[Darkcoder]

So,,,i dont see any scientific reasons and fact that Big-Bang-theory is correct or that is it proved any kind of measured scientific data.

You don't see any because you don't know any of them at all. The whole premise of you dismissing this scientific work is that we weren't there to witness it. You can apply this bad logic to anything, if I see a tall tree and measure its height and the next week I measure it and it hasn't grown, does this mean the tree has always been this height? No. Similarly, the Big Bang isn't just some crazy idea someone thought up one day and everyone suddenly agreed with them, we saw evidence and it all lead back to showing that all energy in this universe being at one single point and expanding out into what is the current universe.

We actually dont know what kind is the earth-middle-inside and that is the temperature inside of earth-ball-middle.

We know exactly what our planet's core is comprised of and have very accurate estimates as to what its temperature is, such a statement shows you know nothing about scientific achievements of the past century. You do realise that we don't have to physically be somewhere to be able to measure something, for example we can measure the temperature of the sun's surface and we've never been close to it, we can also estimate its core temperature based on its mass, density, composition etc much like is used to determine the conditions of Earth's core I'm sure.

Because i think earth diameter,,,what is the surface-matter thickness? If all is middle-center full of hot lava then must make question,,why this surface level temperature is only -40-+40 C. ?

The Earth isn't comprised of a layer of crust then suddenly it's all lava, look this stuff up, it takes 5 seconds: newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth [nonactive]

[Hei-Tai]

The Earth isn't comprised of a layer of crust then suddenly it's all lava, look this stuff up, it takes 5 seconds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth

 []
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Surface layer about 30-65km. Under surface layer about 6000km.

If you calculate 6000km-diameter ball energy-amount at lava-temperature,,,my thought is that surface level must much more warm be.

6000-km diameter ball and if it is full of 600-800C temperature matter then it's thermal power is so big that this 30km thin layer-surface cannot be so good thermal insulation.

If cource i can be wrong,,,but,,still,,i think that this hot lava-thing is not inside on earth ball full,,,i think that lava-things comes when oil-caves start to heat,,or gas-caves.

Example moon,,,if moon get layers,,cave,,oil-pocket etc,,then can comes heat,,lava,etc.

 []

[Hei-Tai]

 if I see a tall tree and measure its height and the next week I measure it and it hasn't grown, does this mean the tree has always been this height?

 []

Of cource no,,,tree and planets has own life-cyccle,,, sizegrowing period//time.

Growing,,,because tree and planets take growing-material round of it,,like we also,,eat food.


But do whole universe has same life-cyccle?

 []

[Darkcoder]

If you calculate 6000km-diameter ball energy-amount at lava-temperature,,,my thought is that surface level must much more warm be.

It's a 6000km radius, not diameter(the diagram even shows that). And you keep mentioning 'calculating it', did you do this or did you just make this all up? One major thing you likely didn't factor into your 'calculations' was the extreme pressure at the depths of the Earth's core.

6000-km diameter ball and if it is full of 600-800C temperature matter then it's thermal power is so big that this 30km thin layer-surface cannot be so good thermal insulation.

Why not? Oven gloves can insulate you from 100 C of heat very well and they are at most a centimetre thick, besides, Earth starts to get very hot before you reach this 30km depth, for example: newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole [nonactive] so I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with :s.

Example moon,,,if moon get layers,,cave,,oil-pocket etc,,then can comes heat,,lava,etc.

The moon is made from layers(like almost every planet/moon in this solar system/universe), including magma so what are you talking about?

But do whole universe has same life-cyccle?

No idea, nor will we.

I can't be bothered to post any more as you haven't bothered researching any of this and are just making random assertions.

[Hei-Tai]

 []

The moon is made from layers(like almost every planet/moon in this solar system/universe), including magma so what are you talking about?

Who says that inside moon is full of magma? What scientific measured evidence we have that?

Moon can be only rock-ball,,like many balls in space is.

What is the moon diameter/year growing speed?

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

What is gravity,,my opinion,,,space is full od matter and when in this matter is some object like planets,,then round of planet matter-density increase because planet push this matter,,and if some object is near this planet it stay that position up the surface level where object density is same than density round of that object itself.

Example gas-balloon or submarine.

 []

[nel]

 [] [] [] []

[ichatfilipina]

yep correct there are lots of universes similar to our universe. When you go inside of the black hole you are delivered to other universe. As far as I know, different planets or universe when going inside in the black hole. Going inside in black hole will pull you very fast and very long way to arrive the new universe.

[yor_on]

what do you believe?

