Before the Big Bang?

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:16:34 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
Earnest" wrote:


"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:Vd5Ng.2808$nL2.2441@fed1read02...
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,

No its not.....

when we know water acts completely independent of us, in the way it evaporates and
condenses over our oceans.

.... for precisely this reason. Not to mention the analogy is so broken
its laughable.

Nevertheless: experimental evidence points to time being a fundamental
property of the universe. Theoretical models fit this idea too.
There's absolutely no evidence at all for it existing except in the
universe. There's no call to invoke such an idea to explain any known
phenomena.

No. "Big Bang" is a misnomer that has carried on for years.

The running thought is that some primordial atom exploded somehow,

Running amongst whom? This is /not/ how actual scientists think of the
start of the universe.

and
became everything. All matter is hurtling from one central location,
proving
the explosion. What else could it be?

Nothing that hurtled from any location, for one thing.

In the instant of the creation of the universe, time and space came
into being. There was nowhere to hurtle from until then, and notime to
do it in.

Something OF time, yes.

In time, of time, both the same here.

Hmm, that would be in the same sense that "in a crocodile" and "of a
crocodile" are the same? Or "in jail" and "of jail"?

Have you seen my handbag?
It is of the crocodile. He has eaten it.









--
Mark McIntyre

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 01:16:20 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
Earnest" wrote:

Further, time is linear. Examine any historical timeline.


And a line has no beginning, and no end.

This is rubbish. Most lines have a beginning and an end*. When was the
last time you drew an infinite line?

(*With the possible exceptions of the white lines on the Milton Keynes
ringroad of course, which form a moebius strip from my experience. )

So time had to continue forever before the Big Bang.

You reason from false facts, so you arrive at a false conclusion, much
as pre columbian sailors said "The world is flat, therefore you cannot
sail around it. "

No. There was no explosion.

What other kind of force could cause all galaxies to move away from a
central point?

What galaxies? There /were/ no galaxies at the time. There was a hell
of a lot of energy, which needed no assistance to start moving apart
really really fast.

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.

*sigh*
As a great writer once said, to the uninitiated, any sufficiently
advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. That is to say
just because ones imagination or knowledge cannot concieve of or
understand the necessary process, does not mean it does not exist.

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.

NO, please RE READ what was said. Everything is expanding away from
everything else. There's no centre.

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?

Its really not possible to explain this with trivial analogies.

That just doesn't sound possible, since we are talking about a wispy
expansion as becoming all that exists.

Again, you're essentially saying "I don't understand this mechanism,
so it can't exist".

You are saying that the universe could somehow manufacture time?

Exactly. In the same sense that a banana manufactures yellowness, or a
frog manufactures croakiness.

--
Mark McIntyre

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:18:58 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
Earnest" wrote:

Scientists are what are keeping us in Earth orbit 37 years after landing
a man on the Moon.

No, that would be money and politics. The US alone spends roughly 300x
more on war than on space, and whereas the defense budget grew by 35%
since 2001 the space budget has been cut. Attack the right people
please.

(figures from NASA's budget request to congress, and the White House's
website, both docs freely available on the 'net, 1.6Bn and 401Bn
respectively so if you don't like em, blow the prez not me).

We should have long ago started traveling to the stars
and beyond.

I agree. if you have a spare trillion dollars, sign me up.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:18:58 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
Earnest" wrote:

Scientists are what are keeping us in Earth orbit 37 years after landing
a man on the Moon.

No, that would be money and politics. The US alone spends roughly 300x
more on war than on space, and whereas the defense budget grew by 35%
since 2001 the space budget has been cut. Attack the right people
please.

No, it is scientists that are keeping us in Earth orbit. They tell us it
would take many generations to reach a nearby star, and we blindly believe
it.

Actually, with current technology...we could get to the nearest star in
about 4 weeks.

The Space Shuttle could get there if you souped up its engines, in about 4
weeks. It just could not land, unless the Centaurians allowed it to land on
one of its desert landing strips.



(figures from NASA's budget request to congress, and the White House's
website, both docs freely available on the 'net, 1.6Bn and 401Bn
respectively so if you don't like em, blow the prez not me).

We should have long ago started traveling to the stars
and beyond.

I agree. if you have a spare trillion dollars, sign me up.

It would not take trillions of dollars. Just a little ingenuity.

And you could go. Space travel is really very simple.
A lot simple than our scientists like to make us think.

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 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".

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 observations support it?

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

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

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.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Mark Earnest wrote:
"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:18:58 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
Earnest" wrote:

Scientists are what are keeping us in Earth orbit 37 years after landing
a man on the Moon.

No, that would be money and politics. The US alone spends roughly 300x
more on war than on space, and whereas the defense budget grew by 35%
since 2001 the space budget has been cut. Attack the right people
please.

No, it is scientists that are keeping us in Earth orbit. They tell us it
would take many generations to reach a nearby star, and we blindly believe
it.

Actually, with current technology...we could get to the nearest star in
about 4 weeks.

Ah...
(Do you hear the cry of a loon?)
And do you have a calculation for this, or is it something you read in
Weekly World News?
We can't even get to Jupiter in four weeks with current technology.


The Space Shuttle could get there if you souped up its engines, in about 4
weeks. It just could not land, unless the Centaurians allowed it to land on
one of its desert landing strips.



(figures from NASA's budget request to congress, and the White House's
website, both docs freely available on the 'net, 1.6Bn and 401Bn
respectively so if you don't like em, blow the prez not me).

We should have long ago started traveling to the stars
and beyond.

I agree. if you have a spare trillion dollars, sign me up.

It would not take trillions of dollars. Just a little ingenuity.

And you could go. Space travel is really very simple.
A lot simple than our scientists like to make us think.

And I gather you have a scheme.

PD

"Mark Earnest" wrote in
:


"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:18:58 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
Earnest" wrote:

Scientists are what are keeping us in Earth orbit 37 years after
landing a man on the Moon.

No, that would be money and politics. The US alone spends roughly 300x
more on war than on space, and whereas the defense budget grew by 35%
since 2001 the space budget has been cut. Attack the right people
please.

No, it is scientists that are keeping us in Earth orbit. They tell us
it would take many generations to reach a nearby star, and we blindly
believe it.

Actually, with current technology...we could get to the nearest star in
about 4 weeks.

So why aren't you doing it instead of shooting your mouth off about things
for which your knowlege appears to be not significantly different to zero.

Klazmon.

SNIP

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.