Prove it.

I believe that is more or less the definition of trolling, right?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Discussions about the nature of ‘proof’ and the differences between scientific proof, mathematical proof and philosophical proof are not without merit. In fact, I find them most interesting. But I don’t think that’s where the original poster is heading. Rather I suspect that the motive behind this thread is to surreptitiously attempt to argue the validity of pseudo-scientific mysto-cryptical concepts over scientific explanations of natural phenomena.

A bit lame.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yep.<P>

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's too bad he's limited his vocabulary in this thread such that it denies him the opportunity to really interact.

Of course I can't prove that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

disprove it!

 

Because motion exists

Not sure or no idea. independent of what?

Not sure

False. The big bang requires many pre-requisits which cannot be acocunted for. This including antimatter, homology, a huge mass in the center of the universe (this one is just plain stupid), and a closed universe( also stupid but not as stupid)

Can't remember any materials at the moment. I do know that the tinest matter called strings vibtate, and the pattern at which they vibrate calls for extra dimensions. Righ now there are 11 dimensions. However read about David Bohms holograhic universe and the Aspect experiment, it doesn't discredit it but increases the possibility. To us we are seeing this strings in 3 dimension when they are actually in 11 or more, get it?

As true as George Bush is an Oil tycoon.

 

Actually, the universe may be closed. It may be a 3 dimensional manifold (possibly a 3-sphere) that is bounded, but has no boundary. If that is the case, talking about the "center" of the universe is meaningless...the center is every point, or doesn't exist, depending on your viewpoint.

BTW, antimatter does exist.

I am not sure what you meant "homology". None of the definitions seem to apply.

 

Interesting idea, can you elaborate please?

If there is no central focal point then how can the 3-D universe ever crunch again. Remember the big bang postulates that there was a huge releases of energy which will eventually contract again if only the universe has enough weigh (dark matters). okay lets say there is no central focal point per-say just a huge mass some where in the universe whose gravitation will crunch the universe again, for this to happen it still has to be in around the center of the universe because all release of energy goes in every dimension unless controlled (entropy), and gravity's effect on space time is multi direction anyway, 3-D. The theory also calls for a smooth and homogenous universe, but we know that the universe is heterogeneous (heavy clusters right next to lighter clusters) and has many super clusters. Consider this, if there was a bang; a release of energy, that means that the universe was started or controlled. The natural state of things is diffusion, a state of high energy to low energy but then suddenly the universe got a burst of energy as the big bang, and can you explain this? After boiling water it will cool off readily not the other way around. So the big bang needs a closed universe. Listen, the big bang is greatly misinterpreted, it's a rubbish idea, just take a closer look at it and it's almost some kind of spiritual movement. No offence sir

 

The big bang is cave man's view of the ever captivating power of the universe.

 

Homology is a characteristic of the big bang. It requires a homogenous universe. Basicaly in every explosion the larger chunks end up closer to the explosion while the smaller ones can be found miles away from the center of explosion. However its an observable fact that in the universe larger bodies of light years in diameter can be found closer to smaller masses.

Here is the real problem with the big bang, believe me you won't find any better explanation in that $40 science book. Essentialy every explosion is when atomic particles move from higher states to lower states, thereby giving off exess energy to the surrounding as what we observe as explosion. light operates this way as well, electrons move to lower nodes and give off exess energy as what we observe as light. When you don't go to work you have an exess energy and you find yourself reading that boring book, watching that boring tv, and you generaly create a strong vibrant energy in your restlessness. Now remember that the natural state of all system and all things is from high enegry to low energy(boiled water), unless an external factor in present. This means that light and explosions are far more fundamental than we can ever imagine, they have been present for eons and eons. In explosions when one atomic particle looses energy another gains and so the chain continues on and on. So you have to ask yourself what enegry loss created the energy gain that gave the first bang, in other words what bang created the first bang and what bang created the first bang that created the first bang, it goes on and on. So where do you stop? Its like the other convinient explanation as in God, but where did God come from? What God created God and what God created that God that created God, and what God....You get the picture.

 

OK...a little elementary topology in a nut shell.

Consider a 2-sphere...that is, just the surface of a ball. At every point on this sphere, if you look at a very tiny portion, it looks like a flat plane. (This is why primitive people thought the Earth was flat.) this 2-sphere is and example of a 2 dimensional manifold (or 2-fold for short).

