The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Poll

what do you believe

The Big Bang
Constant Universe
Creationism
Other

Author Topic: is the big bang correct?  (Read 176056 times)

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #75 on: 27/08/2008 13:44:07 »
By the way, perhaps I should point out that I dismiss the creation out of hand, being as I am an atheist.

Man created God, not the other way around.

But I must stress that I grant all the freedom to believe in whatever they wish to believe. I just wish that everyone could afford the same allowance to everyone else. :(
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #76 on: 08/09/2008 15:18:07 »
I believe in the creation of stacks of galaxies before the big bang. Everything was under extreme stress due to gravity but still perfectly symmetrical, until an event caused it to behave asymmetrically, and it imploded upon itself.

There's no need for dark matter.  :)

AL
 

Offline labview1958

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #77 on: 10/09/2008 14:55:04 »
Is the CERNS experiment going to prove anything?
 

Offline Flyberius

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #78 on: 10/09/2008 18:08:27 »
I would like to think that it prooves that the world isnt going to end when you turn it on.

Other than that there is the existence (or lack of) the higgs and of course, one more nail in religion's coffin (which is beginning to look like a pin cushion).
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #79 on: 11/09/2008 09:47:24 »
The Problems with the Big Bang, Cern, Higgs, and particle accelerators.

We are trying to observe the hypothesised events before and during the hypothesised Big Bang event.

Prior to the big bang we donít know what was there and never will. In fact we donít know if there was a big bang or not! But supposing we assume there was a big bang and we are really trying to observe particles responsible for the big bang event.

This would require a non-gravity environment, so is a particle accelerator based on the Earth free from gravity? Is it free from other energy sources such as electricity, radiation, static and magnetic energy? Or does the very apparatus designed to observe the events contaminate the behaviour of the particles?

David Miller after closure of LEP;
ĎIn that three years.
Hundreds of scientists would have wasted their time working on theories and hypothesis that may not have been necessary.í

One only has to look at the contamination of forensic DNA evidence and contamination of laboratory microbial experiments to realise the implications of observing interactions in a planetary gravitational field. And indeed one only has to hear the hum of the massive power used to drive the new Particle Accelerator to realise there is a very high probability that events observed are artificially unwittingly fabricated like alien DNA at the scene of a crime.

I Have heard Enough!

The Universe is the Ultimate Free Lunch Quote from the BBC Radio Podcasts did it for me.
 

lyner

  • Guest
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #80 on: 18/09/2008 22:37:49 »
I think you ought to read more carefuly what is being said about the LHC experiments. I don't think I have heard anyone say that it will explain 'everything' - it's just a step.

Some of your arguments about the big bang are a bit naive - why would this all have happened in 'zero gravity'? There was a huge concentration of matter / energy, initially. There would have been 'a lot of' gravity, as a result.

Also, there is a very small probability of any 'high energy' contamination - it has cost billions of pounds to produce any of the stuff. If it could be found just anywhere then they would have used it instead of making the LHC. The DNA analogy just doesn't apply.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #81 on: 19/09/2008 09:55:24 »
We are trying to observe the hypothesised events before and during the hypothesised Big Bang event.

Nope, they're hoping to recreate conditions that occurred very, very shortly after the big bang, so not before or during it.
 

Offline Gabe2k2

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #82 on: 01/10/2008 22:16:00 »
Sadly I have to disagree with the big bang theory.

If my model of the universe is correct objects in space unless acted upon by some opposing force do not explode without some interacting and opposing force. With this in mind there was not one body that simply exploded into the universe.
 

lyner

  • Guest
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #83 on: 06/10/2008 23:41:44 »
If your model hangs on the sort of statements you have made in that post then it is unlikely to be correct. By all means believe what you like and make up your own Science to justify it but, if you are going to quote from conventional Science, you might try to get it right before using it for proof.
 

Offline Dege

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #84 on: 09/10/2008 03:42:27 »
OK i do not agree with the big bang theory.

what i have come to understand is that it was just a huge mass of energy that picked up speed in rotation until it exploded.

I also have come to understand a law that states that an object that rotates and spins off more masses, that the mass that spun off from the original mass, ( in this case the planets), would spin the same direction of the original mass.

then why do we have some planets spinning in counter clock wise motion and some spinning in clock wise?

well that is my input :)
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #85 on: 09/10/2008 19:51:50 »
"what i have come to understand is that it was just a huge mass of energy that picked up speed in rotation until it exploded."
Does anyone else understand that?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #86 on: 13/11/2008 13:01:24 »
Dege.
Rather good question that one.
Why does not all planets spin the same way?