Let us put it this way. If it's not correct, then there will be a lot of other ideas that will have to be 'corrected/discarded' too. Let us start with redshift as that is the stepping stone from where the rest will come. Redshift as seen here is when electromagnetic energy is shifted towards its lower, less energy containing electromagnetic spectrum. It should be pointed out here that cosmological redshift and Doppler redshift is not seen as the exact same though even though you can use Doppler redshift for explaining both the expansion and redshift effects due to the relative motion between two frames of reference.

It is referred to as the Doppler effect from Christian Doppler who 1842 proposed that frequency and wavelength of a wave was a relation between any two frames of reference. A simple example of that is you hearing that ambulance passing you, receding in the distance (redshift), noticing how the sound changed from when it was approaching you (blueshift). "Doppler correctly predicted that the phenomenon should apply to all waves, and in particular suggested that the varying colors of stars could be attributed to their motion with respect to the Earth. While this attribution turned out to be incorrect (stellar colors are indicators of a star's temperature, not motion), Doppler would later be vindicated by verified redshift observations." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

We tend to say that it was Edwin Hubble and Humason that discovered the redshift of galaxies but this idea existed before they presented their 'empirical Redshift Distance Law of galaxies' 1929 (Hubble's law). "In 1912 Vesto Slipher measured the first Doppler shift of a "spiral nebula" (spiral nebula is the obsolete term for spiral galaxies), and soon discovered that almost all such nebulae were receding from Earth. He did not grasp the cosmological implications of this fact, and indeed at the time it was highly controversial whether or not these nebulae were "island universes" outside our Milky Way".

In that 1929 paper, by Edwin Hubble and Humason, they suggested that if redshift would be a measure of the galaxies recession speed (withdrawal), then that was "consistent with the solutions of Einstein’s equations of general relativity for a homogeneous, isotropic expanding space." The theory proposed that the distance to a galaxy was proportional to its redshift. the farther away a galaxy was, the more redshifted its light as seen from Earth would become. A implication of that theory was that if the galaxies became more redshifted the further away they were, then that also implied that they once should have been much closer. Another implication was that we had an expansion of the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble

It was Georges Lemaître that 1927 presented his "hypothesis of the primeval atom". In it he suggested that the recession of the galaxies was due to the expansion of the universe (Expansion) and in 1931 he went further and proposed that if you backtracked those galaxies there should have been a single 'point' from where they all must have started, that then would have to be a 'state' of infinite density, a singularity in fact, meaning something we don't really know as our physics laws only starts after that moment (Big Bang).

Unfortunately for him he  not only was a scientist (jesuit?) but also a priest. In much the same manner that some see Al Gore to be the 'predecessor' of all evil namely Global Warming. And therefore, as they have another political view, disavow any probability of it ever being true, some use the fact that Georges Lemaître was a man of the cloth to repudiate his ideas. As a byside it's worth mentioning that the name itself 'Yhe Big Bang' was coined by Fred Hoyle in a radioshow 1949. Although he in fact was an adversary to that idea, as he stood for a 'steady state universe' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory . I warmly recommend you to read 'The Black Cloud', a real pearl of science fiction


There is a lot of indirect evidence for the Big Bang. The idea have tested in high energy physics "resulting in significant confirmation of the theory, but these accelerators have limited capabilities to probe into such high energy regimes. Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition" In here you will find some more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

You can find direct mathematical proof by for example looking at the Friedmann equations. They are also referred to as the the standard cosmology model.

"What you do with the Friedmann equations model is you plug in some values of the parameters and see how it fits the data (Experimental evidence). The test you do then is to see how well you can make a single choice of like 3 main numbers and then have it predict all the data in sight. All kinds of data----galaxy counts and redshifts, supernovas, the temperature map of the microwave background---all sorts of relatively old and relatively new stuff!

The fit is amazing. so the 3 or so main numbers (the parameters) can be determined with remarkable precision and reliability.

This is a big change since 1998. Before 1998 there were various competing guesses as to how to model the universe and what parameters to use. Now the data is a lot better. Better instruments helped.

Anyway, the way the model is confirmed is by fitting to a huge body of observations. Once you have the Friedmann model you can just look at it and it is obvious that, since it is always expanding for all our past history, if you follow it back in time you get to a condition of very high density and temperature

I wouldn't call that a theory. It is more a little piece. It is just an automatic feature of the model that fits all the data over all time in the best way we know, so far. It's how the model that fits begins telling the whole story.

Someday when we get a better model (if we do) maybe it will have a slightly different beginning. To me, for what it's worth, the beginning is not the most important feature. What impresses me is how well it covers the whole story."