Now, staying only on the sphere, you can walk anywhere and never come to and edge. The sphere wraps in a third dimension and closes on itself.

The sphere is 2 dimensional, closed, but without boundary.

Now we move into 4 dimensions and consider a 3-sphere. As with a 2-sphere in 3-space, it is a set of points equidistant from a single point. At every point of this 3-sphere, it appears like 3-space...that is you can see and move in 3 dimensions. However, it curves in a 4th dimension back on itself just like a 2-sphere does.

A 3-sphere is 3 dimensional, closed, and without boundary.

Most astrophysicists believe our universe is a 3-fold similar to this.

 

I think I understand, what does this however have to do with the universe? For the sake of argument we are talking about the universe, the entire matter and energy and in all it's dimensions. Nonetheless you've made a mistake in your observation, all dimensions come from smaller dimensions, that is you can't have dimensions without the first, which basiclaly means there will be no 11th dimension if we couldn't draw a simple straight line on a piece of paper in the first place. So basicaly you are talking about the relevance of space, that there must have been space from the beginning of time no matter how incredibly marginal. Maybe this tiny space is what led to your big bang as in when a jet of air is let out from a tiny puncture in a ballon, I don't know. But if this space was always present, what created that space to unfold unto other dimensions? So you see dimensions have always been existing, just hidden away(David Bohm's Aspect experiment). There could be millions of dimensions, and then again..where do you stop.

 

OK...back to the 2-sphere. Say it is a balloon (with 0 thickness). The center of the sphere is not ON the sphere. The sphere can expand or contract without having a center (ignore the point in the center of the balloon. It is not on the balloon, and you can only sense two dimensions.)

In a similar way, the 3-fold universe we live in has no center in the universe. Yet the universe can expand and contract without having a center.

A few misconceptions I see here...

1) The Big Bang only talks about the start of the universe, not its end. True, it was thought that there may eventually be a Big Crunch if there was enough gravity to stop the expansion. Recent observations of far off super novae now point to an ever expanding universe.

2)Actually, what the Big Bang says is that the universe should be homogeneous (I know this as homogeneity, not homology) if the early universe was homogeneous. Since it is clear the present universe is not homogeneous, then the early universe must not have been either.

However, no one has come up with a theory of how a non-homogeneous universe could have come into existence. Though string theory, if it turns out to be a workable theory, does have some possible answers. The current theory of quantum mechanics does not.

3)Quantum mechanics does have something to say about the spontaneous generation of the universe. We know that particle - anti-particle pairs can be generated spontaneously from nothing. It is theorized that much larger generations occur on very-very rare occasions. The beginning of the universe was an exceptionally big one of these occasions.

4)There is no "huge mass" someplace in the universe. The matter is more-or-less evenly spread throughout the universe, and the matter is moving apart as the universe expands.

You may think that the Big Bang is without any merit, but if you look carefully at the work being done at the big particle accelerators, Fermi and Cern, their results agree with the Big Bang. Strange, but true.

And, how do you explain the red shift of galaxies?

 

Agreed.Non relevant

Yes the universe can expand and contract without having a center but you don't have a total grasp on the big picture. The big bang loves gravity, Gravity is what currently holds all massive bodies and galaxies together, its the reason for any expansion or contraction, hence there must be a number of massive bodies at the center of the universe for any contraction. Center of the universe doesn't relate to center of a circle, it just means focal point, as in center of gravity.

A few misconceptions I see here...

1)

. First they claimed it was going to eventually stop by having an equal mass/critical density, now they claim it will expand forever. Many theories have been formulated to support the big band, don't take my word read about this aspects yourself. I know the focal point of the big bang is the start of the universe, don't don't you even know how newtonian and primitive that sounds. By the way for anything to start it needs to gain energy how do you explain this?

2)

It will be interesting to see how M-Theory relates to this puzzle. However how can you explain why huge superclusters can be found near smaller ones? And even At the Quantum level we have weak, strong, gravitional, and electromagnetic forces, all working in harmony, all sounds heterogenous to me. The entire freakin atom is comprised of heterogenous particles.

Listen nothing comes from nothing, either anti-matter or matter. Hence its entirely impossible to manifest enegry from nothing. Thats just a fundamental even God cannot escape.

