|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Before the Big Bang?
tomgee wrote: PD wrote: tomgee wrote: Chris L Peterson wrote: On 11 Sep 2006 05:23:51 -0700, "tomgee" wrote: No, he's right, nothing prior to the BB has been discovered as yet, unless you know about something that has been discovered as such. Everything we know about physics breaks down very close to the BB, including time. Okay, but that is after, not before. Time is generally seen as a component of our universe just as the spatial dimensions are. Yes, you're right. It really makes no sense to consider time as something which existed "before" the BB, anymore than it makes sense to consider space as having existed. On the contrary, since space exists in our universe, so it really makes more sense to think it can exist outside of our universe. It makes more sense to ask whether matter exists elsewhere and if ever we can assume that it does, we can assume time would exist as well. These things may "make sense" to your intuition, but that is all. There is no other reason for something to exist outside the universe. I did not say there was a reason. I said there is no reason to think it is more likely that time exists in another universe since it exists here, than for another universe to exist without time. Right now, the best supported physical theories tell us that space and time were both created at the BB, and that neither existed "before" (and that indeed, "before" is a meaningless concept, as is "outside" the universe). No, that is not true, IMO. There is only one BBT that I know of, and if space existed and came out of the BB, how was it compressed? What mechanism or process could you imagine can compress space and matter into a singularity? Matter, yes, but just how do you compress space? That's precisely what the Einstein field equations tell you -- what the relationship is between the curvature of space and time and the mass & energy in that space. The two go hand in hand. The more mass and energy, then the more tightly curved the space is. The asymptote of that process is a singularity, both in terms of the density of mass and energy, and in terms of the curvature of spacetime. You are basing your convictions on math constructs, knowing full well math can prove anything? How dumb is that, PD? Math can't prove anything, TomGee. Prove that elephants are made of glass, using math. This math construct is tested by making unique predictions (made by no other theory) that can be compared to experimental results. When that comparison is made, it appears that nature really works the way that math construct says, and this gives us confidence to apply it further. And how much space are you talking about? When will the BB run out of space to eject? And what about the Great Void? Human brains are not yet evolved to the point where we can imagine such a thing, let alone visualize it (although some dolts have responded to this same statement by saying they can imagine it!). The above illustrates what's wrong in physics today. None of the above silliness was ever questioned like I have above, the awe-struck student accepts everything as if it were gospel. I have never read a theory that claims space neither existed before the BB nor exists external to our universe. That's because your reading is quite limited. If you have, as you so claim, quote it for us. My theory is the only one, AFAIK, that contends abs. space exists outside the universe. There's no reason for me to quote it to you. However, I'd be more than happy to provide a reading reference or five that you can look up. One of them might even be a Scientific American article from the 1950's -- your favorite. PD |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Before the Big Bang?
Mark Earnest wrote: "Chris L Peterson" wrote in message ... On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" wrote: Hi: What happened before the big bang? Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. Something like this question may be answerable. Time is a property of our universe, It is not! Time marches on independently of the universe! and it began when the universe began, so the concept of "before" isn't easily defined. Totally warped thinking, to think time did not exist until the Big Bang. There was a bang, wasn't there? Actually, no. That's the problem with taking a popular term and letting it feed your concept of what it must mean. Better to find out what the concept really means and then see how the popular term came about. What set off the bang! Something in time. No. However, if theory and experiment ultimately support the existence of one or more hyperuniverses, then the _cause_ of the Big Bang in that larger context could be understood, even if "before" isn't exactly the right way of putting it. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Before the Big Bang?
St. John Smythe wrote: tomgee wrote to PD wrote: My theory is the only one, AFAIK, that contends abs. space exists outside the universe. What is that abs. space contained in, then? How could anyone imagine that? Wait about ten million years and we may evolve enough to imagine something like that. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Before the Big Bang?
