The "Big" Bang is misleading...

Einherjar wrote:

That can't ever justfy claiming that the universe expands faster than the speed of light.

I don't think they do claim this.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
That can't ever justfy claiming that the universe expands faster than the speed of light.

I don't think they do claim this.

Hmmm, either I'm going crasy or somebody has been doing some editing.

Or I might have mixed up two topics...

0 Replies

Black hole thread, I'm still sane. I've also figured it out, so now i'm on line with everyone.

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

Black hole thread, I'm still sane. I've also figured it out, so now i'm on line with everyone.

Yeh, I think I figured out my own question with regard to the "pea" comparison as well.

The only way the pea comparison makes any sense is if it's a comparison between the Universe today, and the size it "would have been" when compared to today.

Even though at the time the Universe started, there was nothing to compare it to, we can make an analogous comparison to existing related structures, which must have been what the astronomer meant when he said "size of a pea". Smile

It's very hard to picture the Big Bang without imagining it from the "outside", which is of course, an irrational image. Almost every depiction of the Big Bang we see on TV shows an explosion from an external viewpoint, yet that is an impossible perspective. To imagine the Big Bang, you must imagine yourself at the center of an expanding bubble, and as you reach out for the edge of the bubble, your arm stretches as the bubble expands.

0 Replies

It's a marvel that after all this time we're here speculating on the origin of our universe...Merry Christmas all and a special one for Satt whose inscrutable knowledge awes me almost as much the subject.

0 Replies

panzade wrote:

It's a marvel that after all this time we're here speculating on the origin of our universe...Merry Christmas all and a special one for Satt who's inscrutable knowledge awes me almost as much the subject.

Yes, Satt the Inscrutable Smile

Happy Holidays everyone Smile

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

panzade wrote:
It's a marvel that after all this time we're here speculating on the origin of our universe...Merry Christmas all and a special one for Satt who's inscrutable knowledge awes me almost as much the subject.

Yes, Satt the Inscrutable

Happy Holidays everyone

It seems I can't get around this.

Alright here it goes...

...wait for it...

Happy Holidays.

0 Replies

I know how difficult that was for you E

It is appreciated...

0 Replies

Christmas in space

http://www.telescopes.cc/images/m81small.jpg

0 Replies

Could not the universe be expanding space within itself rather than expanding "outward"?

I don't quite get the Big Bang theory, because I can't imagine what's before it. Is the collapsing universe theory more accepted in science or the accelerating 'till it stops model?

0 Replies

Merry Christmas!

0 Replies

Expansion Accelerating
I've read were the latest evidence shows that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate & to account for this they have postulated a "dark energy" force that is pushing matter apart due to the expansion of space! I'm not comfortable with this idea, it seems too contrived. I don't pretend to know the mathmatical reasoning behind this theory, but on the face of it, isn't it possible that we are so close in time to the big bang that the original explosion is still accelerating? After all, in any explosion there is a period of time while the particles from the explosion are accelerating & couldn't this still be true for the universe as a whole also? I'd like to hear other thoughts on this.

0 Replies

Re: Expansion Accelerating

JimV wrote:

I've read were the latest evidence shows that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate & to account for this they have postulated a "dark energy" force that is pushing matter apart due to the expansion of space! I'm not comfortable with this idea, it seems too contrived. I don't pretend to know the mathmatical reasoning behind this theory, but on the face of it, isn't it possible that we are so close in time to the big bang that the original explosion is still accelerating? After all, in any explosion there is a period of time while the particles from the explosion are accelerating & couldn't this still be true for the universe as a whole also? I'd like to hear other thoughts on this.

Hi Jim,

I wondered the same thing when I first heard that the Universe is still accelerating (at some point in an explostion, particles are accelerating), but after much reading, I'm leaning toward the dark energy explanation instead.

Welcome to A2K Smile

0 Replies

When they say dark, its more of a negatively chared idea(metaphor). It's not all bad. But there was nothing inside the 'pea' as we could conceive, no atoms no nothing. i mean say all the rock on earth was crushed in to 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of an atom. Now you may think its small, but think of the mass. It's all squeezed up. We all know the density of an white dwarf because it is a star only in the tiny ball think of it like that only 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 denser(zeros are not in any way to scale).

There is another theory which doesn't pertain to the big bang. Maybe the bang never existed, even though it may be a idea we can back up there could have been other forces at work. I mean there is no definite answer to Why? that we know of. SO sometimes you will be left saying WHY, thats the wonder/downside to science. Ill get back to this with some other theories that don't include the big bang?

0 Replies

By the way, the big bang theory does not say that there was no matter before the big bang...there are no theories with evidence about what things were like before the big bang, people may conjecture all they want but there is no evidence for anything before this by definition.

Personally, I believe that the big bang was not the source of any matter...but that it is a naturally occuring phenomena due to laws of physics we have yet to understand, and that there are other universes created by other big bangs...

Ok I'll be honest...since I do not believe in any higher power, I must either believe that matter existed for all time OR that matter was created at some point...but in order for it to be created without a creator, there would need to be a law of physics which defines the genesis of matter from nothing at some extremely small scale...and that's what I truly believe. Because if minute ammounts of matter or energy were somehow constantly being created in the universe than gravity could pull it together to form celestial bodies and big bangs etc.

0 Replies

The "Big" Bang is misleading...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know