Cause of the Big Bang

[kaneda]

AlphaNumeric. I sometimes forget what a point scoring idiot you are, looking for every trivial chance to put someone else down. Next time I'll say SOLID matter so you can't score points off of it. Of course, this is just down to BB dogma anyway so it's not as though we were talking about something real.

Both our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy are attracting each other gravitationally, so both are moving towards each other at accelerated speeds, so not normal speed as you would have realised had you given it 1 second's thought, which is asking a lot of you.

Not being a trusting person I checked the wiki and found we are approaching each other at 100-140 km/s. They used a figure quoted from space.com . hypertextbook comes up with 130 km/s. Where was your figure from?

The BB has serious problems with it. Just because someone can identify distant star clusters, how does this equate with their personal knowledge of the BB? They believe it because that is what they have been taught. not because they have done any research on it, or in most cases, ever given it a moment's thought.

My insults can't be that bad if you quote them back to me. A pity they don't have a text book which you can quote insults from.

Why don't you display any knowledge which could not have been quoted from a text book or an internet site? An educated 12 year old with a search engine could do as well as you do.

A PhD student who spends all his time on internet forums? Like a pig with wings.

 

[kaneda]

AlphaNumeric. I've done this separately so you can't deliberately ignore it like you have so many times in the past in your creationist zeal for your support of the BB idea.

Explain how SOLID matter once created could overcome mutual attraction at BB+380,000 years when everything was so close together.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

AlphaNumeric. I sometimes forget what a point scoring idiot you are, looking for every trivial chance to put someone else down. Next time I'll say SOLID matter so you can't score points off of it. Of course, this is just down to BB dogma anyway so it's not as though we were talking about something real.

So you got it wrong but it's irrelevent because you don't believe in it? :shrug:

Both our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy are attracting each other gravitationally, so both are moving towards each other at accelerated speeds, so not normal speed as you would have realised had you given it 1 second's thought, which is asking a lot of you.

The local cluster is all gravitationally attracted, hence why all of it can overcome expansion. How are you not getting that?

Galaxies close enough will be bound together. Enough that they over come expansion. You've basically saying "Those don't count because they are gravitationally bound". So they don't count because they are a counter example?

Not being a trusting person I checked the wiki and found we are approaching each other at 100-140 km/s. They used a figure quoted from space.com . hypertextbook comes up with 130 km/s. Where was your figure from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy
The table on the right hand side, the red shift is 300km/s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy#General_information
First sentence.

About half of that is due to our motion within the Milky Way, but then that means various parts of the two galaxies will be roughly anywhere from approaching at as little as 50km/s through to perhaps as much as 500km/s.

Suffice to say, the speeds involves are the same magnitude as the expansion across 300 million parsecs. Hence the velocities of galaxies in the local cluster are well within the range to be over coming expansion. If they were out by an order of magnitude, say only moving at 20km/s then you'd be right. But they aren't so you're not.

Why don't you display any knowledge which could not have been quoted from a text book or an internet site? An educated 12 year old with a search engine could do as well as you do.

Funny how I help people with their homework, stand up to challenges and display the ability to reply to multiple specific points people raise in their posts. It's almost as if I can reply ontopic to things quickly and easily.

Find me a single post of yours where you demonstrate you can do physics. Where you calculate something.

A PhD student who spends all his time on internet forums? Like a pig with wings.

I can't help but notice you ignored my questions. Do you think I, somehow, maintain (and have maintained for years) multiple websites relating to Cambridge, physics, maths, rowing, conferences and even www.arxiv.org ? Come on, explain how my name appears on all the websites I linked you to. I added this last week for you. So how is it I'm listed as a PhD student in a physics department? Or I've attended conferences? And given talks?

If you are right, why do you avoid addressing that? Is it because your only answer, other than admiting you're wrong, involves claiming there's a large web of conspiracies which I'm the centre of, all for the purpose of fooling you.

Tell me, do you wear a tin foil hat?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

AlphaNumeric. I've done this separately so you can't deliberately ignore it like you have so many times in the past in your creationist zeal for your support of the BB idea.

