the big bang

24567

Comments

  • bianchimoon
    bianchimoon Posts: 3,942
    :lol:
    All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....
  • simona75
    simona75 Posts: 336
    Theres some good shows on the big bang, entropy, string theory, parallell universes etc on Horizon (on iplayer) at the moment. Well worth a watch
  • freddiegrubb
    freddiegrubb Posts: 448
    C'mon cleat , give us your 2 pence worth & bring us all down to this thing called reality.
  • Daz555
    Daz555 Posts: 3,976
    Pross wrote:
    Can I offer an alternative theory here? Maybe there is a superior being, let's call it 'God', and this superior being has always been there and created everything (well, it makes as much sense of the big bang ;) ).
    For it to be a theory you'd need a wealth of peer reviewed evidence and experimental results.

    Your "god" idea will have to remain stuck at 'hypothesis'. :mrgreen:
    You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
    If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
    If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.
  • verylonglegs
    verylonglegs Posts: 4,023
    Pross wrote:
    Can I offer an alternative theory here? Maybe there is a superior being, let's call it 'God', and this superior being has always been there and created everything (well, it makes as much sense of the big bang ;) ).

    The usual response to that...who created the superior being? :wink:
  • MattC59
    MattC59 Posts: 5,408
    daviesee wrote:
    Why? :twisted:

    Why do you ask ?
    Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved
  • MattC59
    MattC59 Posts: 5,408
    I know, but I'm not tellin'.
    Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved
  • kleinstroker
    kleinstroker Posts: 2,133
    Nobody ever said there was nothing before the big bang AFAIK! It's more that there was no time and no space (3d space that is), therefore there was nothing to which we could ever relate to as we come from a universe that has time and 3d space.
  • lemoncurd
    lemoncurd Posts: 1,428
    Forty Two
  • laurentian
    laurentian Posts: 2,568
    "Time" and "Space" are abstract concepts
    Wilier Izoard XP
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    MattC59 wrote:
    daviesee wrote:
    Why? :twisted:

    Why do you ask ?
    I ask 'cos people say they know but won't or can't explain it, other than some abstract wishy washy way.
    Why? :wink:
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • pb21
    pb21 Posts: 2,171
    Why not?
    Mañana
  • BelgianBeerGeek
    BelgianBeerGeek Posts: 5,226
    laurentian wrote:
    "Time" and "Space" are abstract concepts

    Perhaps you ARE time.
    Ecrasez l’infame
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    pb21 wrote:
    Why not?
    Good question. :wink:
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • simona75
    simona75 Posts: 336
    daviesee wrote:
    MattC59 wrote:
    daviesee wrote:
    Why? :twisted:

    Why do you ask ?
    I ask 'cos people say they know but won't or can't explain it, other than some abstract wishy washy way.
    Why? :wink:

    I think they struggle explain it in a non-abstract way because all the theories are abstract. The human brain really struggles to cope with concepts such as a universe without time. Take the holographic principle for example (the theory that reality is a actually a two dimensional hologram on the cosmological horizon). Just thinking about that makes my head hurt :D
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    Don't think about it then. Problem solved. :wink:
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • MattC59
    MattC59 Posts: 5,408
    willhub wrote:
    we're all on a pitri dish or w/e they called, time is on a different scale for us, so the needle is slowely coming down onto the dish, when it hits the dish we're dead.

    If I could make sense of this, it might confuse me !
    Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved
  • Daz555
    Daz555 Posts: 3,976
    laurentian wrote:
    "Time" and "Space" are abstract concepts
    They really need lumping together anyway as they cannot be separated - spacetime.
    You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
    If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
    If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.
  • vitesse169
    vitesse169 Posts: 422
    ....I watch the discovery channel - 'how the universe works', 'Steven Hawkings universe', etc etc... I start to get a grip om all these theories, then loose it... such a complex thing - what gets me is the thought that the universe is still expanding, in fact it's speeding up and as such will in some point in the future, have expanded so much that no celestial body will be in sight of another.... Mind blowing !!!
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    vitesse169 wrote:
    what gets me is the thought that the universe is still expanding, in fact it's speeding up and as such will in some point in the future, have expanded so much that no celestial body will be in sight of another.... Mind blowing !!!

    It all depends on your reference point and assumptions. Expanding in distance or spacetime? There must be a reference point which shows the universe is neither expanding nor contracting, but in equilibrium.
  • vitesse169
    vitesse169 Posts: 422
    GiantMike wrote:
    vitesse169 wrote:
    what gets me is the thought that the universe is still expanding, in fact it's speeding up and as such will in some point in the future, have expanded so much that no celestial body will be in sight of another.... Mind blowing !!!

    It all depends on your reference point and assumptions. Expanding in distance or spacetime? There must be a reference point which shows the universe is neither expanding nor contracting, but in equilibrium.


    Huh !?! What!?!..... Oh, yeh, right you are...... (see, I'm now lost again....)
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    GiantMike wrote:
    It all depends on your reference point and assumptions. Expanding in distance or spacetime?
    The reference point is where you observe from. You measure how far away things are, and how fast they are moving.(from you)
    GiantMike wrote:
    There must be a reference point which shows the universe is neither expanding nor contracting, but in equilibrium.
    You will have to explain this.
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    Tom Dean wrote:
    GiantMike wrote:
    It all depends on your reference point and assumptions. Expanding in distance or spacetime?
    The reference point is where you observe from. You measure how far away things are, and how fast they are moving.(from you)
    GiantMike wrote:
    There must be a reference point which shows the universe is neither expanding nor contracting, but in equilibrium.
    You will have to explain this.

