the initial inflation.

    Many theories support the idea that reality always exists; however, our universe might be a blip of change in reality.
  9. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    "Why was the big bang so very big? It has been a struggle to explain why the infant universe expanded so rapidly. But now Stephen Hawking at the University of Cambridge, and colleagues, think they are close to perfecting an answer - by treating the early cosmos as a quantum object with a multitude of alternative universes that gradually blend into ours."

    Read more
  10. Mike Honcho Shut up and calculate Registered Senior Member

    1. Mass is merely a property of (some) quantum particles, even then it doesn't exist at the energies theorized by the big bang. Never mind talk of actual atoms existing in the extreme early universe.
    2. By particles I mean bundles of quantum probability of energy potentially existing within areas of space (please reference the Wave Function). In other words no particles exist at fundemental levels anyway. Particulate properties merely arise in interacting systems of many of these various probabilities.
    3. As such the only thing which surely exists is the potential for everything.
    4. From this infinite potential energy (contained most densely in nothingness) sprang everything whether via BB or other events. Conservation of energy is observed.
    5. Everything quite literally is nothing.
    6. Fortunately nothing contains evertything.
    7. I'm a decent counter.
  11. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member


    Are you going to pay for a subscription, and then copy the article for all of us to read?
  12. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    there is no need.
    The information is in the abstract “quantum object with a multitude of alternative universes that gradually blend into ours".

    Prof Stephen Hawking proposes that we cannot know the initial conditions present at the bigbang because the beginning of the universe had a multitude of quantum states and histories.
    He then proposes that the `gradually blending` of these multi universes into one single universe (a wave collapse) released the energy to allow the universe to expand.
  13. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

  14. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Taking out the nonsense and insults, we are left with:

    The universe at an alleged 158 billion light years in diameter can barely hold it's own against gravity. Yet we are expected to believe it was once much smaller. In fact, quantumally small, and still expanded.

    A pity you don't use your few gray cells instead of just parroting text books.
  15. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member


    A black hole is almost ultimately stable. Pack stuff in far tighter and it should be ultimately stable. What movements are you going to have in something that makes neutronium look like a vacuum?
  16. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Throw a ball up at escape velocity and it will forever be slowing down but it will never actually stop. Throw it a tiny tiny amount slower andat some point it will slow down, stop and come back.

    The universe was 'thrown outwards' a tiny tiny fraction above 'escape velocity'.
    A pity you're too stupid to understand those books.
  17. Montec Registered Senior Member

    Hello all

    "Dark energy" can also be looked at as the reduction of "gravity" over time. IE reducing an "effect" (gravity) is the same as adding in an opposite "effect"(dark energy).

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  18. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member


    Again you show a basic lack of ability to grasp facts and just rush to insult. The Universe in it's early days was far beyond the density needed to make a black hole. There is no escape velocity for a black hole.

    You can't even quote from the right books. Loser.
  19. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member


    Right. Gravity we know moves at light speed so as expansion continues, there is greater distances between everything, so less attraction, so taking the brakes off of expansion.
  20. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    This is something you and I have been over many times.

    If the universe entered expansion before a sufficent amount of matter had time to exchange gravitational influence to form black holes, then there's no problem with "How did it escape it's own event horizon?". The event horizon would only form if the gravitational interactions had enough time to propogate between enough matter to reach critical density.

    The same thing is occuring right now in the universe. There's some objects in the universe we have never seen and will never see because the light from those distance galaxies is unable to reach us because the expansion of the universe is moving us away from those galaxies faster than light. With no way for light and gravity to go between us and those galaxies, we cannot influence one another. Similarly, at the beginning of the universe, there wasn't enough time for enough matter to become aware of each other to form a black hole.

    You'll find that there's plenty of work on considering what happens if inflation doesn't occur soon enough. The entire universe collapses back in on itself. Or if it occurs too soon it makes the matter in the universe too diffuse to form galaxies and the structures we see.
    I have yet to see you quote from any. Every time you make an attempt at correcting me, you get it wrong. Every time I ask you for a source, you don't provide one.

    And every time you call me a name all you do is demonstrate your hypocrisy. You and people like Walter spend so much time whining about mainstream work but you don't actually read any of it. What kind of a loser does that make you? :shrug:
  21. Pinocchio's Hoof Pay the Devil, or else.......£ Registered Senior Member

    It's good to read something interesting on the 'big bang' for a change without all the KOOKS claiming,
    'God caused it, We caused it, consciousness caused it, 3 headed aliens with green toes caused it'...this is the only interesting thread on the big bang i've read on the forums so far,or I should say the only one that has believable points actualy most of the others would only be believed by the under 13 population and the retarded (imo).

    Rekiu....A quick question

    In post11 you claim...
    Then 2 weeks later in post40 you say you can't decide between....

    Have you decided which it is to be..? have you changed your mind about us being the cause..?
    I've read a bit of your thread on it, but don't really get the math.

    Yep and santa claus should be in world events, and the tooth fairy in biology.

    V.interesting though the thread....
    (Imo) A truth is easy to explain and prove, A falsehood is generaly complicated.
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2008
  22. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    AlphaNumeric. Let's try and explain it again. The universe is finely balanced between expansion and collapse at (alleged) 158 billion light years in diameter. At 380,000 years when matter first appeared and the universe was that much smaller, everything was concentrated in a relatively tiny area. It seems to me that at such a small size, the gravity from 7x10^22 solar masses would be sufficient to overcome expansion to the point of collapsing?

    Check on the size of the local group and how little mass it has, but it holds together despite expansion:

    I quote sources like here but you ignore them because they show you wrong. Or like in a recent case: "He's only been doing astronomy in that field for 50 years. What does he know?"

    You hardly ever reveal sources, which would show where you copied from, so not surprising.

    You even copy my insults. How low can you get?

    How about answering my points instead of just empty boasting? That would make a change.
  23. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    No, matter appeared in the first moments of the universe. By 3 minutes nucleosynthesis was over and the universe then spent around 1/3 of a million years cooling down. At 380,000 years it cooled below the plasma ionisation temperature of hydrogren and the electrons, which had previously been buzzing about free, formed atoms around the slew of protons hanging around.

    Matter had been there the entire time, it was in plasma form, not atomic/molecular form.

    Yet another demonstration of your ignorance.
    It's gravitationally bound. Expansion over something the size of our local group is tiny. It's 70km/s per megaparsec. Our local group is about 3 megaparsecs across. That's a grand total of 210km/s expansion across the entire region. Andromeda is currently plowing towards us at 300km/s. Hence galaxy speeds are entirely fast enough to overcome the expansion across our local group.

    See, 20 seconds thought and a quick check of the speed of Andromeda relative to us and it turns out you're wrong. Again.
    And how many major astronomers can I name drop who have more experience, aren't considered cranks and who support the BB?

    If it came down to a popularity contest, the mainstream view wins. Tautologically so.
    About as low as the quality of your insults.
    How about you demonstrate working knowledge rather than saying "You're a liar, you aren't a PhD student." as if what I do or don't do has any effect on the validity of my comments.

    Do you still think I maintain numerous independent websites, going back many years, all for the purposes of fooling people like you? :roflmao: Why don't you ever demonstrate you have working knowledge of GR?

Share This Page