I didn't ignore it. I had to correct you on it!

And nice hypocrisy, given you ignore my challenges and questions.

Explain how SOLID matter once created could overcome mutual attraction at BB+380,000 years when everything was so close together.

A plasma is not solid. And how close do you think it was? If you're going to make claims, let's see you make quantified ones. I could easily say "It was a diffuse plasma which underwent recombination and developed galaxies from there". It's as vague a reply as your claim was but something tells me you won't accept it. Once again, showing hypocrisy.

After 3 minutes, the universe had cooled and diffused enough to no longer be able to undergo fusion. So the nuclei which had been created, along with all the free protons, couldn't stick together but given the almost perfect uniformity of the material and it's still very high temperature, there's no main centres of density to collapse into (yet) and the high velocity means that it's able to support itself against collapse easily.

As time goes on the material continues to thin out, many billions and billions of times over, by which point the majority of the material is much more diffuse than stellar material (since it was already less dense than stellar material after a few minutes). The few areas which are denser have collapsed into the beginnings of galaxy clusters and some black holes, as seeded by dark matter (which isn't self supporting via it's temperature).

By t+380,000 years you've still got a material so hot it's literally white hot but quite diffuse. At that level of diffusion it's hot enough to stop itself collapse in most regions. Most regions which have begun collapse heat up enough to self support.

No doubt you're just itching to say "Quoted from a textbook", though it's all from memory and it's all stuff you should know if the information was something you bothered to look up. The fact you keep saying "solid" when it's not doesn't do you many favours. It's a 'dense' plasma but only in the sense that it's dense compared to nebulae we see now, particularly given all the electrons in the entire universe were free, effectively more than doubling the free particles in the universe and all of them being charged. If you suddenly ionised the interstellar dust everywhere, we'd not be able to see any stars!

So your 'solid material' wasn't solid at all. And all of this is done in explicit calculations in plenty of published papers which you can find on places like www.arxiv.org free of charge (damn those physicists and providing their work for all to see! It's almost like they have nothing to hide!). All your claims inevitably are devoid of calculations. If you know quantum mechanics, relativity and cosmology to the level you claim and you have so much free time on your hands and your dislike of the BB is so great and you're so sure you're right, why don't you type up some of your calculations?

Could it be you are not able to do mainstream physics, you are ignorant of most of it and all you can do is furiously wave your arms and jump about, proclaiming there are conspiracies against you, instigated by people like myself, who you think are about a dozen (if not more!) posters and moderators of websites who ban you. :roflmao:

It's always good to come on here, after banging my head against trying to turn a meson equation of motion from string theory into a Schrodinger equation format for most of the day, and see nuts like you. You remember me that whatever my problems in physics are, yours run much much deeper. :roflmao:

 

[James R]

Explain how SOLID matter once created could overcome mutual attraction at BB+380,000 years when everything was so close together.

Explain how a ball can go upwards when you throw it.

 

[Montec]

Hello kaneda. et al.

Explain how SOLID matter once created could overcome mutual attraction at BB+380,000 years when everything was so close together.

Some of us don't believe that "everything was so close together".

For example, no mass/gravity equates to very fast time rate so energy can travel "very fast". This is an expansion phase. Mass (initial seed) starts to form and slows the "time rate" down which intern "traps" more energy. Random pockets/areas of mass form out of the energy.

Just some thoughts.

 

[kaneda]

Explain how a ball can go upwards when you throw it.

Try throwing it up under a million G-force.

 

[kaneda]

So you got it wrong but it's irrelevent because you don't believe in it? :shrug:

Another point for you. This point scoring is reallllly borrring!

The local cluster is all gravitationally attracted, hence why all of it can overcome expansion. How are you not getting that?

Galaxies close enough will be bound together. Enough that they over come expansion. You've basically saying "Those don't count because they are gravitationally bound". So they don't count because they are a counter example?

Gravitation is such that at 158 billion light years in diameter, the universe is balanced. At 1/36052 of it's present age when the universe was positively tiny and everything was packed in very densely, it continued to expand. I can't make it any easier than that for you. Get a 10 year old to explain it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy
The table on the right hand side, the red shift is 300km/s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy#General_information
First sentence.