Mark Earnest wrote: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in message news:%GqNg.2899$nL2.1584@fed1read02... Dear Mark Earnest: "Mark Earnest" wrote in message ... "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in message news:Vd5Ng.2808$nL2.2441@fed1read02... Dear Mark Earnest: "Mark Earnest" wrote in message ... "Chris L Peterson" wrote in message ... On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" wrote: Hi: What happened before the big bang? Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. Something like this question may be answerable. Time is a property of our universe, It is not! Time marches on independently of the universe! Can you prove this? Time seems very much to be a property of this Universe. That is like saying water is a property of what we are, when we know water acts completely independent of us, in the way it evaporates and condenses over our oceans. No, that is like saying "can you prove this"? Otherwise you are wasting effort on something that cannot ever be measured. For a statement like "time is a property of the universe," to have any meaning, one must understand the universe is by definition all that exists. Time certainly exists. Further, time is linear. Examine any historical timeline. And a line has no beginning, and no end. And the Earth is flat, with no boundaries. Walk in any direction. Do you ever come to the edge? So time had to continue forever before the Big Bang. No. That's the whole point. Tracing back, we find that time had to have a *start*. and it began when the universe began, so the concept of "before" isn't easily defined. Totally warped thinking, to think time did not exist until the Big Bang. There was a bang, wasn't there? No. "Big Bang" is a misnomer that has carried on for years. The running thought is that some primordial atom exploded somehow, No. There was no explosion. What other kind of force could cause all galaxies to move away from a central point? It must have been a superpowerful force, to motivate all matter that exists. Only some kind of spectacular detonation seems possible to move matter in such a forceful way. No. It was not a force. It was not an explosion. and became everything. All matter is hurtling from one central location, proving the explosion. There is no unique "central location" in the direction we are moving from. There is no unique "central location anywhere we can see. I guess I am jumping the gun, then, if the central location hasn't yet been discovered yet. Read again. There IS NO central location. Not just one that hasn't been found yet. There isn't one. What else could it be? An inflation of spacetime, from nearly nothing to where we are today. O.K., then maybe the universe was a cloud of vapor, that just sort of moved out in all directions, becoming everything? No. That just doesn't sound possible, since we are talking about a wispy expansion as becoming all that exists. What set off the bang! Something in time. Something OF time, yes. In time, of time, both the same here. No. One presupposes that time is distinct from this Universe. The other assumes that time is a product of the Universe. You are saying that the universe could somehow manufacture time? Yes. The universe is much, MUCH stranger than you ever imagined. That's what makes it interesting. Mark |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Before the Big Bang?
Mark Earnest wrote: "Mark McIntyre" wrote in message ... On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:24:46 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark Earnest" wrote: Something like this question may be answerable. Time is a property of our universe, It is not! Time marches on independently of the universe! Er, no. and it began when the universe began, so the concept of "before" isn't easily defined. Totally warped thinking, to think time did not exist until the Big Bang. There was a bang, wasn't there? What set off the bang! Something in time. You probably want to read up on what the big bang actually would have been. No, I run mostly counter to scientific views. Scientists are what are keeping us in Earth orbit 37 years after landing a man on the Moon. We should have long ago started traveling to the stars and beyond. You are certainly welcome to work toward that solution. Along the way, you will encounter the logistical problem (which I'm sure you can solve) of just carrying enough fuel to get to the nearest planet (Mars) rather than the Moon. The devil is in the details, and working through the details is where the work and the glory is. PD |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Before the Big Bang?