Think about yourself holding a jojo.
Depending how you 'spun' it up before our experiment it will spin in 'that direction' when let out, right?
So if you now start rotating very fast:) letting your jojo move out from that centrifugal force it can only rotate one way, no matter which way you are rotating right.
And that way will hinge on how it was 'spun up'

But if you think about something spinning around its axle very fast acting on a surrounding substance like air, then that air will follow the same direction as two wheels connected by friction. (creating a lot of spinning vortexes around you if I'm correct:)

One explanation to how planets may chose to spin might be what forces acted on them when they were created. The idea is that they were created by a lot of small 'masses' joining/colliding  creating a very high temperature under the collisions. Perhaps how they collided (their vectors) had something to do with it, as well as planets colliding. But most planets spin the same way as those 'clouds' they were created from. All that 'dust and gas' that created the suns, and then the planets.
As I understands it.
 

Offline xersanozgen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #87 on: 25/11/2008 19:03:09 »
I have an effective report.(ISBN 975 93583-0-1)

The master idea: If the absolute form of universe is a spherical surface How is the visible form by the reason of limited value of light's velocity.

Effectice form of universe is an asymmetric elipsoidal surface. And If we analyze this form; for example we can find the speeds and distances of cosmic units and set a diagram velocity-distance, we will have similar graphic of observational data.

Therefore the bing bang theory is a reality.

8407
« Last Edit: 30/11/2008 11:30:47 by xersanozgen »
 

Offline xersanozgen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #88 on: 30/11/2008 11:21:51 »
8619


New model to examine the big bang theory (my proposition)


We never see the simultaneous situations of events and subjects.



F' : Observational position of the cosmic unit.

F: The position of the cosmic unit at present

Vg: The expanding velocity of universe at present.

Vg': The expanding velocity of universe at past.

The point F' [and all points of visible form] must check these relations:

« Last Edit: 30/11/2008 13:14:59 by xersanozgen »
 

Offline xersanozgen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #89 on: 30/11/2008 11:26:58 »
The relation of Time is very important: 

T : The age of universe

The distances OA and OF' travel by the expanding velocity of the observer and the cosmic unit; but the distance F'A travels by velocity of light "c".

Henceforth we obtain the visible form of universe.

And then we can calculate the values of parameters (distances and escaping speeds) for the points on the visible form theoretically (For the values of the age of universe 10, 14, 18, 22Ö).





If we put the values on a diagram (Escaping speed/distances), we find the graphics for visible form. It is similar with the graphic of observational data.

 Is the similarity a proof for the big bang theory ?

 Bibliography: Ersan O, Evrenin yaşı ve boyutları (The age and diameter of Universe),kendi yay. Izmir, 2007
« Last Edit: 02/12/2008 09:45:38 by xersanozgen »
 

Offline xersanozgen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #90 on: 02/12/2008 09:49:42 »
The distances OA and OF' travel by the expanding velocity of the observer and the cosmic unit; but the distance F'A travels by velocity of light "c".


I apologize for typing.
 

Offline xersanozgen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #91 on: 06/12/2008 11:42:03 »
Interesting points of visible form:

If OF' is perpendicular to AF' the component of V'g for escaping velocity will be zero. And the escaping speed is just composed only by observer's speed at present. We can find the value of expanding speed of universe at present.

The distance of cosmic units is 12,26 Gly [For example 3 C 326.1 (Z = 1,827)]for this condition in my model. 

8995
« Last Edit: 06/12/2008 12:08:00 by xersanozgen »
 

Offline Scorpius

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #92 on: 08/12/2008 21:23:34 »
   Black holes hold together an astronomical geometric network. This network includes the means capable for the transfer,or recycle, of energy. The mass of energies collected by black holes is then pulled through a space time vaccum. These wormholes release the collection of mass energy into the adjoining dimension, thus sustaining an even flow of mass and energy throughout the universe.
   These dimensional vortexes are the gateway to infinite proportions, in fathomable by humans. This vast geometric network holds together every variation of questionable reality.
   Black holes continue to collect and distribute energies as they grow. This growth rate continues until there are only two supermasses remaining. These masses eventually collide becoming one. With nothing to feed on,the event horizon can no longer sustain itself. The mass collapses under the great pressure of its own gravitational force. The neutrons then pull into and collect at a specific point. At that moment the gravity,force,and pressure needed to sustain this process can no longer be achieved,resulting in a collapse into the vortex.
   This,in turn, results in a cataclysmic explosion on the other side of the vortex itself. Concluding in the unimaginable thrust beginning the cycle again. This process repeats itself infinitely.   
   Enter the being and absorb the universe. Beyond lies the beginning.
 

