Customer Discussions > Science forum

The Big Bang


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Apr 24, 2012 7:49:24 PM PDT
Stormegeddon says:
George Lemaitre, struck the basic idea of the big bang in 1927; and George Gamow, R.A. Alpher, and R. Herman devised the basic "big bang" model in 1948. Though it was Gamow who popularized it, through campaigning enthusiastically and using cartoons to emphasized his details.

According to the big bang theory, in the beginning there was no matter, just nothingness. Then this nothingness condensed by gravity into a single, tiny spot; and it decided to explode!

That explosion produced protons, neutrons, and electrons which flowed outward at incredible speed throughout empty space; for there was no other matter in the universe.

As these protons, neutrons, and electrons hurled themselves outward at supersonic speed, they are said to have formed themselves into typical atomic structures of mutually orbiting hydrogen and helium atoms.

Gradually, the outward-racing atoms are said to have begun circling one another, producing gas clouds which then pushed together into stars.

These first stars contained only lighter elements (hydrogen and helium). Then all of the stars repeatedly exploded. It took at least two explosion of each star to produce out heavier elements. Gamow described it in scientific terms: In violation of physical law, emptiness fled form the vacuum of space and rushed into a superdense core, that had a density of 10^94gm/cm^2 and a temperature in excess of 10^39 degrees absolute. That is a lot of density and heat for gigantic pile of nothingness! (Especially when we realize that it is impossible for nothing to get hot. Although air gets hot, air is matter, not an absence of it.)

Where did this "superdense core" come from? Gamow solemnly came up with a scientific answer for this; he said it came as a result of "the big squeeze," when the emptiness made up its mind to crowd together. Then, with true scientific aplomb, he named the solid core of nothing, "ylem" (pronounced "ee-lum"). With a name like that, many people thought this must be a great scientific truth of some kind. In addition, numbers were provided to add an additional scientific flair: This remarkable lack-of-anything was said by Gamow to have a density of 10 to the 145th power g/cc, or one hundred trillion times the density of water!

Then all that packed-in blankness went boom!

This is only a theory. It all sounds so simple, just as you would find in a science fiction novel. And that is all it is. The theory stands in clear violation of physical laws, celestial mechanics, and common sense.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 8:34:37 PM PDT
reply to MSFFL's post:

nonsense

gravity cant condense nothingness

without something there is no gravity anyway

God spoke and the universe burst into being.

Look at the inconceivably large amount of energy it took to make the universe and all the matter (e =mc^2) in it by condensation of the energy.

You cant get that from nothing. God could.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 11:59:10 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 25, 2012 12:04:42 AM PDT
Lj3d says:
The research that has been done on the BB since its adaption...has generally acknowleged that scientists do not actually know what or how the Universe came to be out of nothing. I'm a pretty scientific type and I have a tough time with the concept of the idea of no space, time etc. Like most people, I always ask, what surrounded the BB before the bang? Scientists generally acknowledge they cannot really answer the question in a meaningful scientific way. When they don't, it becomes religious IMO.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 12:03:38 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 25, 2012 12:05:34 AM PDT
Lj3d says:
Certainly quite possible...I'm a person who can see the evidence for either a God, or no God. Jury is still out for me because the evidence makes it a hung jury at best. Did God create the Universe, or did it simply come into being? Its obvious why a God is seen by many people as the only way a Universe can come to be. My reasoning for considering the accidental Universe an equal possibility is that we as humans, are applying human ideas and conceptions of how things ought to happen. The idea a Universe just happens is ludacrous to those who can only see the God side of the debate. The Universe can only have happened by pure chance to those who invoke the scientific coin.

Ultimately, we will probably never know with 100% certainty how the Universe came to be. Of course, if you believe God made it, who are those who believe otherwise, to say your wrong or vice versa without definitive proof.

Posted on Apr 25, 2012 7:25:46 AM PDT
Stormegeddon says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Apr 25, 2012 7:57:37 AM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
The is testable evidence for the BB.

There is NONE for any claimed deity being real.

So, the BB is science, and claims of a deity are delusions.