I got different speeds elsewhere but the wiki is so accurate.....

About half of that is due to our motion within the Milky Way, but then that means various parts of the two galaxies will be roughly anywhere from approaching at as little as 50km/s through to perhaps as much as 500km/s.

That is irrelevant because the galaxy is a "closed system" in such circumstances.

Funny how I help people with their homework, stand up to challenges and display the ability to reply to multiple specific points people raise in their posts. It's almost as if I can reply ontopic to things quickly and easily.

You can quote answers from text books but not think up anything new.

Find me a single post of yours where you demonstrate you can do physics. Where you calculate something.

I can show you wrong, so what does that make you?

I can't help but notice you ignored my questions.

Again you use criticisms I have made of you. Doh!

Do you think I, somehow, maintain (and have maintained for years) multiple websites relating to Cambridge, physics, maths, rowing, conferences and even www.arxiv.org ? Come on, explain how my name appears on all the websites I linked you to. I added this last week for you. So how is it I'm listed as a PhD student in a physics department? Or I've attended conferences? And given talks?

If that is true, let me congratulate you on doing such a good job of hiding your intellect.

Tell me, do you wear a tin foil hat?

Only when debating with you. I heard idiocy is contagious.

 

[kaneda]

AlphaNumeric. Babbling that you are correct is not an answer.

I never said plasma was solid matter. You are so desperate now that you are making things up.

So, in Wonder Land after 3 minutes where you have the whole mass of the universe in a light year or so (thanks to magical fairy dust). Even if the lot does not collapse into a black hole, how is expansion going to overcome that? Can expansion move material off of the surface of a neutron star?

There is no bias in expansion. It is uniform, like tossing a coin a billion times. Expansion at the rate claimed would not allow even hydrogen to form.

Plasma collapses into neutron stars without any problem.

Solid as in elements. Below a certain temperature, it is no longer plasma.

I have found people who like calculations yourself on science forums are uniformly close minded. You are as alike as sheep with every last hint of imagination knocked out of you. Nothing new and you don't want anything new. Just the same old, same old. The equations of Wonder Land where strings really exist as do all the impossible stuff that you dream up.

Deep as in castles built ever higher on clouds which is why many left the superstring field some years back. A scientific dead end they called it. You can do the maths 24/7/365 but it will never be of any use in the real world. All you are doing is making new suits of clothes for the Emperor.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Gravitation is such that at 158 billion light years in diameter, the universe is balanced. At 1/36052 of it's present age when the universe was positively tiny and everything was packed in very densely, it continued to expand. I can't make it any easier than that for you. Get a 10 year old to explain it.

Throw a ball upwards at 11.6km/s + 0.000000001mm/s and in a billion years it'll be just moving and you might think "Wow, it's so close to stopping!" but it doesn't make the fact it was thrown upwards wrong.

The universe is very close to not being outside it's own 'escape velocity'. So?

You can quote answers from text books but not think up anything new.

Evidence? I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate it's impossible for me to think up anything new.

You will find the work discussed towards the end of this published nowhere. I literally right now have a .tex file opened with a half completed paper written up which will be published by the end of the summer on that.

I can show you wrong, so what does that make you?

Except noone but you thinks you've shown me wrong and that doesn't answer my question. Show me where you've demonstated you can do actual physics. I have this. What about you?

If that is true, let me congratulate you on doing such a good job of hiding your intellect.

Well done on being unable to say "I was wrong!". I prove that I'm a PhD student doing theoretical physics and you accept it but still manage to avoid saying "I was wrong".

And everyone else thinks I'm intelligent, including the people who allow me to do a PhD and the people who gave me a degree in maths from Cambridge. What evidence do you have?

I never said plasma was solid matter. You are so desperate now that you are making things up.

You said "Explain how SOLID matter once created could overcome mutual attraction at BB+380,000 years when everything was so close together.". The universe at 380,000 years old went from a semi-diffuse plasma to a transparent gas which was already clumping into galaxies.

