Before the Big Bang?

tomgee wrote:

Brian Tung wrote:
Sco wrote:
From the conservation of energy and matter, before the big bang there was
energy.

Somewhat counter-intuitively, energy is not well-defined for space-times
that aren't asymptotically flat--a condition not satisfied by the Big
Bang. Therefore, conservation of energy cannot be applied consistently
to the Big Bang.

My model

There it is! "My model" and that's all it is. Sorry.

has the BB contents as negative mass, therefore the
problem of energy conservation is resolved, except perhaps in
the actual cause of the BB explosion, which must have had the
energy to eject the neg. mass, unless it was a case of magnetic
repulsion, which could be the key to how dark matter acts on the
galaxies.

If it was a case of magnetic repulsion, there may not have been
an actual explosion, just a sudden transformation of charge
states without the BB boom. If matter was being compressed in
a singularity, how would it react to such compression? Why
should it come out as an undefined "primordial soup" having no
real matter (RM) in it? If neg. mass was being compressed to
such an extent, would it not also give the same result, a
transformation of some sort?

How was dark matter (DM) created, and why? Some say the
relatively small amount of DM has a mysterious "antigravity force"
to it that, combined with DM, adds up to more than 90 percent of
the matter in the universe. Others define such a force as DM
energy that imposes a gravitational force on galaxies, causing
them to behave in ways that are counterintuitive. No one, AFAIK,
has elaborated on the processes required for such explanations,
so we're mostly in the dark for now.

My model proposes that the contents of the BB were the DM we
don't see today. The first obstacle to that idea is the cbr. How
could DM leave such radiation if DM is neg. mass and thus has
no energy to it? My model has an answer to that: Real matter,
i.e., matter having positive mass, was created from interactions
of the energy from the BB, from the energy of impetus from the
BB, or from both. It is the energy from that RM that constitutes
the cbr, shown by the varying densities of DM in different areas.

The second obstacle is in the heat produced by the BB. If the
BB occurred from magnetic energy repulsion, that would mean
RM existed then and came out of the BB along with DM. Since
the amount that came out was very little in comparison, there
would have been relatively little heat production in the process, I
would guess. That means the matter particles that formed the
elements could have come out at the BB instead of having
formed later. Again, no I.P. would be needed then.

The biggest obstacle, however, is in the cause of the
compression process. As I've asked before, what would cause
a universe-wide compression of RM and/or DM? If the U. does
roll back on itself eventually, that could explain some of what
came "before".

Thomas Mickle wrote:

"Radium" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi:

What happened before the big bang?


Energy..lots and lots of pure essential energy.

Crystalline! Then fire air earth and water and of course, epicycles.
History
repeats itself.

George Dishman wrote:
"Ioannis" wrote in message
news:1158001258.528482@athprx04...
"Radium" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hi:

What happened before the big bang?

Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting.

Troll-o-Meter:

-----------------
| | | | | | | | | |

For those interested in a serious look at the question:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301199

George

============Devianju responds===============
E=mc2 has been extended to dE=Ac2dm by Ajay Sharma.
He assumes that universe started its life from ZEROANS i.e. particles
of ZERO masses . At that energy emitted was not consistent with E=mc2.
This aspects is highglighted in scientific publications .The referenecs
are given below.
References of Einstein's work
..
A.Einstein, Annalen der Physik 18 (1905) 639-641. .
Weblink is
Einstein's 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
PartII
References of Ajay Sharma's work

My work is available at
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catal...oducts_id=4554


International Conferences
It has been accepted for presentation over 55 conferences all over the
world
--------------------------------------few of them
1. Sharma, A. presented in 19th International Conference on the
Applications of Accelerators in Research and Industry , 20-25
August , 2006 Fort Worth Texas, USA

2. A. Sharma, Abstract Book 38th European Group of Atomic Systems
(
Euro physics Conference) Isachia (Naples) Italy (2006) 53.

3. A. Sharma , Abstract Book , A Century After Einstein Physics 2005 ,

10-14 April 2005 ( Organizer Institute of Physics , Bristol )
University of Warwick , ENGLAND

4. A. Sharma presented in 5th British gravity Conference , OXFORD
ENGLAND

5. A. Sharma,. Proc. Int. Conf. on Computational Methods in
Sciences and Engineering 2003 World Scientific Co. USA ,
(2003) 585.