Agreed the huge masses are scattered throughout the universe, I don't care about this I am not the big bang advocate anyway. Red shift only means that massive bodies are drifting farther away from each other, nothing more, using this to support the big bang is plain biase. If you notice something about Red shift it may also mean that energy is decreasing (increasing wave lenghth). Like I said its the natural way for all energy and system to die out, so why and how can the universe be started based on its reverse?

 

Chatha,

You seem confused. There is no center of the universe and no center of expansion. The metric which describes the expanding universe is homogeneous, it has no preferred point.

Also, homology has nothing to do with being homogeneous. Homology has roughly to do with "holes" in a topological space.

 

I will make sure I tell that to the big bangers. I believe in a plasmic universe because all else is pure bullshit. Some people just can't handle the truth. Even if the universe was expanding(bullshit) please where the fuck is it expanding to? is it not into the same freakin universe. By this they agree that the expansion came from a central focal region(the bang). It's pathetic.

 

Look its very simple. No focal region or density, no expansion, no expansion means no big bang. I have actually read books that said once upon a time the universe was a huge ball that one beatiful day exploded suddenly. Folk, try not to be too fuckin stupid will ya?

 

yep, its 2006..time to move on

 

I have asked the same question before. I accept all of the evidence for the BB and see it as the only rational explanation. Maybe PhysicsMonkey can help here. I fully understand that the BB was an "explosion" of space/time itself. It happened everywhere simultaneously, thus no "center" for anything to be expanding away from.

I have heard that the genesis of the BB (as described by some physicists) may have been the mother of all vacuum quantum fluctuations. Now, if this were the case, and space itself did not exist, what exactly did this "vacuum" fluctuation fluctuate in? Or is this concept totally flawed?

The other question is closer to Chatha's. What is postulated to be the context in which the BB took place, or is it a completely meaningless question, and if so, why?

 

Chatha, I do not know any of the physical evidence for or against the big bang, but the geometry is not as complicated or confusing as you make it seem. Just think of a soap bubble with gravity being the surface tension and the light pressure being the opposite. You can go in any direction on the surface and never reach an edge yet the total surface area is finite. No point on the soap bubble is the center and each point is either getting closer together or further apart from every other point depending on if the total surface area is increasing or decreasing. Despite the fact that no point on the surface is the center it can still collapse to or expand from a single point without ever ceasing to be a sphere. There doesn't have to be a "lump" of soap or a localized region of extremely high surface tension for the bubble to contract, instead if the surface tension is uniformly too high it will collapse evenly. Now, just expand all of those ideas to 3-dimensions.

I'm not saying that it is or is not a proper model of the universe, I honestly don't know enough of the evidence and I am not really interested in wether it is right or wrong. I am just saying that the geometry is not ridiculous or complicated as you seem to think it is.

-Dale

 

The origin of the BB as a theory was the observations done by Hubble in the early 20th century. He observed that all galaxies (except those in close clusters) are moving away from each other. The obvious conclusion is that they were closer together in the past, and that if you go back in time far enough, they all crunch down to a single point.

Moving forward in time again, you have everything bursting outward. The universe expands at the speed of light.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As you look at a smaller and smaller universe, the energy density (sometimes viewed as temperature) gets extremely high. It gets so high that matter ceases to exist, and there is only energy. At even higher states (and smaller universe) we know for a fact that the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force combine. This is called the electro-weak force. There is some evidence that at even higher states the electro-weak force and the strong nuclear force combine. It is hypothesized that at extremely high states, gravity is also included in a unified force. This is the elusive unified field theory.

Quantum mechanics is the usual tool for studying the early universe. The problem is that QM starts to break down between the unification of the strong force and the unification of gravity. It can not tell us anything. Relativity also breaks down. So currently, we can not make any predictions about what the very early universe was like, or even how it came into existence.

Super String Theory does have some things to say about this, but so far it appears impossible to test SST. Until it can be tested, it will not be accepted as a theory.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You stated that gravity was involved in the expansion of the universe. This is not so. Gravity is only an attractive force. It can not cause things to expand. It was long believed that gravity might cause the universe to eventually collapse. General relativity indicated that might occur under the right circumstances. That no longer appears to be the case. Recent evidence from distant super novae indicate that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating. Why this may be is not understood at all. Studying it is a hot topic.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Also, you stated that you can not get something from nothing. Actually you can, as long as the energy of the various parts sums to 0.