'Solid' and 'elements' are not synomymous. The fact you capitalised 'solid' implies that even more.

So, in Wonder Land after 3 minutes where you have the whole mass of the universe in a light year or so (thanks to magical fairy dust). Even if the lot does not collapse into a black hole, how is expansion going to overcome that? Can expansion move material off of the surface of a neutron star?

Noone said that expansion pulls apart neutron stars. Infact, it doesn't. Why are you making up strawmen?

There is no bias in expansion. It is uniform, like tossing a coin a billion times. Expansion at the rate claimed would not allow even hydrogen to form.

And yet calculations show expansion does explain what we see.

Unless you want to provide us with your calculations to demonstrate otherwise?
neutron stars. Infact, it doesn't. Why are you making up strawmen?

I have found people who like calculations yourself on science forums are uniformly close minded.

Translation : "I've found that people who can do science disagree with me".

You are as alike as sheep with every last hint of imagination knocked out of you. Nothing new and you don't want anything new. Just the same old, same old.

The fact I'm a PhD student proves otherwise. I do original research. Have you done any?

which is why many left the superstring field some years back. A scientific dead end they called it.

Like who? Witten still does strings. Infact, he was at the conference I was at about 6 weeks ago. My name is 3 above his.

Still think I'm a faker about claiming to be a PhD student?

Go on, link to a single thread where you show working knowledge in relativity or quantum mechanics. I bet you can't. All you have in your sad little life is coming online and throwing insults at people who are more successful at physics than you. You have to pretend I'm the centre of a huge conspiracy all about you just so you can avoid saying "I was wrong". When I get my paper published, I'll be sure to point it out to you

 

[EndLightEnd]

Heres my take on the universe, which allows an infinite universe (as einstein believed) and accounts for the expanding we observe today.

In the universe everything is just a cycle, built on a cycle, built on a cycle.

The earth revolves around the sun, which revolves around the galaxy, which revolves around the Magellanic Clouds, etc...

The expanding we see today is merely the result of a much larger cycle we cannot fully observe, and the acceleration caused by sinusoidal progression.

I suspect billions of years in the future we will observe contraction.

 

[RussT]

I have been on BAUT for over three years "arguing with the Big Boys" and understand this implicitly and explicitly!

Here's a little secret for everyone...

Our Universe has NEVER been in any danger what-so-ever of 'Collapsing in on itself'.

SO, all of the alternative theories are right that the Big Bang Never happened, (There is NO 'naked singularity'... that is the EFE 'inside solution' (Schwarzschild) for an 'spherically' expanding 'naked singularity', everywhere the center of a finite but unbounded universe,) BUT BUT BUT...

ALL of the alternative's are WRONG, because they do not use "Real" SMBH's at all.

The ONE THING that Mainstream has never allowed/considered....is the answer...

"Something" Going Through those SMBH's!!!

Lee Smolin and Lisa Randall are the closest to 'getting it'.

Lee Smolin's..."A constant at the "pit" of the Black Holes
Lisa Randall's "Gravity Leaking" TO our Universe. (Only it is not really "Gravity", it is just the (God) particle that gives electrons and protons their mass).

AND, the whole key to all of this is...

When the "Jets" turn on the first time for SMBH's and THEN, when do they turn on again!!!

The "First Time" the Jets turn on for a SMBH is when a 3 second to 500 second GRB goes BOOOOOOOMMMMMM...that is the electrons/protons being created for that particular "New Galaxy" or Dwarf Galaxy.

There are 10 dwarfs for every one galaxy, and the long GRB's (3 Second to 500 second) are in exactly that ratio.

ALL of the Quasars are fully formed and evolved Elliptical Galaxies NOT new galaxies being formed!

Alphanumeric and JamesR

According to mainstreams "Just-so-Story", the Milky Way is modeled as...'as old as the oldest galaxy in the universe', SO, how 'massive' was the SMBH at the core of the Milky Way, say 13.2 billions years ago???

Was it in the Billions of sol masses, as a quasar, and has slowly dwindled in mass since it's inception?

AND, what about M87, did it start out as aa puny few million sol mass SMBH, and build to what it is today, OR???