-If the Universe needs a creator, why doesn't god?
If god doesn't need a creator, why does the Universe ?-

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 8:25:19 AM PDT
Several corrections:

1. The Big Bang theory doesn't state that "in the beginning there was nothing". It states that in the beginning there was a singularity, i.e., a point of infinite energy density, which indicates that the equations of general relativity are no longer accurately describing physical reality, since a singularity is unphysical. Thus there is a need for new physics, which involves a union of quantum mechanics (the physics of the very small) and general relativity (the physics of very high energies). This may or may not be string theory, but no one knows.

2. The "explosion" you describe is incorrect. There was no explosion outward of matter into empty space. From its earliest moments the Big Bang describes a Universe completely filled with energy, and somewhat later matter as well. It is spacetime itself which is expanding, as the equations of general relativity predict.

3. Supernova explosions do not violate physical law, and are not "emptiness fled from the vacuum of space and rushed into a superdense core", which is gibberish. Supernova explosions occur when a star is massive enough that the heat and other processes going on in the core which have been preventing gravitational collapse are no longer of sufficient strength to prevent a gravitational collapse, and a singularity forms, inside a black hole, with outward explosion of the outer layers of the star. Again, as in the earliest moments of the Big Bang, there's not actually a single point of infinite density inside the resulting black hole; this indicates that new physics is required to explain what's going on, possibly string theory.

You have no idea what you're talking about when you say that the Big Bang theory and supernova explosions "stand in clear violation of physical laws, celestial mechanics, and common sense", because you don't understand the relevant physical laws and celestial mechanics, and you lack sufficient common sense to recognize your ignorance and the foolishness of trying to argue about these topics in your ignorant state.

Posted on Apr 25, 2012 8:34:32 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 25, 2012 8:37:38 AM PDT
Stormegeddon says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 9:11:03 AM PDT
The first 8 points are all nonsense based on your lack of understanding of the physics and theories you're trying to refute. Your ninth point is a reasonable question for which possible explanations have been proposed. Investigations are ongoing. It in no way refutes the Big Bang theory or the standard model of cosmology.

Posted on Apr 25, 2012 9:13:58 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 25, 2012 9:14:25 AM PDT
Rev. Otter says:
wholesale copypasta, without attribution, from here:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_2.htm

i lol'd.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 9:18:05 AM PDT
noman says:
RE: MSFFL says:...I tend to go for the latter because I see so many problems with the "big bang". ..."

**No. No you don't. You see "problems with the "big bang"." the same way a blind man sees problems with the color spectrum of a rainbow. Since everything you post (except possibly your name) is incorrect I'll simply refer to a single example:

RE: "3. A vacuum has no density. It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density."

**No. No "they" don't say that. You have completely misunderstood the discussion which concerns the 'energy density of vacuum'.

***
VACUUM ENERGY DENSITY AND PRESSURE NEAR BOUNDARIES.
Authors:
FULLING, S. A.1 fulling@math.tamu.edu
Source:
International Journal of Modern Physics A: Particles & Fields; Gravitation; Cosmology; Nuclear Physics; 4/30/2010, Vol. 25 Issue 11, p2364-2372

Abstract:
In vacuum energy calculations with an ultraviolet cutoff, divergences arise that clearly are related to the physics of boundaries. We point out how to find the cut-off energy density and pressure most directly from a Green function. Then we discuss three apparent paradoxes arising in this work that are in various stages of resolution.

****
VACUUM ENERGY DENSITY AND PRESSURE NEAR BOUNDARIES.
Authors:
FULLING, S. A.1 fulling@math.tamu.edu
Source:
International Journal of Modern Physics A: Particles & Fields; Gravitation; Cosmology; Nuclear Physics; 4/30/2010, Vol. 25 Issue 11, p2364-2372

Abstract:
In vacuum energy calculations with an ultraviolet cutoff, divergences arise that clearly are related to the physics of boundaries. We point out how to find the cut-off energy density and pressure most directly from a Green function. Then we discuss three apparent paradoxes arising in this work that are in various stages of resolution.

******

**Your ignorance of even basic physics is rapidly approaching the divide-by-zero threshold. Your posts are too uninspired for a Poe and too bland for a Troll and too repetitively ignorant to be interesting. Ignore.

Posted on Apr 25, 2012 9:21:21 AM PDT
Stormegeddon says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 9:23:26 AM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
MSFFL:'I'm used to being ignored it comes with the territory'

Choose to be a loud willfully ignorant kook, receiver the earned consequence for same...

