[Guest]

So there was this tiny spec that went bang - BANG!

How? If I rember rightly it got to a trillion degrees and that's when things hit the fan

Q1 - where did the spec come from

Q2 - how did it get to that heat, it started cold right or it started hot

I understand the Fred Hoyle physics (anti big bang theory - he he it was FH who used the term big bang mockingly, now it is THE term))

I have other questions too, - but lets start here - crack this for me and i am on board the Big bang theory - otherwise I'll watch this space till the next theory comes along - not going with the regenerating bang after bang after bang theory by a long shot

[Guest]

Hey, it's your best friend Ploper!

This one caught my attention, I mostly just skimmed the responses, but they interested me

so these quotes might be pretty far back, with other people responding to them.. but whatever

No one has answers for all these questions, Which is why I dont believe it!

Ok, then answer me this. When God created Adam, he realised that Adam would need company, or a companion.

So he had Adam decide, from all the animals he created, which would be his Companion, before he finally created Woman.

So, why would an all-knowing God supposedly not know what Adam would want for company.

Or in other terms, have an afterthought.

Until you give a satisfactoy answer to that question, I will be forced not to believe in it.

(if you do. I'll always have my other reasons not to believe God

Also, set the clock back.. I dunno, about 3,000 years.. whenever the Greeks were around (my timeline is a bit foggy )

No one had answers to why the sky would supposedly throw fire at the ground, then give a tremendous roar.

So hence, we've got ourselves Zeus, and he's the one doing it.

Well, we all know it's lightning now. So just because no one has answers to questions NOW, doesn't mean they won't have answers to them LATER.

The big bang theory my eye!! ok think about it...this theory is what evolutionists and atheists ( im not sayin all! just people who dont want to believe that God created the world- no offense to atheists) developed to explain the beginning of the universe through mere chance. Picture this- say you need to clean your room and you decide to do it with a hand grenade...so you pull the pin and toss the grenade into your room...and wow! your room has blown up into order and cleanleness...your bed is made, carpet is clean,ect...Now, picture the entire universe and the evolution of all life resulting over billions of years developing from merely a very large "Bang". How rational can that be?!? Where can science go if it is founded on such theory?

Talk to me about rationality once you're done believing a 2,000 year old book that tells you an invisible man in the sky did it all.

okay.. now I'll just add my own bit.

personally, I don't think that the explanation for the existence of the universe is one of the theories we've developed.

Although I don't know any of the theories in serious depth, I just.. I dunno... lol.

I'm not quite convinced of any

Also.. science has proven that the universe hasn't always existed... though, the thought of a nothing that is even more nothing than nothing (?) is completely mind boggling

though that doesn't make me any closer to believing the 2,000 year old book, either

second skim of the posts gave me one last thing I wanted to say.

The universe is always expanding btw.

I'm not challenging this.. but how do you know, as I stated, I'm a bit fuzzy on the details.

And just wondering if you knew what the nothing outside of nothing is... thanks

cheers

[Guest]

One little interesting note: First there was not space; what we call space - well what we now call (thanks to Albert Einstein) Spacetime - the three spacial dimensions and the fourth time dimension - were contained within that spec - or more rightly are emergent properties of the Rapid expansion event of that spec

What did the spec expand into?? You might well ask. Nothing apparently. There was nothing for which it to expand into. When we say the universe is expanding, we really mean it, the universe is not expanding to fill more of the space in which it exists, but Space itself is expanding!

I know - Science gets weird on those outer limits. You are on the raggedy edge now my friend, the further you look, the more you learn, the weirder the answers, and resulting futher questions, will get. Don't despair in this; embrace it. It's cool; enjoy the ride

This is bugging me. Understanding what was really first - space as we call it was really smaller ??? not getting that at all - cld be me though! - I'm looking for more material for now.

Still can not see why something that cld not start by moving and was absolute zero (or less if the atom was not formed till the parts came together), all of asudden moves (warms up) and reaches an awsome temperature - enought to cause Raid Expansion (big bang) would have been bang if there was A/ anyone to here it and B/ any air as medium for sound to carry.

[Guest]

Hey, it's your best friend Ploper!

This one caught my attention, I mostly just skimmed the responses, but they interested me

so these quotes might be pretty far back, with other people responding to them.. but whatever

okay.. now I'll just add my own bit.

personally, I don't think that the explanation for the existence of the universe is one of the theories we've developed.

Although I don't know any of the theories in serious depth, I just.. I dunno... lol.

I'm not quite convinced of any

Also.. science has proven that the universe hasn't always existed... though, the thought of a nothing that is even more nothing than nothing (?) is completely mind boggling

though that doesn't make me any closer to believing the 2,000 year old book, either

second skim of the posts gave me one last thing I wanted to say.

I'm not challenging this.. but how do you know, as I stated, I'm a bit fuzzy on the details.

And just wondering if you knew what the nothing outside of nothing is... thanks

cheers

Edited out the religious and begining of life - it's in other threads or comes way way after this - well put and concise as always - sharpest in the forum i think

Glad your around again - join M4F14 it'l better with you in it!