If you feel the need for a fuller description of the observational evidence you should read this one.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

[yor_on]

Here is a up to date view on redshift and Einsteins relativity theory.
http://www.astronomycafe.net/cosm/expan.html

[aevela78]

i personally believe that we are giving too much credit to science and not our inner human instincts the proper credit they deserve.  yeah yeah, lood at our evolution, technologically speaking for the past 50 yrs., does that not seem odd to you.  yeah, a human being developed and manufactured the computer, but how many are smarter that one?    hit me up with comments. 

[Chemistry4me]

yeah, a human being developed and manufactured the computer, but how many are smarter that one?     

Aye? []

[aevela78]

i would love to hear your take on the subject......aye

[Chemistry4me]

On what subject? The Big Bang?

There are already 7 pages on the subject, what more can I say? []

[aevela78]

you have got to be kidding me....from a molecularly finite point known as the singularity.....all of this matter, mass, intelligence, space and dark matter emerged....seems too weird for me....i believe that we as human beings are wasting our time trying to figure out the impetus of the universe, and need to spend more time on our own existence.  in any event....pursuant to science theory...are we not going to be destroyed when our sun...yes a star...runs out of "fuel".     

[om]

    
IS THE CONCEPT OF A BIG BANG CORRECT?

No, absolutely not.  It is based on a misunderstanding of the atomic nucleus and nuclear energy (E = mc^2).

So much nonsense has been written under the guise of cosmology and theoretical physics that I recommend going back to the basic data to find the answers.

Only 3,000 data points represent the rest masses of the 3,000 different types of nuclei that make up the entire visible universe.  They will lead you to three fundamental truths:

1. The neutron-proton interaction is strongly attractive.

2. The neutron-neutron interaction is strongly repulsive.

3. The proton-proton interaction is identical to the n-n interaction, PLUS Coulomb repulsion between + charges.

Here are the data, on a 3-D plot of M/A (mass or energy per nucleon) vs  Z/A (charge density) vs A:

http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2000Data.htm

Here are links to peer-reviewed manuscripts where the the importance of these fundamental interactions for our understanding of the Sun and the cosmos are discussed:

1. "Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy", Journal of Fusion Energy 19, 93-98 (2001).

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf

2. "Nuclear systematics: III. The source of solar luminosity", Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 252, 3-7 (2002).

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2001/nuc_sym3.pdf

3. "Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source", Journal of Fusion Energy 20, 197-201 (2003).

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf

4. "Nuclear systematics: IV. Neutron-capture cross sections and solar abundance", Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 266, No. 2, 159-163  (2005).

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/Fk01.pdf


5. "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass", Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, number 11, pp. 1847-1856 (Nov 2006); Yadernaya Fizika 69, number 11, (Nov 2006); PAC: 96.20.Dt   DOI: 10.1134/S106377880611007X

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0609/0609509.pdf

6. "On the cosmic nuclear cycle and the similarity of nuclei and stars", Journal of Fusion Energy 25 (2006) pp. 107-114; DOI:10.1007/s10894-

http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0511051

I will be happy to answer any questions.

Fortunately the new U .S. Energy Secretary, Dr. Steven Chu, has the background to see through all of the rubbish that currently fills the literature on cosmology and theoretical physics.

It will be interesting to see if science plays a dominant role over politics in Dr. Steven Chu's tenure as head of the US Department of Energy (DOE).

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09

[112inky]

Hey.. i think the big bang theory is more convincing than the other ones...  [] [] []

[Fluid_thinker]

Hey maybe it isw just like the Matrix

We are all fictious software programmes in the construct

[Woodpile]

The BB seems to be the best working hypothesis, but I wasn't there when it happend, so for all I know, it might not have happened at all.

However, I do accept that the universe does actually exist, unless I'm just imagining it all []

Solipsism is a wonderful thing.  It rebutts every argument but it is Cotton Candy philosphy- All Flavor, No Substance...

[Mr. Scientist]

what do you believe?

None of them. I am Copenhagenist at heart, so i simply do not believe the universe will allow us to simplify it's infinite complexities so easily. Thergo, i do not believe we will ever know, or should prefer one to another.

[sanjidcb]

What is Belive. lolzzzzzzzzzzzz See this ................
The Earth for example is believed by the majority of people to be gradually cooling down. So models are developed around this assumption to emphasise how slowly a planet might be cooling down, when in reality with a surface covered mostly with a very efficient coolant H2O, coupled with the water cycle to assist its effectiveness, the Earth over many billions of years should not be still spewing out molten lava onto it’s surface and have lakes of hot water a geezers gushing from the floor. Yet, this is exactly what we find with our both feet firmly on the ground. Now, if our model for the Earth is completely wrong and the Earth is gradually getting warmer due to it’s slowly but surely increasing mass, which is transmitted to the core as additional atomic friction, a whole different set of predictions might be in order as we guesstimate the temperatures of other planets.