0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Europa on 24/07/2021 22:00:16unless the one tiny point was the zero point from where the universe banged out from,You are getting there.Just keep on trying to think it through, and you might realise why you have been loudly wrong all this time.Quote from: Europa on 24/07/2021 22:00:16but this dictates a void that is just not thereWhat would your second guess be?
unless the one tiny point was the zero point from where the universe banged out from,
but this dictates a void that is just not there
Then why is everything expanding outward?
Seriously I have heard your rational for the lack of the void before, the initial proponents of the big bang actually said that everything including time began with the big bang and that matter actually created itself somehow in the explosion.
So do you believe that the entire universe just exploded at one time?
What would link the galaxies?
All I am asking you to do is think on your own instead of just believing what the guy before you conjured up.
The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.
The law of conservation of mass must have not existed yet
LOL is everything just created itself really science or even a remotely scientific concept?
According to CERN you are completely wrongAccording to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.https://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html
If I offered you a million dollars for every theory that turned out to be scientific malarkey I bet you could find hundreds.
You do understand that you are defending the big bang with a purely religious fervor.
Scientific research blah blah blah and generally gets the wrong answer.
Quote from: Europa on 24/07/2021 18:19:43Then why is everything expanding outward?Outward relative to what? No matter where you were to go in the Universe, you'd see everything moving away from you. There is no center to the expansion (that we know of).Quote from: Europa on 24/07/2021 18:19:43Seriously I have heard your rational for the lack of the void before, the initial proponents of the big bang actually said that everything including time began with the big bang and that matter actually created itself somehow in the explosion.The Big Bang wasn't an explosion. It was the rapid expansion of space everywhere.Quote from: Europa on 24/07/2021 18:19:43 So do you believe that the entire universe just exploded at one time?No, because there was no explosion.Quote from: Europa on 24/07/2021 18:19:43What would link the galaxies?I'm not sure what you mean by that unless you are taking about gravity.Quote from: Europa on 24/07/2021 18:19:43All I am asking you to do is think on your own instead of just believing what the guy before you conjured up.A fine piece of advice. The thing is, I've done research on the Big Bang and the evidence seems to largely support it. Those who speak out against it often have misconceptions about it (such as thinking it happened at a single point in space or that it was an explosion).Quote from: Europa on 24/07/2021 21:10:25The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.That's the common explanation given to the public, although it makes an unfortunate use of language that gives rise to misconceptions like the ones you've brought up. It's more accurate to say the Universe simply became substantially less dense as it expanded instead of leaving a void behind. Although it's roughly accurate to say that all of the matter in our visible Universe started at a single point, that's not what the Big Bang theory says about the Universe as a whole.Quote from: Europa on 24/07/2021 21:10:25The law of conservation of mass must have not existed yetWhy not? The Big Bang doesn't claim, "the Universe once contained no mass but now it does". The Universe, so far as we know, contained mass all the way back to the first moment of time.Quote from: Europa on 24/07/2021 21:10:25LOL is everything just created itself really science or even a remotely scientific concept?The Big Bang theory doesn't make any claims about how mass or energy came to be. What it describes is how space rapidly expanded during the first moments of the Universe's existence.
Quote from: Europa on 24/07/2021 21:10:25According to CERN you are completely wrongAccording to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.https://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.htmlInteresting site. Almost every sentence in it is totally wrong, and yet it seems to be approved by CERN. It seems really dumbed down to the level of the man on the street, but that's no excuse for the misinformation there.The theory does not say any of the things expressed on that exploratorium page. It is a pop article, not a peer reviewed paper, and I don't think there is any one paper that encapsulates the entire standard model that is the current form of the big bang theory.
It's a tricky one Europe, I know, with a 'a' But you shouldn't think of the universe as inside something. The universe is 'everything existing'. And using 'dimensions' you can turn it into some sort of membrane we exist on. But it is seriously weird to both consider a 'hot start' without a specific location for it time wise. But it/that belongs in some way to the way we expect it classically. You increase a compression and it gets hot, f.ex pumping a bicycle deck. In this case a question of the 'energy' existing in that 'spot' we imagine a Big Bang to have started from. And there we seem to use dimensions to describe this compression. It's seems more of a question of how to define those dimensions to me than a question of our classical models.we don't have anything else than this universe, and we define it 'dimensionally', or as I think ES express it, as a 'manifold' equivalent to a Euclidean universe. It can be infinite several ways, it can also be described as open or closed depending on its 'shape. But there is still nothing 'outside' it in where it exist.spelling&syntaxBetter add, no 'outside' that we can prove. And if you think of relativity it's about SpaceTime in where mass define the shape of our 'space' https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/It's also observer dependent. meaning that mass. relative motion, acceleration all have a influence on how you will describe the 'space' you exist in, and all of them connected to the idea of a 'energy' added, the 'coin of exchange' as JP used to call it, with one difference. In a relative motion you can't prove that 'potential energy' existing, in a acceleration you can, and there it becomes a equivalence to you experiencing a 'gravity'.Or as John Archibald Wheeler expressed it“Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.”
Every word you can write about the universe adds up to nothing but speculation as nothing is known.
There are two ways Europe. Either you accept the physics we know and have or you don't. No middle, you can't accept some of it because it all hangs together. So if you want to change it you will have to look at a lot more than how we define a Big Bang. Here's one nice explanation."Current cosmological theorists suppose that the universe is exactly identical, no matter where it is viewed from, so long as it is viewed at the same time. At the time of the big bang, the distances between any two given points seems to shrink to zero (or some nonzero value that we supposedly will derive from quantum mechanics). The conclusion is that the Big Bang happened everywhere, all at once.This is also how you get out of the 'was the big bang a black hole?'-type questions: even though you had large concentrations of matter at times close to the big bang, they were spread out over all space, which is different than just having a clump of matter with finite extent (the second thing would collapse to a black hole). " By Jerry SchirmerAnd isotropy and homogeneity is central to the astronomical definitions we use today.
The people who accepted Steven Hawking's physics that said that nothing could escape from a black hole are now considered suckers who wasted their money on at least one of Hawking's comic books
This is idiocy
Quote from: Europa on 25/07/2021 22:19:47This is idiocyYou said it.
Quote from: Europa on 25/07/2021 22:19:47The people who accepted Steven Hawking's physics that said that nothing could escape from a black hole are now considered suckers who wasted their money on at least one of Hawking's comic booksWhy?What escapes from a BH?Have you failed to understand that Hawking radiation escapes from just outside one?
So did you believe the physics that claimed that nothing could escape a black hole?
Radiation escapes a black hole or so the new theory says.
Have you failed to understand that Hawking radiation escapes from just outside one?
Really the radiation escapes the black hole
You accept what the guy ahead of you said, because he said, not because you know. This is idiocy