[Guest]

ADParker stated, atoms and subatomic particles as we know them today didn't exist. They weren't in their mass form, rather, they were in a form of pure energy, that as things expanded and cooled, "condensed" (for lack of a better word) into their known forms, first electrons, followed by protons and then the combined proton-electron, the neutron. From all of this, the rest of the Universe and matter developed.

I understand the theory (or is it 'proof' - it's not actually important as I take it to be acceptable for now. I have no chance of seeing/witnessing it- so far) of atoms and there structure - but can you enlighten me on the energy - where did that come from - how did it actually develop into atoms - well the cooling and the desire for this cooling energy and the resulting residue(?) to attach in certain fashions and become the substances they are - again I have read the theory of forming of elements and I can accept certain steps as being the nearest possible for now - but until it all fits I'm skeptic

Also funny is that Fred Hoyle again shoots himself in the foot by proving step five (or one of the steps) - I think he actually predicted it and requested that it be looked for - gobbsmackingly it was there.

I have the feeling there is always going to be something to question - just like... well I'll save that one.

[Guest]

This is bugging me. Understanding what was really first - space as we call it was really smaller ??? not getting that at all - cld be me though! - I'm looking for more material for now.

Oh I understand your confusion completely I'm reading about Quantum physics at the moment - Heisenberg uncertainty principle, probability waves, nonlocality...

It gets weirder I'm afraid - What does "smaller" mean without spacial dimensions for it to be contained within? But yes from our perspective the universe is expanding (and the speed of expansion is apparently increasing) and the evidence points to it having (looking back) expanded from a very small size indeed - perhaps even a singularity (although modern physics breaks down this far back.) The scientific evidence confirms it, whether it fits in with our "common sense" view of things or not. Science has shown us time and again that our "common sense" is very often simply wrong. Quantum physics most definitely has done this; in that field things that are unbelievable counter intuitive have cropped up, and despite our general conviction (and Albert Einstein's most famously as well) that they can't be right, they lead to incredibly accurate results when used, to extreme degrees of accuracy - this accuracy has been equated with calculating the width of the continental United States to a level of accuracy to within the width of a human hair!

Perhaps the hard thing to grasp is that "the universe" is not expanding (which there is no doubt that it is) into "space"; space is the universe doing the expanding. What lies beyond the universe - no one knows, is there anything at all (other universes perhaps?) Does "beyond the universe" even make any sense at all? The thing is; this is the great unknown, we simply have no data to go on as of yet.

Still can not see why something that cld not start by moving and was absolute zero (or less if the atom was not formed till the parts came together), all of asudden moves (warms up) and reaches an awsome temperature - enough to cause Raid Expansion (big bang) would have been bang if there was A/ anyone to here it and B/ any air as medium for sound to carry.

Remember "Bang" is just a cute name given for the start of the expansion, which we know is now going on.

The nature of the big bang (or whatever it was is largely an unknown. What happened as a result - there is a lot of good data on that which gives us a lot of interesting and valuable evidence, theory and understanding. But the nature of the origin event still eludes us.

The singularity or whatever "banged" involves at the very least sub-atomic particles, perhaps just energy alone; that leads to quantum physics type explanations, which are so outside what our middle-world savannah running, deer hunting primate brains have evolved to cope with, its not funny.

There is a saying in Quantum physics: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics" - Richard Feynman.

Some interesting Videos:

Big Bang 1of4: Expanding infinity

[Guest]

This is bugging me. Understanding what was really first - space as we call it was really smaller ??? not getting that at all - cld be me though! - I'm looking for more material for now.

I don't have the scientific background to go into the details about how we know the Universe is expanding, but I believe that the first indication we had of the phenomenon was the fact that when we look at any galaxy or object outside the Milky Way, we see the light from it red-shifted.

Here is a quick explanation of red-shift. On the visible light spectrum, red has the longest wavelength while blue/violet has the shortest, so if we have a sensor and take a light source and move it away from the sensor, the light will appear redder than if there is no motion between the source and the sensor. This is because the time between each wavelength arriving at the sensor is extended by the relative movement of the light source in regards to the sensor and we say that this light is red-shifted. Light from a source approaching us would be blue-shifted.

I'm not sure how it's measured, but as we look at any distant object outside our galaxy, we see that the light is redder than it ought to be, meaning it is red-shifted and that means that we are moving away from the object. In fact, we can use the amount of red-shift to identify the distance of object from us because the farther away it is, the larger the factor of red-shift. There is a formula that I think was developed by Edwin Hubble to predict the distance of an object based on it's red-shift; it's been refined since his time, but it's called Hubble's law now unless I'm mistaken.

Since there is no center of the Universe (or if there is, we certainly aren't sitting in it ) the fact that every object we can see is moving away from us indicates that the Universe itself is expanding, because otherwise, we should be able to see some objects approaching while others recede. This is probably not entirely accurate, but it's one way to think about the Universe expanding, as I see it.

Someone please correct me if I've got anything wrong.