6. A. Sharma, Proc. Int. Conf. on Number, Time, Relativity United
Physical Society of Russian Federation, Moscow , (2004) 81
plus more
--------------------------------------
Journals
This paper is published in journal
Physics Essays , CANADA
www.physicsessays.com
I will be published in 2007 Galilean Electrodynamics, Massachusetts,
USA.
In parts it is published in various others journals.
----------------------
Book 100 Years of E=mc2
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catal...oducts_id=4554

AJAY SHARMA Email

physicsajay wrote:
George Dishman wrote:
"Ioannis" wrote in message
news:1158001258.528482@athprx04...
"Radium" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hi:

What happened before the big bang?

Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting.

Troll-o-Meter:

-----------------
| | | | | | | | | |

For those interested in a serious look at the question:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301199

============Devianju responds===============
E=mc2 has been extended to dE=Ac2dm by Ajay Sharma.

"Devianju" should note that his reply is unrelated
to the topic being discussed.

He assumes that universe started its life from ZEROANS i.e. particles
of ZERO masses . At that energy emitted was not consistent with E=mc2.

Well obviously. The correct general equation is:

E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2

which simplifies to

E = m c^2

but only for particles with non-zero mas that are
at rest. For example photons have zero mass but
non-zero energy.

Ajay Sharma should do a little studying first:


http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...oton_mass.html

George

Bri wrote:
How do you calculate amount of exposive energy to initiate A-Bomb bang?

I have no idea but I suspect it would depend strongly on the
design. Basic physics will give a limit for the temperature
and pressure needed depending on the fissile material but
achieving that depends on the construction. I am reading
sci.astro but perhaps someone in sci.physics could answer
that better.

George

In article ,
Bri wrote:

How do you calculate amount of exposive energy to initiate A-Bomb bang?

I don't know how this is supposed to be relevant to the big bang, but
you don't really need any explosive energy for a uranium A-Bomb. You
just need to bring the pieces together fast enough. This can be done
with some kind of gun, so I suppose you might regard that as
"explosive", but the speed required is only of the order of 1km/s.

-- Richard

Ahmed Ouahi, Architect wrote:
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.

What you describe is quite reasonable but you are
talking of conditions on Earth soon after it formed
about 4.54 billion years ago.

My previous comments related to the conditions
during the first 100,000 years or so after the big
bang which was about 13.7 billion years ago, long
before the Sun or Earth existed.

That may explain why you disagreed with my views.

George

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On 12 Sep 2006 18:39:45 -0700, "tomgee" wrote:

My model...

In order to be acceptable, your model needs to come with the following
information:

What makes you think it doesn't?

-What observations support it?

The exact same observations that currently support certain current
explanations. My model offers alternative explanations for some
of those which I believe to be better explanations for the observed
effects.

-What predictions does it make that we could observe, and how would we
go about those observations?

Most generally, It predicts that several explanations for certain
observed phenomena are not the only possible explanations nor
the best explanations. For example:

It predicts that in making time and space interdependent, AE erred.
That in stating "motion is meaningful only between two bodies", he
contradicted that with his premise that they are "...both flexible and
dependent upon the state of motion of an observer", which shows
that the motion of a single body is indeed meaningful.
That time is a property of matter, and that it passes at rates
inversely proportional to the state of motion of an object or system.
That an ether exists, being the dark matter of today, which was
yesterday Gamow's sea of invisible particles, and before that,
Dirac's extraordinary negative-mass particles.
That the concept of a massless photon is superflous to explain its
motion at speed c.
That the dual nature of light can be better explained by incorporating
our observations of other phenomena consistent with that which
exists today so that one leads to the other, eliminating the current
patchwork of "self-consistent" theories.
That there is a better explanation for the origin of the universe than
the BBT, given the theory of dark matter to date, and showing that
the IP is superfluous in the better explanation.

-What could we observe that would prove your model wrong?