Offline xersanozgen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #93 on: 10/12/2008 12:39:57 »
   Black holes hold together an astronomical geometric network. This network includes the means capable for the transfer,or recycle, of energy. The mass of energies collected by black holes is then pulled through a space time vaccum. These wormholes release the collection of mass energy into the adjoining dimension, thus sustaining an even flow of mass and energy throughout the universe.
   These dimensional vortexes are the gateway to infinite proportions, in fathomable by humans. This vast geometric network holds together every variation of questionable reality.
   Black holes continue to collect and distribute energies as they grow. This growth rate continues until there are only two supermasses remaining. These masses eventually collide becoming one. 

Initially, the universe was pure energy. And the energy is the reason of everything. Scientific and philosophic thinkings must be set on the axle of energy.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #94 on: 12/12/2008 09:49:30 »
I rest my case your honour. This clearly relates to Star Treck and Deep Space 9 more than it does to science. http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Black_hole

Does the defendent have any proof to support his statement?

   Black holes hold together an astronomical geometric network. This network includes the means capable for the transfer,or recycle, of energy. The mass of energies collected by black holes is then pulled through a space time vaccum. These wormholes release the collection of mass energy into the adjoining dimension, thus sustaining an even flow of mass and energy throughout the universe.
   These dimensional vortexes are the gateway to infinite proportions, in fathomable by humans. This vast geometric network holds together every variation of questionable reality.
   Black holes continue to collect and distribute energies as they grow. This growth rate continues until there are only two supermasses remaining. These masses eventually collide becoming one. With nothing to feed on,the event horizon can no longer sustain itself. The mass collapses under the great pressure of its own gravitational force. The neutrons then pull into and collect at a specific point. At that moment the gravity,force,and pressure needed to sustain this process can no longer be achieved,resulting in a collapse into the vortex.
   This,in turn, results in a cataclysmic explosion on the other side of the vortex itself. Concluding in the unimaginable thrust beginning the cycle again. This process repeats itself infinitely.  
   Enter the being and absorb the universe. Beyond lies the beginning.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #95 on: 24/12/2008 02:22:54 »
The big bang is correct and well modelled as far as the observational record extends but that is clearly not the end of it. I strongly suspect we are observing one universe within a vast multiverse of indefinite size containing many similar universes to our own. That is essentially constant.  See my evolutionary cosmology topic in the new theories section for a bit more explanation.  I do not believe there is any significant prospect of ever communicating with or observing one of these other universes so we will have to do without confirmation of their existence.

I also consider it very likely that our universe itself creates new universes as part of its normal existence.  These new universes are probably what we call black holes.

To my answer would be a tick in three of your boxes  big bang yes,  constant universe(multiverse) yes.  other yes. 

The concept of"scientific" creationism is a load of total rubbish.  The creation myths in ancient writings contain a great deal of wisdom about life and human nature and are valuable for that reason only.  To regard them as a basis for scientific actuality is totally batty.

It saddens me greatly when people insist on regarding the myths in the worlds heritage as factual writings. This reduces their value and causes many modern people to ignore them and the true wisdom that they contain.  Please note I include the myth of Jesus Christ in that category and am a practicing Christian myself.

It seems to fit observational evidence, but that is all. There is no conclusive proof which can settle the matter as of yet, or which can be used in the future.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #96 on: 29/12/2008 10:39:01 »
It seems that we soon will have some new proof for the BB at Cern:)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4722261.ece

That will be quite a 'kick'.
« Last Edit: 29/12/2008 10:41:49 by yor_on »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #97 on: 11/01/2009 16:26:19 »
I just joined the forum, this is my first post. I voted steady state. My problems with the Big Bang is that it looks too much like a creationist scheme; it seems faith based; its originator was a Catholic Priest; it only works if you permit an expansion period that violates physical laws; and a few other things.

This is the Primevial Atom by Lamitre that started it all.

« Last Edit: 11/01/2009 16:59:10 by Vern »
 

Offline A Davis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #98 on: 11/01/2009 18:54:57 »
I would like to believe in the big bang but I have two main problems with the theory the first is Hubbles red shift and the second is the microwave background theory both are wrong. Anybody want to support them.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #99 on: 11/01/2009 19:27:23 »
On the microwave background; I remember seeing something from Eddington I think. His group calculated the temperature of the universe based upon the radiation of all the stars in it. His answer was about 4 K, very close to the MB. Predictions of the MB from the Big Bang was around 20 K.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

is the big bang correct?
« Reply #99 on: 11/01/2009 19:27:23 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length