There's more....like what is "Coming Through" those SMBH's and what it means!!!

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

There's more....like what is "Coming Through" those SMBH's and what it means!!!

What does SMBH stand for ___ ___ black hole...?

 

[blobrana]

RE:>> he treats the early cosmos as a quantum object with a multitude of alternative universes that gradually blend into ours.

Here is another link about Stephen Hawking`s answer to the bigbang and inflation.
It is a bit easier to understand than my cryptic answer.

"For this, one needs a theory of the wave function of the universe."

(And supermassive black holes (SMBH) are not needed)

 

[Diode-Man]

RE:>>

"For this, one needs a theory of the wave function of the universe."

(And supermassive black holes (SMBH) are not needed)

If all life forms suddenly disappeared from the Universe, would the Universe disappear as well? Such a statement naturally seams stupid... however...

A Universal that has no lifeforms and no consciousness, passes through time like eons to seconds, and perhaps faster. I theorize that self-awareness actually slows down time and perhaps even creates it. If the big bang really does repeat itself over and over then this would happen trillions of times per moment of unobserved time. (Or indeed, infinite cycles per second) **DUN DUN DUN**

The number of stars in existence is literally incalculable. To think the Universe has an edge is comparable to believing you can fall off the edge of the Earth by sailing too far. But it is equally retarded to think that the Universe is a sphere that you can appear on the other end of by going to the "edge."

Who really needs Steven Hawking to think for them if they realize time doesn't exist without consciousness?

 

[blobrana]

Hum,
While there are important philosophical points to what you say, we really don't need you to say that time doesn't exist without consciousness.
Right or wrong, it is unimportant to this thread, or to Hacking's latest theory.

 

[goose]

If all life forms suddenly disappeared from the Universe, would the Universe disappear as well? Such a statement naturally seams stupid... however...

A Universal that has no lifeforms and no consciousness, passes through time like eons to seconds, and perhaps faster. I theorize that self-awareness actually slows down time and perhaps even creates it. If the big bang really does repeat itself over and over then this would happen trillions of times per moment of unobserved time. (Or indeed, infinite cycles per second) **DUN DUN DUN**

This is the same thing as saying that when someone dies, everything vanishes according to that person. Well, if you want to take it that far, then yes, what your saying is perfectly accurate. The universe only has time according to the person that is observing it. However, lets say that i have 5 seconds to live, when i die, do you cease to exist? according to me you do, but according to you it doesnt. Lets break me and you down to a single atom, and go through the same scenario, you get the same result if an atom did infact die. Well, what if both of us are dead? does the 5 seconds after our death no longer exist? Not to us, but the 5 seconds is still there. In turn, the universe with no lifeforms still exsits regardless of the fact that we arnt there to see it.

Who really needs Steven Hawking to think for them if they realize time doesn't exist without consciousness?

"Time" only exists in the way that we made it up... how we perceive time to be. So in this way, time in the way we use it doesnt exist without consciousness, but time as the dimension does exist regardless if were here to see it or not. If you have an object traveling at any speed, then there has to be time as a dimension or else it couldnt get from point A to point B. All movement is based off of time (ie. m/s - m/s^2 and so on)

 

[kaneda]

Throw a ball upwards at 11.6km/s + 0.000000001mm/s and in a billion years it'll be just moving and you might think "Wow, it's so close to stopping!" but it doesn't make the fact it was thrown upwards wrong.

Throwing a ball upwards suggests on a planet or moon. It moving for a billion years suggests it being in space. Make up your mind. If it moves at a constant speed, why should someone think it is close to stopping?

The universe is very close to not being outside it's own 'escape velocity'. So? Evidence? I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate it's impossible for me to think up anything new.

You still don't get it. Escape velocity depends on the mass and density an object is trying to escape from. The mass remains the same but the density was far, far more than it is now. Hugely different escape velocities, something that seems to be light years beyond your ability to comprehend.

Since you are just regurgitating old arguments, I think that is sufficient proof. I have yet to see you ever come up with anything new.