PD wrote: tomgee wrote: PD wrote: tomgee wrote: Chris L Peterson wrote: On 11 Sep 2006 05:23:51 -0700, "tomgee" wrote: No, he's right, nothing prior to the BB has been discovered as yet, unless you know about something that has been discovered as such. Everything we know about physics breaks down very close to the BB, including time. Okay, but that is after, not before. Time is generally seen as a component of our universe just as the spatial dimensions are. Yes, you're right. It really makes no sense to consider time as something which existed "before" the BB, anymore than it makes sense to consider space as having existed. On the contrary, since space exists in our universe, so it really makes more sense to think it can exist outside of our universe. It makes more sense to ask whether matter exists elsewhere and if ever we can assume that it does, we can assume time would exist as well. These things may "make sense" to your intuition, but that is all. There is no other reason for something to exist outside the universe. I did not say there was a reason. I said there is no reason to think it is more likely that time exists in another universe since it exists here, than for another universe to exist without time. Right now, the best supported physical theories tell us that space and time were both created at the BB, and that neither existed "before" (and that indeed, "before" is a meaningless concept, as is "outside" the universe). No, that is not true, IMO. There is only one BBT that I know of, and if space existed and came out of the BB, how was it compressed? What mechanism or process could you imagine can compress space and matter into a singularity? Matter, yes, but just how do you compress space? That's precisely what the Einstein field equations tell you -- what the relationship is between the curvature of space and time and the mass & energy in that space. The two go hand in hand. The more mass and energy, then the more tightly curved the space is. The asymptote of that process is a singularity, both in terms of the density of mass and energy, and in terms of the curvature of spacetime. You are basing your convictions on math constructs, knowing full well math can prove anything? How dumb is that, PD? Math can't prove anything, TomGee. Prove that elephants are made of glass, using math. Elephants made of glass are not anything, since there are millions in warehouses and gift stores. Math can prove anything such as a static universe, and that is something. You missed the whole point, PD, on purpose, or from ignorance, or miscomprehension? Are you therefore claiming math is not limited wrt reality? We've gone over this before, and you had no comeback for that before, so you lost that argument. Are you now resurrecting it in the hope that you can be found to have been correct all along, or are you just too hard- headed to face simple facts? This math construct is tested by making unique predictions (made by no other theory) that can be compared to experimental results. When that comparison is made, it appears that nature really works the way that math construct says, and this gives us confidence to apply it further. If you refer to his field equations, I am not questioning their validity as a math construct. You seem to think that "math construct" is a bad word, but it isn't. They are equations and calculations that are helpful tools for us. So much so that some users come to believe they represent reality. If that were so, we would have little need for discourse and debate. However, math does not offer explanations for its results, it leaves that up to us to make. We apply them to reality, and therein is where we often err. When put upon to better explain our conclusions, we more often than not fall back on the ol' saying "figures don't lie". And how much space are you talking about? When will the BB run out of space to eject? And what about the Great Void? Human brains are not yet evolved to the point where we can imagine such a thing, let alone visualize it (although some dolts have responded to this same statement by saying they can imagine it!). The above illustrates what's wrong in physics today. None of the above silliness was ever questioned like I have above, the awe-struck student accepts everything as if it were gospel. I have never read a theory that claims space neither existed before the BB nor exists external to our universe. That's because your reading is quite limited. If you have, as you so claim, quote it for us. My theory is the only one, AFAIK, that contends abs. space exists outside the universe. There's no reason for me to quote it to you. However, I'd be more than happy to provide a reading reference or five that you can look up. One of them might even be a Scientific American article from the 1950's -- your favorite. Yes, there is a reason. If you don't quote it, it means you're lying, plain and simple. It won't be your first time, either, will it? You are notorious for making wild statements that you cannot support. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Before the Big Bang?
How do you calculate amount of exposive energy to initiate A-Bomb bang?
"George Dishman" wrote in message ... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Sco" wrote in message news From the conservation of energy and matter, before the big bang there was energy. In most models, the gravitational potential energy is equal and opposite to the matter and other forms hence the prior total was zero. "Uno" wrote in message ... Energy equal to the total of matter and anti-matter. Yes, gravitational potential energy is equal in magnitude to the total energy contained in both matter and anti-matter and other forms (kinetic energy, binding energy, etc.). Since the gravitational energy is negative, the total is zero. "Bri" wrote in message news Gravitational energy can't be the only energy to iniciate the Big Bang. Quite correct but it explains why there isn't a need for infinite energy to create the infinite amount of matter in the universe, the total is zero overall. What I say above is a prediction of many of the relevant competing models. George |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Before the Big Bang?