    The measurement that the universe is expanding and at an increasing rate is based on a series of assumptions about physical distances. The farthest star is X lightyears or Y miles away, for example. If this 'distance' was measured in a different way we may find that, on the other scale, the universe is not expanding.

    The reference 'point' may not be a point in space as we understand it. It may be, for example, a line.

    If a reference point is 'static' time is observed differently to if the reference point 'moves'. Experiments with atomic clocks have shown that if you fly a clock its time will be different from a static clock. However, both clocks are actually moving through space, just at different rates.
  • Cleat Eastwood
    Cleat Eastwood Posts: 7,508
    another misleading thread title - I was expecting more of this

    81696919.jpg
    The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
    momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    GiantMike wrote:
    Tom Dean wrote:
    GiantMike wrote:
    It all depends on your reference point and assumptions. Expanding in distance or spacetime?
    The reference point is where you observe from. You measure how far away things are, and how fast they are moving.(from you)
    GiantMike wrote:
    There must be a reference point which shows the universe is neither expanding nor contracting, but in equilibrium.
    You will have to explain this.

    The measurement that the universe is expanding and at an increasing rate is based on a series of assumptions about physical distances. The farthest star is X lightyears or Y miles away, for example. If this 'distance' was measured in a different way we may find that, on the other scale, the universe is not expanding.

    The reference 'point' may not be a point in space as we understand it. It may be, for example, a line.

    If a reference point is 'static' time is observed differently to if the reference point 'moves'. Experiments with atomic clocks have shown that if you fly a clock its time will be different from a static clock. However, both clocks are actually moving through space, just at different rates.
    Maybe you have some insights into general relativity that have passed others by. I don't understand it beyond a simplified version of what the consensus seems to be. You seem to be starting from the assumption that the universe must be in equilibrium, contrary to the evidence. Why do you think this 'must be' so?
  • freddiegrubb
    freddiegrubb Posts: 448
    Good man cleat I knew you wouldn't let us down , put yourself an egg on.
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Maybe you have some insights into general relativity that have passed others by. I don't understand it beyond a simplified version of what the consensus seems to be. You seem to be starting from the assumption that the universe must be in equilibrium, contrary to the evidence. Why do you think this 'must be' so?

    I wasn't starting from any assumption. I was merely pointing out that what we 'observe' depends on where we observe it from and what our assumptions are.

    The Earth is flat and everything revolves around us: 1 set of assumptions and a Earth-centric reference point

    The Earth is round (actually an oblate spheroid) and revolves around the Sun: a different set of assumptions and a sun-centric reference point

    The universe is expanding and at an increasing rate: another set of assumptions and a different reference point.

    In 100 years there will be another theory (read assumption and reference point), and then another and then another. If I had all the answers I'd be very very rich and Claudia Schiffer would be bouncing up and down on me right now. (ETA that really would be a big bang!)
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    If you are making the general point that our understanding changes over time then fine. No scientific theory is final. Ideas become generally accepted because they work (agree with observational evidence).

    But since you say
    GiantMike wrote:
    The measurement that the universe is expanding and at an increasing rate is based on a series of assumptions about physical distances.
    Can you say what you think these assumptions are?
    GiantMike wrote:
    The farthest star is X lightyears or Y miles away, for example. If this 'distance' was measured in a different way we may find that, on the other scale, the universe is not expanding
    Since you put inverted commas around it it sounds like you want to define, rather than measure, distance differently. Expansion would have to be redefined accordingly too though so your example doesn't work.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,593
    Maybe none of this is real and we are really just a bunch of batteries providing power to an alien life form?
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    Tom Dean wrote:
    If you are making the general point that our understanding changes over time then fine. No scientific theory is final. Ideas become generally accepted because they work (agree with observational evidence).

    But since you say
    GiantMike wrote:
    The measurement that the universe is expanding and at an increasing rate is based on a series of assumptions about physical distances.
    Can you say what you think these assumptions are?
    One would be that red-shifted light is red-shifted because the source is travelling away from the point of observation. This may not always be true, but it is an assumption about a physical distance based on a measured wavelength. There may be something else causing the red-shift.
    Tom Dean wrote:
    GiantMike wrote:
    The farthest star is X lightyears or Y miles away, for example. If this 'distance' was measured in a different way we may find that, on the other scale, the universe is not expanding
    Since you put inverted commas around it it sounds like you want to define, rather than measure, distance differently. Expansion would have to be redefined accordingly too though so your example doesn't work.
    The point I'm making is that people refer to distance in the 'travelling-up-the-M1' sense when they refer to space. Maybe distances in space don't follow the same rules as they do in Leicestershire. Maybe they do.

    As I say, if I had all the answers I'd be very rich. I'm not saying I have all or even any of the answers but I am saying that many assumptions are likely to wrong when closely examined. I'm also saying that our knowledge isn't that good and that as science becomes less observational and more theoretical, less can be 'proven'.

Categories