Simply observe the rules of logical discourse in comparing my
model's explanations of phenomena to that which is in place.

Without those (at the very least), your theory isn't worth the time to
read, because it is unscientific. But maybe philosophers would be
interested- they have different standards in such matters.

My claim is that several current explanations of observed effects
are unscientific and have led physics into a fairytale realm where
anything is possible as an explanation for the conclusions drawn
from the observations.

George Dishman wrote:
physicsajay wrote:
George Dishman wrote:
"Ioannis" wrote in message
news:1158001258.528482@athprx04...
"Radium" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hi:

What happened before the big bang?

Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting.

Troll-o-Meter:

-----------------
| | | | | | | | | |

For those interested in a serious look at the question:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301199

============Devianju responds===============
E=mc2 has been extended to dE=Ac2dm by Ajay Sharma.

"Devianju" should note that his reply is unrelated
to the topic being discussed.

He assumes that universe started its life from ZEROANS i.e. particles
of ZERO masses . At that energy emitted was not consistent with E=mc2.

Well obviously. The correct general equation is:

E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2

which simplifies to

E = m c^2

but only for particles with non-zero mas that are
at rest. For example photons have zero mass but
non-zero energy.

Ajay Sharma should do a little studying first:


http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...oton_mass.html

George

========Ajay Sharma responds to Geroge=====

The origin of E=mc2 is L=mc2 derived by Einstein in 1905.
The eqaution,
E2 = m02c4 +p2c2
was derived very late.
GEORGE NOTE . YOU NEED TO STUDY.
In the paper titled
The Origin of Generalised Mass-Energy Equation �E = Ac2 �M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology.
Weblink
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf

If you see, a PRIMORDIAL THEORY OF UNIVERSE is developed, as WHAT WAS
BEFORE BIG BANG. In the paper other astrophysical phenomena were also
explained
So it not unrelated at all.Moreover it is scientific forum where
everyone can express his views.
AJAY SHARMA
======References================
References of Einstein’s work
..
A.Einstein, Annalen der Physik 18 (1905) 639-641. .
Weblink is
Einstein’s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
PartII
References of Ajay Sharma’s work

My work is available at
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catal...oducts_id=4554


International Conferences
It has been accepted for presentation over 55 conferences all over the
world
--------------------------------------few of them
1. Sharma, A. presented in 19th International Conference on the
Applications of Accelerators in Research and Industry , 20-25
August , 2006 Fort Worth Texas, USA

2. A. Sharma, Abstract Book 38th European Group of Atomic Systems
(
Euro physics Conference) Isachia (Naples) Italy (2006) 53.

3. A. Sharma , Abstract Book , A Century After Einstein Physics 2005 ,

10-14 April 2005 ( Organizer Institute of Physics , Bristol )
University of Warwick , ENGLAND

4. A. Sharma presented in 5th British gravity Conference , OXFORD
ENGLAND

5. A. Sharma,. Proc. Int. Conf. on Computational Methods in
Sciences and Engineering 2003 World Scientific Co. USA ,
(2003) 585.

6. A. Sharma, Proc. Int. Conf. on Number, Time, Relativity United
Physical Society of Russian Federation, Moscow , (2004) 81
plus more
--------------------------------------
Journals
This paper is published in journal
Physics Essays , CANADA
www.physicsessays.com
I will be published in 2007 Galilean Electrodynamics, Massachusetts,
USA.
In parts it is published in various others journals.
----------------------
Book 100 Years of E=mc2
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catal...oducts_id=4554

AJAY SHARMA

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"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.

What you are proposing is a zero origin universe that exploded with
a big bang. Why do you think that would happen? Doesn't it seem more
likely that the complete lack of interaction within the nothingness
could only begin its evolution over a virtual eternity? Why a massive
explosion?

And when the big bang began, why on earth did it stop banging? After
all, infinity is boundless, and 13 billion light years is a long way
short of infinity, isn't it.

Absolutely nothing existed until the zero origin universe began
to emerge from the nothingness, over an eternity. Relativity was
born, and a point could then be identified anywhere in an endless
dimension. But there was certainly no bang.

http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/the1-1a.html

-----

Max Keon