tomgee wrote:
Brian, I appreciate your input, but I did not refer to the BB as that which we cannot imagine. I referred only to the Great Void, which is the name given to what the contents of the BB came out into. It doesn't need to come out into anything. That's why the fact that Big Bang theories don't generally address anything like your Great Void isn't a liability. The theories are still self-consistent. Still, some of the broader theories do address it, and make some predictions about the universe(s) that result. I understand that, but my point was not about multiverses, but about the argument that it is more reasonable to not think about something we can never know about for sure, as opposed to thinking that if our exists, why not others? I don't see how you can be sure that we can never know about anything. Auguste Comte thought we would never know anything about what the stars were made of, and he was proved wrong two years after his death. So I think it's worthwhile thinking about these things, and seeing if there is in fact a way to observe some of the effects, even now, 14 billion years after the Big Bang. But language cannot be avoided anymore than math can be avoided. The belief that math is more precise than prose speaks to the limitations of those who use the two methods, not to the limitations of the two. Both math and language have built-in limitations of their own, and when compounded by human failing, the results cannot be guaranteed. Saying that both English and mathematics are limited (which I agree with) doesn't mean that they're both *equally* limited (which I don't). There's a reason why theories are formulated in mathematics whenever possible. It allows us to make specific predictions, which can then be observed to hold or to be invalidated. One can do that with English, of course, but such formulations are much longer, and end up being essentially translations of the mathematics into English, rather than some new perspective. Moreover, one can assign conventional meanings to specific mathematical symbols, which one can't do reliably with English. The ambiguity of language makes it harder to discuss things without concerns of unspoken subjective impressions leaking in. That is why I don't find hardly any amateur cosmologist ideas compelling in the least. They aren't precise enough to be convincing. If I can't show one to be wrong--if they can't point out a plausible observation that would compel them to give their idea up--then I'll never be able to have confidence that it's right. It's hardly surprising that you disagree; I find that most amateur cosmologists don't like the role of falsifiability in scientific work. But in the end, it really doesn't matter if they don't like it. -- Brian Tung The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Before the Big Bang?
However, along an infinite amount of a time, certainly or a several billions of a years ago, some thing more clear has had became already to appear, especially, wherever the seas started to appear. Therefore, already a kind of a visible structures began to appear, whether, they passed through their a chemical usual routines, a cyanobacteria become very clearely to manifest as along that manifestation which it has had makes to appear, an extremelly micro particles of a kind of a dust and also the sand, which they has had been made to bound together, to form a clearly a strange but a solid structures called the stromatolites. However, those stromatolites came along a various shapes ans sizes, whether, sometimes, they do sarted to appear so enormous kind of a vegetation, and sometimes, like an other kind of a mattresses, whether also, sometimes, they came also as a miltitude of a forms like a columns, rising above the surfaces of the water, sometimes very higher. However, along all their manifestations, they was a definitely an extreme kind of a living rocks, whether, this it has had represented the start of the so called world, along all kind of a micro organisms, along which the nature has had started to born, and this is what is all about, a definitely as a matter a fact. -- Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Best Regards! |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Before the Big Bang?
tomgee wrote: PD wrote: tomgee wrote: PD wrote: tomgee wrote: Chris L Peterson wrote: On 11 Sep 2006 05:23:51 -0700, "tomgee" wrote: No, he's right, nothing prior to the BB has been discovered as yet, unless you know about something that has been discovered as such. Everything we know about physics breaks down very close to the BB, including time. Okay, but that is after, not before. Time is generally seen as a component of our universe just as the spatial dimensions are. Yes, you're right. It really makes no sense to consider time as something which existed "before" the BB, anymore than it makes sense to consider space as having existed. On the contrary, since space exists in our universe, so it really makes more sense to think it can exist outside of our universe. It makes more sense to ask whether matter exists elsewhere and if ever we can assume that it does, we can assume time would exist as well. These things may "make sense" to your intuition, but that is all. There is no other reason for something to exist outside the universe. I did not say there was a reason. I said there is no reason to think it is more likely that time exists in another universe since it exists here, than for another universe to exist without time. Right now, the best supported physical theories tell us that space and time were both created at the BB, and that neither existed "before" (and that indeed, "before" is a meaningless concept, as is "outside" the universe). No, that is not true, IMO. There is only one BBT that I know of, and if space existed and came out of the BB, how was it compressed? What mechanism or process could you imagine can compress space and matter into a singularity? Matter, yes, but just how do you compress space? That's precisely what the Einstein field equations tell you -- what the relationship is between the curvature of space and time and the mass & energy in that space. The two go hand in hand. The more mass and energy, then the more tightly curved the space is. The asymptote of that process is a singularity, both in terms of the density of mass and energy, and in terms of the curvature of spacetime. You are basing your convictions on math constructs, knowing full well math can prove anything? How dumb is that, PD? Math can't prove anything, TomGee. Prove that elephants are made of glass, using math. Elephants made of glass are not anything, since there are millions in warehouses and gift stores. Math can prove anything such as a static universe, and that is something. Really? Prove a static universe with math, TomGee. Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about? You missed the whole point, PD, on purpose, or from ignorance, or miscomprehension? Are you therefore claiming math is not limited wrt reality? We've gone over this before, and you had no comeback for that before, so you lost that argument. Are you now resurrecting it in the hope that you can be found to have been correct all along, or are you just too hard- headed to face simple facts? This math construct is tested by making unique predictions (made by no other theory) that can be compared to experimental results. When that comparison is made, it appears that nature really works the way that math construct says, and this gives us confidence to apply it further. If you refer to his field equations, I am not questioning their validity as a math construct. You seem to think that "math construct" is a bad word, but it isn't. They are equations and calculations that are helpful tools for us. So much so that some users come to believe they represent reality. If that were so, we would have little need for discourse and debate. Actually, discourse and debate has little role in matters like this, TomGee. Confrontation with experiment is valuable. Debate and discourse is remarkably cheap, which is why you like to indulge in it. If you wanted a debate club, why do you post here? However, math does not offer explanations for its results, it leaves that up to us to make. We apply them to reality, and therein is where we often err. When put upon to better explain our conclusions, we more often than not fall back on the ol' saying "figures don't lie". On the contrary, the math carries with it explanation. The math is worthless without an understanding of what the math represents, and the results of the math help make understanding concrete. It's not uncommon for those who have never understood the language of math to say that it is all gobbledygook and doesn't really mean anything, and that if you really want to say something you should say it in English. And how much space are you talking about? When will the BB run out of space to eject? And what about the Great Void? Human brains are not yet evolved to the point where we can imagine such a thing, let alone visualize it (although some dolts have responded to this same statement by saying they can imagine it!). The above illustrates what's wrong in physics today. None of the above silliness was ever questioned like I have above, the awe-struck student accepts everything as if it were gospel. I have never read a theory that claims space neither existed before the BB nor exists external to our universe. That's because your reading is quite limited. If you have, as you so claim, quote it for us. My theory is the only one, AFAIK, that contends abs. space exists outside the universe. There's no reason for me to quote it to you. However, I'd be more than happy to provide a reading reference or five that you can look up. One of them might even be a Scientific American article from the 1950's -- your favorite. Yes, there is a reason. If you don't quote it, it means you're lying, plain and simple. It won't be your first time, either, will it? You are notorious for making wild statements that you cannot support. Don't be silly, Tom. If I don't quote it to you, it means that a) someone else has already taken great trouble to write it down and publish it in *copyrighted* form, and it would be improper to violate that copyright b) it could well take several pages of text to explain it properly, which is not an enjoyable thing to do on Usenet c) I'm not about to indulge your laziness for your convenience, even if you bait, and it's in fact better if you're encouraged to get off your fat ass and look it up. Now, I'm happy to provide you with *detailed* instructions on exactly where to look it up, but I simply refuse to go the extra step and type it all out for you here. That's not unreasonable, is it? Even for someone as profoundly lazy as you. PD |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[sci.astro] Cosmology (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (9/9) | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 6th 05 02:37 AM |
The Big Bang Echoes through the Map of the Galaxy | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 3 | September 6th 05 09:51 PM |
The Big Bang Echoes through the Map of the Galaxy | [email protected] | Misc | 4 | September 2nd 05 05:44 PM |
No Room for Intelligent Design in Big Bang Theory | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 9 | August 8th 05 04:56 PM |
Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? | Yoda | Misc | 102 | August 2nd 04 02:33 AM |