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 9:38:09 AM PDT
Stormegeddon says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Apr 25, 2012 9:39:48 AM PDT
Stormegeddon says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 9:43:10 AM PDT
John McClain says:
"God spoke and the universe burst into being."

"You cant get that from nothing. God could."

These are assertions, supported by no evidence.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 9:44:25 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 25, 2012 9:44:59 AM PDT
The problems you see with the Big Bang don't exist, because they refer to the theory as you imagine it to be, which is not the theory as it actually is.

In order to grasp the fundamentals of the Big Bang, you need to have at least a slight acquaintance with relativity. Then you can understand how the universe actually exists in a 4-dimensional spacetime, which according to the field equations of general relativity can either expand or contract over time. Then you can appreciate how two crucial observations support the concept that we are living in an expanding universe which started in a very hot dense state: 1) the Hubble flow (with the exception of a few nearby galaxies, all galaxies are receding from us at a rate proportional to their distance, i.e, the farther away they are, the faster they are receding); and 2) the universe is pervaded in all directions with uniform microwave radiation with the spectrum of a black body, meaning when it was produced all parts of the observable Universe were in thermal equilibrium, therefore in direct physical contact. The temperature of this radiation is 2.7 degrees K, exactly as predicted by the Big Bang theory.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 9:46:23 AM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
MSFFL:'I'm a willfully ignorant kook because I see the major problems with the BB and some scientist comes up with another "theory" to disprove the lack of evidence?'

Yep. Because, 1. you HAVEN'T enumerated any such 'problems', other than in your own willfully ignorant failure to comprehend it, and two, there is NO other 'theory'. In science, the word -theory- has a clear and distinct meaning, and it's NOT the meaning that you are using. That also shows me that you are woefully and most likely, again, willfully, ignorant of the most basic points about science.

That utterly removes you from consideration as a person qualified to speak about any scientific topic. Ignorance can be cured with learning, but the willfully ignorant reject the cure, and stay pig ignorant.

And, your #10 SHOWS such pig ignorance. Matter and anti matter have to come into CONTACT to react. Space, bucko, is BIG. Duh.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 9:52:58 AM PDT
Rev. Otter says:
<<So lets say my first 9 points are a load of rubbish. What about point 10?>>

since you stole all "your" points from the same source, i'd wager they're all equally inane.

/how about that, the evidence supports my hypothesis. :)

Posted on Apr 25, 2012 10:00:47 AM PDT
noman says:
RE: "MSFFL:'I'm a willfully ignorant kook because I see the major problems with the BB and some scientist comes up with another "theory" to disprove the lack of evidence?'"

**Why yes. I couldn't have said it better myself. *Your* ignorance and lack of understanding do not constitute a flaw in science. I do not point out flaws in cosmology (or plant pathology or geophysics or crystallography, or...) simply because I don't know enough about the subject to make even an unintelligent comment. I don't know everything there is to know in my own field. One of the first things taught (or should be taught) is doing a literature search. If you want to comment on cosmology, look at the most current research first. This will also show you what sort of background you need in terms of math and physics.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 10:12:14 AM PDT
Stormegeddon says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Apr 25, 2012 10:15:26 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 25, 2012 10:32:06 AM PDT
Stormegeddon says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 10:21:23 AM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
MSFFL:'Where is all the antimatter that we are supposed to have?'

-Approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the Universe grew exponentially.[16] After inflation stopped, the Universe consisted of a quark-gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles.[17] Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle-antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons-of the order of one part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present Universe.[18]-

This is the sort of willfully ignorant nonsense that so accurately labels you as a kook; You REFUSE to do the homework to LEARN before you spout off such willfully ignorant nonsense.

Once again, YOUR willful inability to understand science DOESN'T mean that there is a problem in science. The problem is in YOU.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 10:32:22 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 25, 2012 10:33:37 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
"The conclusion that I have come to after reviewing and studying both sides of spectrum. Is that both require faith."

Anyone care to place bets on how long it was before he even STARTED reviewing the evidence that MSFFL came to that "logical conclusion"?

But I'm glad to hear your ignorance--err, faith remained intact and unaffected by exposure to nasty ol' facts. Another triumph for the One Truth Faith(TM)!

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 10:33:16 AM PDT
Stormegeddon says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 46 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  63
Total posts:  1133
Initial post:  Apr 24, 2012
Latest post:  Aug 21, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions