Big Bang Theory

[Crash]

They've calculated the rate at which planets and other objects in space are moving away from each other, and noticed the cosmic background radiation, which is evidence of the universe expanding, and evidence for the big bang. Just because we can't rule out several possibilities for what happened before the big bang does not mean the big bang could not have happened. It fits within the theories and the properties of the universe as we know them.

For the record, planets aren't moving away from each other due to universe expansion. Galaxies and the groups they comprise, yes. But the motions of planets are more governed by the loss of mass of the primary they orbit, and/or the gravitational intrusion of other stars that pass nearby.

"What happened before the big bang" is a useless question, except to prove the ignorance of the questioner. They don't understand the concept of space-time if they're asking what happened before time began. It's like asking what is north of the north pole. People with half a brain should discard as useless garbage the opinions of those who think that our inability to say what is north of the north pole is some sort of proof of god's existence.

 

[der Astronom]

Oops, my bad. I remember reading something about the universe expansion being observed through the movement of something away from each other, but it seems I've forgotten what it was exactly. Thanks for the correction there.

 

[QuickSilverD]

"What happened before the big bang" is a useless question, except to prove the ignorance of the questioner. They don't understand the concept of space-time if they're asking what happened before time began. It's like asking what is north of the north pole. People with half a brain should discard as useless garbage the opinions of those who think that our inability to say what is north of the north pole is some sort of proof of god's existence.

Impressive your attitude is even worse than mine, we assume that time started somehow, even when the concept itself is paradoxical, because then it implies that all that exists was created at some point and then exploded (matter can’t exist without time), but there was one law of physics that said that matter could not be created nor destroyed, so? Contradiction, hell yes!<o></o>
<o> </o>
It is not stupid to ask yourself what happened before the big bang, and there is still a north in the North Pole, except in the true north of course. <o></o>
<o></o>

 

[Crash]

Contradiction, hell yes!<o></o><o></o>

Be vewwy vewwy cawwfuww. Language has its own limitations that are quickly manifest when discussing abstractions it was not designed to enunciate. There is nothing contradictory, nothing irrational about the scientific theory itself. The words used to talk about it ("when did time begin" for example) are apparently paradoxical, but only grammer nazis care too much about linguistic exactitude. And they have no friends.

 

[Kibbies]

Physics has a neat law about gravitational force, which I have not really seen mentioned in this thread yet.

The law states that an object of mass attracts any other object of mass. This means that regardless of the distance, two objects will pull towards each other. Whenever we jump, we are attracted to the earth, and the earth is attracted to us.

So, everything in the universe, from the stars to little particles of dust, pull on each other. This changes the acceleration of all the objects, and thus the velocity, and thus the direction.

There is also a phenomenon where, for example, you take two marbles in outer space and set them near each other. After a little time, they will attract to each other, stick together, and spin. Then, they will separate and go in their own direction. I have yet to learn about this in college, but professors that I have asked say that it is true.

If we start at a single point where all the mass was located
before the Big Bang, then eventually it would all blast apart due to the phenomenon that I have stated. Each little piece of mass has its own direction in velocity, but from the point of 'blasting off' they all attract each and slow down velocity.

What this means is that the universe must be either expanding or contracting. Eventually, everything will move to a single point (my guess is two blackholes will attract everything around them--including other blackholes--and then those two giant masses will move together), and the Big Bang will happen again, if it ever did happen. This is called the Big Crunch for those that do not know it.

It could be that right now everything is still expanding, but every second it slows just a little. Perhaps after a few hundred trillion years, the last particle will have a velocity of zero, then slowly get pulled in the direction that has the greatest gravitational force.

 

[Stryfe]

Physics has a neat law about gravitational force, which I have not really seen mentioned in this thread yet.

The law states that an object of mass attracts any other object of mass. This means that regardless of the distance, two objects will pull towards each other. Whenever we jump, we are attracted to the earth, and the earth is attracted to us.

So, everything in the universe, from the stars to little particles of dust, pull on each other. This changes the acceleration of all the objects, and thus the velocity, and thus the direction.

There is also a phenomenon where, for example, you take two marbles in outer space and set them near each other. After a little time, they will attract to each other, stick together, and spin. Then, they will separate and go in their own direction. I have yet to learn about this in college, but professors that I have asked say that it is true.

If we start at a single point where all the mass was located
before the Big Bang, then eventually it would all blast apart due to the phenomenon that I have stated. Each little piece of mass has its own direction in velocity, but from the point of 'blasting off' they all attract each and slow down velocity.

What this means is that the universe must be either expanding or contracting. Eventually, everything will move to a single point (my guess is two blackholes will attract everything around them--including other blackholes--and then those two giant masses will move together), and the Big Bang will happen again, if it ever did happen. This is called the Big Crunch for those that do not know it.

It could be that right now everything is still expanding, but every second it slows just a little. Perhaps after a few hundred trillion years, the last particle will have a velocity of zero, then slowly get pulled in the direction that has the greatest gravitational force.

I believe that, but here comes the flaw: Where'd the original two pieces of mass come from?

The bing bang theory itself is impressive, but the flaws that exist within it outnumber it so much.

 

[Kibbies]

There is only one flaw with the Big Bang theory, and that is the origin.

If we were to look at every piece of mass in the universe, we could mathematically (and it would be a very, very tedious task), determine which point all the mass exploded from. We'd simply have to figure out where everything would intersect if everything pulled on everything else, which would mean having to take into account the most pathetic gravitational force and the giant gravitational forces as well.

Once we do this, we have reversed the Big Bang and looked at it backwards, thus determining the point of origin. But here is the flaw: how did the mass get there to begin with?

Those who believe in the Big Bang respond by saying something like "I believe in the Big Bang, and science will later prove how the mass was there". That is a rather huge flaw to believe in, especially since it is the beginning of the Big Bang. If there is no beginning, then there is no middle or end. Sitting around and hoping that science will later be able to prove the theory is the same as cryogenicly freezing your head when you die hoping that science will later find a way to bring you back to life.

 

[Ryker]

Since I wasn't present at "the beginning" I can never & will never know for sure whether or not the Big Bang happened or not; however, logical reasoning would assume that this is a sound theory & as such, I'm all for it.

However, I see a lot of people asking questions involving what happened "before the Big Bang" & the answer is quite obvious - nothing. Since spacio-temporal existence began with the Big Bang there is no way to relate (temporally) another existence outside this one.

One sound idea is that the collapse of the last universe contained enough energy to create the Big Bang, just as the collapse of our own universe will contain enough energy to create the next "Big Bang".

It seems pretty logical to me. A universe grows until it reaches a point at which is collapses & in its collapse enough energy is created to birth another universe, ad infinitum. It makes sense with my philosophical teachings, as everything is taught to be cyclical in nature.



Either way, they're all interesting concepts to ponder about, though I do have to question: What purpose does the answer serve? Sure, you know how the universe began. What does that change (other than bragging rights for Science/Religion)?

 

[Gatekpr]

The big bang is the theory of mass expansion. I don't believe in it for the same reason I don't believe in God. Who created the creator? What started the start? Etc.

 

[Grimoire Valentine]

Just a quick word about time, it is generally assumed that there is a link between time and motion, and by motion I mean ANY motion, without it then time simply does not exist, (messes with your head doesnt it). So the Big bang theory, well it sounds ludicrous, I can't even begin to get my head around it, so there was nothing? and then something? for no reason? Sounds a bit religious to me! I subscribe to the notion that we a all a drunken mans dream. Possibly mine, in which case bring on the Turkish Delight and girls from the Southern States!

 

[Ryker]

The big bang is the theory of mass expansion. I don't believe in it for the same reason I don't believe in God. Who created the creator? What started the start? Etc.

There was no creation to prompt a creator to create. Existence exists & always has in some form or another.

 

[Gatekpr]

Everything has a beginning, which is a paradox. If you assume that it has always existed, that's also a paradox because there must be a beginning to it. This is why I'm agnostic. There's NO way we can prove any of this, so I feel "why try?"

 

[Warbsywoo]

Because it gives us something to think about and find comfort in?
I don't want to go somewhere....void.

Plus, because of the expansion of our universe, scientists speculate that at some point in the distant future, there will be no more ways for it to expand, therefore creating a Big 'Crunch'. How the universe will stop expanding, if it does at all, I have no clue.

 

[Ryker]

Everything has a beginning, which is a paradox. If you assume that it has always existed, that's also a paradox because there must be a beginning to it.

Why does there have to be a beginning?

This is why I'm agnostic. There's NO way we can prove any of this, so I feel "why try?"

If you truly felt this way, why make the effort to respond at all? (Not mocking; I'm simply curious.)

Plus, because of the expansion of our universe, scientists speculate that at some point in the distant future, there will be no more ways for it to expand, therefore creating a Big 'Crunch'. How the universe will stop expanding, if it does at all, I have no clue.

If I remember correctly though, once it stops expanding, the actual "crunch" will last as long as the expansion. So none of us will have to worry about it.

 

[Gatekpr]

All things must begin, there's simply no conceivable way that they couldn't. Like I said, it's a paradox. How can you begin without something to start? And how can you have that something to start? Paradox.

And I took the time to answer, simply because I'm agnostic. Note the fact that I never actually said one argument toward one side or the other, I just said that it's all a paradox

 

[Ryker]

All things must begin, there's simply no conceivable way that they couldn't. Like I said, it's a paradox. How can you begin without something to start? And how can you have that something to start? Paradox.

I didn't ask how you could conceive endlessness, I asked why endlessness is impossible.

I think we're miscommunicating. All things are temporal & impermanent; however, the fact that all things are temporal & impermanent is infinite & endless. It's a matter of perception: when this universe collapses it will be called "the end"; at the same time, a new universe is created & it will be called "the beginning". How can one begin & end at the same time? Where does one define "begin" & "end" & differentiate between the two?

There is no logical way to separate the two. If they cannot be separated, then they must not be separate. If they are not separate, then they are the same. If they are the same, why the Hell are we still talking?

(I think you & Warbourne are my two favorite people to discuss things with. )

 

[Warbsywoo]

That kinda reminds of Spira and how the dream world, and...and... all that stuff.
Also reminds me of parallel universes when you talk about the 'beginning' and 'end' thing. And there's also another theory out there that you might find interesting.

Multiple universes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_(science)

The implication of this would be tremendous, not meaning to go off subject a bit here, but in context, and going by what you are saying Ryker, when one universe collapses, there will always be other universes that are unaffected by this collapse. And who knows? Maybe new ones will be born.

 

[Ryker]

That kinda reminds of Spira and how the dream world, and...and... all that stuff.
Also reminds me of parallel universes when you talk about the 'beginning' and 'end' thing. And there's also another theory out there that you might find interesting.

Multiple universes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_(science)

I've always found the Multiverse theory to be pretty interesting myself; however, I think I remember reading an article where scientists had found a rippled energy wave that showed that the universe was flat. I wish I had bookmarked it. () I'll have to try & find it, it was really interesting (and it wasn't super-abbreviated like my version).

The implication of this would be tremendous, not meaning to go off subject a bit here, but in context, and going by what you are saying Ryker, when one universe collapses, there will always be other universes that are unaffected by this collapse. And who knows? Maybe new ones will be born.

I wonder though... If every action has a reaction, wouldn't it be safe to assume that the universes within a multiverse are indeed connected to one another in some form or fashion. Surely the collapse of a universe would affect other universes, right?

My brain hurts.

 

[Warbsywoo]

I wonder though... If every action has a reaction, wouldn't it be safe to assume that the universes within a multiverse are indeed connected to one another in some form or fashion. Surely the collapse of a universe would affect other universes, right?

I dunno about that. But it's also reasonable to assume that there each multiverse is a part of a bigger multiverse, and so on.

What if everything is interconnected, what if in some way the extreme end of this 'cluster' of multiverses was ------ atoms, then us. What if it's just a never ending chain that goes in a cycle? *like that makes sense* 0_0
This is my weird theory ^

5 mins. later:
Well, yeah, we can assume that it would affect other universes if they're all interconnected in some way. But that would also mean that, by what I just said, each multiverse would succumb to this. Interesting theory indeed!

 

[Rydia]

There's no way to prove that the big bang happened and created the universe... unless we are able to build a telescope powerful enough that it can see an object 13 billion(or how ever old we think the universe is) light years into space and then we might be able to see the universe forming. But 13 billion lightyears away could just end up being interstellar space.

I know that there is some evidence for it occuring, specifically the universe still expanding from it.

Even if the big bang did create the universe, I'd like to know where all the material came from that caused it.