[Guest]

I'll add a bit to dawh's explanation of red shift to clarify how we know that light from distant stars is red-shifted. The spectrum of light from stars isn't just an even distribution of wavelengths: it has a characteristic signature depending on what elements exist within the star (so by doing spectrum analysis we can determine what the star is made of to some extent). The peaks and troughs of this signature are shifted depending on distance, so it's not just a matter of saying the distribution of light is redder overall. The fact that the chemical signature is itself shifted tells us that this is due to the Doppler effect.

[Guest]

I understand the theory (or is it 'proof' - it's not actually important as I take it to be acceptable for now. I have no chance of seeing/witnessing it- so far) of atoms and there structure - but can you enlighten me on the energy - where did that come from - how did it actually develop into atoms - well the cooling and the desire for this cooling energy and the resulting residue(?) to attach in certain fashions and become the substances they are - again I have read the theory of forming of elements and I can accept certain steps as being the nearest possible for now - but until it all fits I'm skeptic

You're right to be skeptic - a scientific model or theory does not require your belief. We should be ready to abandon it the moment it fails to fit the evidence. That's something that some people seem not to grasp. Physics is not so much a matter of "theorising" about the universe, as describing it. Physics seeks to provide a description of the underlying structure of our universe. The Big Bang model results from observation and is our best stab at providing a description of how things are. Anything we can find that doesn't fit the description implies that the description is incomplete or wrong. As such people miss the point somewhat when they say they "don't believe" in the Big Bang because it runs contrary to their expectations, intuition, or religion. Belief doesn't come into it. If nobody can come up with a better model, then we have no better model. As far as I know there is no working model of the universe that fits observations and does not result from an expansion event. Until there is, we're stuck with the Big Bang as the best model on offer.

I'm getting a little outside my field of knowledge here, but a common question is to ask what caused the Big Bang or (equivalently) what there was before. The Big Bang is the limit of space and time so there was no "before". The idea of bounded time seems objectionable to some people. Consider the surface of the earth as a simplified model, with longitude for space and latitude for time. Both space and time are bounded in this model. You can only travel so far east or west before you end up where you started and you can only go so far north before you get to the north pole. At the north pole longitude becomes irrelevant because the lines converge on one point, just as space compresses to nothing at the Big Bang. Asking what happens before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the north pole - the model contains nothing which fits that description.

Which is not to say that there is nothing beyond our universe - it just doesn't matter. If you were Mario in Super Mario Land, the existence or non-existence of Sonic the Hedgehog would be a purely academic question, since Sonic occupies a completely different realm with different rules.

[Guest]

okay guys..

dawh - I am okay with red dhift and hubble - a later question is the future the expansion and the fact that is is going faster at the extremity of the universe - if a theory is there for where it is going (dicipates or not, how long before it slows/stops or implodes) and why great....

octopuppy - super mario ???? earth north pole get the idea - it matters not how long ago, It matters how (well not matters but rather just how). If science is united to the degree where ther is no better expalnation of the begining/start of the universe (we have a time line - it's irelivant) what started it how did it start in respect of what ever you say - where did it come from - a spec which contained the universe expanded in parsecs, secs, 5 minutes later it becomes the universe WHAT SPEC ??? HOW DID IT !GET THERE, HOW WAS IT AFECCTED .. there has been no actual theory to explain how a spec (from somwhere ???) became so hot why it cooled or why anything happened at all?

Sorry if I sound dumb! Maybe I am.

[Guest]

If science is united to the degree where ther is no better expalnation of the begining/start of the universe (we have a time line - it's irelivant) what started it how did it start in respect of what ever you say - where did it come from - a spec which contained the universe expanded in parsecs, secs, 5 minutes later it becomes the universe WHAT SPEC ??? HOW DID IT !GET THERE, HOW WAS IT AFECCTED .. there has been no actual theory to explain how a spec (from somwhere ???) became so hot why it cooled or why anything happened at all?

Sorry if I sound dumb! Maybe I am.

No, not dumb - Ignorant - Just like everybody else You, me, Stephen Hawking; every one of us.

The simple fact of it is that we just don't know. Greater minds than ours, such as Stephen Hawking, are working on that very question; they have come up with interesting hypotheses and so on, but the seach continues.

As I have said earlier in this thread; what is really needed is a solid system (set of laws, mathematics or whatever) of combining Quantum Physics and General relavity in such a way that they complement one another, rather than the clash we are now faced with. From that those interesting hypotheses can be properly tested, and perhaps new ones will arise from it, who knows?

Unsatisfying?! Yes; perhaps it is. But it is the reality of the situation - and in my humble opinion Reality trumps Personal satisfaction. It is just something any reason valuing person has to accept; we don't have a real answer yet, not even a good theory. Try to look at it this way: It's not something to be disatisfied with (perhaps turning to any inane comforting story so as to feel better ) but something to look forward to with sweet anticipation! Wouldn't it be cool to finally hear that theory? Not as some stale bit of information, but as breaking news?! To "be there" as we (humankind) makes that incredible step forward in our understanding of the universe in which we live!