You will find the work discussed towards the end of this published nowhere. I literally right now have a .tex file opened with a half completed paper written up which will be published by the end of the summer on that.
Except noone but you thinks you've shown me wrong and that doesn't answer my question. Show me where you've demonstated you can do actual physics. I have this. What about you?
Well done on being unable to say "I was wrong!". I prove that I'm a PhD student doing theoretical physics and you accept it but still manage to avoid saying "I was wrong".

How easy to copy the work of others.

And everyone else thinks I'm intelligent, including the people who allow me to do a PhD and the people who gave me a degree in maths from Cambridge. What evidence do you have?

Who is this "everyone"? You're not on physorg where your toadies are impressed with your ability to parrot things.

You said "Explain how SOLID matter once created could overcome mutual attraction at BB+380,000 years when everything was so close together.". The universe at 380,000 years old went from a semi-diffuse plasma to a transparent gas which was already clumping into galaxies.

A question you have yet to answer.

'Solid' and 'elements' are not synomymous. The fact you capitalised 'solid' implies that even more.
Noone said that expansion pulls apart neutron stars. Infact, it doesn't. Why are you making up strawmen?
And yet calculations show expansion does explain what we see.

Unless you want to provide us with your calculations to demonstrate otherwise?
neutron stars. Infact, it doesn't. Why are you making up strawmen?
Translation : "I've found that people who can do science disagree with me".
The fact I'm a PhD student proves otherwise. I do original research. Have you done any?
Like who? Witten still does strings. Infact, he was at the conference I was at about 6 weeks ago. My name is 3 above his.

I had to use SOLID because you were point scoring and so differentiate plasma from cooler material.

Again, you have to explain how a universe with a density like a neutron star or greater could continue to expand. Feel free to continue to evade the question.

What great discoveries in the real world has Witten come up with?

Still think I'm a faker about claiming to be a PhD student?

If you are, you have shown a singular inability to go beyond what you have been taught.

Go on, link to a single thread where you show working knowledge in relativity or quantum mechanics. I bet you can't. All you have in your sad little life is coming online and throwing insults at people who are more successful at physics than you. You have to pretend I'm the centre of a huge conspiracy all about you just so you can avoid saying "I was wrong". When I get my paper published, I'll be sure to point it out to you

I don't go in for vain boasting like you. You still have to show that you can do something new and not just parrot what you have been taught.

 

[kaneda]

RE:>> he treats the early cosmos as a quantum object with a multitude of alternative universes that gradually blend into ours.

Here is another link about Stephen Hawking`s answer to the bigbang and inflation.
It is a bit easier to understand than my cryptic answer.

"For this, one needs a theory of the wave function of the universe."

(And supermassive black holes (SMBH) are not needed)

I read what Hawking said and it blew my BS meter. Even AlphaNumeric has never managed to do that. Does Hawking think he can get away with such nonsense by hoping that people will not understand his babble?

 

[kaneda]

If all life forms suddenly disappeared from the Universe, would the Universe disappear as well? Such a statement naturally seams stupid... however...

A Universal that has no lifeforms and no consciousness, passes through time like eons to seconds, and perhaps faster. I theorize that self-awareness actually slows down time and perhaps even creates it. If the big bang really does repeat itself over and over then this would happen trillions of times per moment of unobserved time. (Or indeed, infinite cycles per second) **DUN DUN DUN**

The number of stars in existence is literally incalculable. To think the Universe has an edge is comparable to believing you can fall off the edge of the Earth by sailing too far. But it is equally retarded to think that the Universe is a sphere that you can appear on the other end of by going to the "edge."

Who really needs Steven Hawking to think for them if they realize time doesn't exist without consciousness?

Life is irrelevant to the universe. Time is change and continues whether we are here to measure it or not as in we have only been around for several million years while the universe is billions of years old.

The number of stars is said to be about 7x10^22 though bigger and better telescopes will no doubt increase that number. However, as there is a maximum distance we can see on Earth due to material and water in the air, there is no reason why this should not happen in space where because it is so much more rarefied we can see much further, as in over 13 billion light years. There is of course a limit because of the age of the universe.

Why should a finite universe not have an "edge" or boundary?