Big Bang Question

Benign Vanilla wrote:

"Jimmie" wrote in message
. com...

Did the big bang propagate matter through space or did it propagate space
too. What brought this up was we were discussing Hubble's theory of an
expanding universe in High School Physics class. It occured to me that if
the entire universe was reduced to a single pont just prior to the Big

Bang

that Hubbles observations may be useless as the universe could be

collapsing

even though Hubbles observations would seem to indicate expansion.
On the other hand Hubbes deductions would be much more likely if the Big
Bang just scattered matter through space.


The BB didn't occur IN space, it created it. Initially, space contained only
energy, and as it expanded and cooled, mass came to be.

BV.




BV:

What, specifically was the cause of the BB?

What cause existed before the creation that you mentioned? If nothing
existed, wouldn't it also be impossible that any cause could exist prior to
the effect of the creation amnd expansion? If nothing would the effect also
be nothing, and that the universe would not be a result?

Ralph Hertle
732-603-0685

What cause existed before the creation that you mentioned? If nothing
existed, wouldn't it also be impossible

perhaps pure open time and space, unlcuttered, mythic purity, as close as we
currently know. undiscovered, unmarked vista. surreal but real, not haunted,
but goodness. before the fall, as we like to say in one tradition, but i used
that term only as a "frame of reference" because it illuminates the view.

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

What cause existed before the creation that you mentioned?

perhaps a harmonic agreement that is Golden ratio, etc, unlocks nature's code?
universe meeting itself, so to speak, an agreement harmonically attuned? a rare
but possible agreement of circumstance and effort? though one perhaps deeply
aligned with universal purpose? so in some way ordained by nature?

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

In message , SunDancingGay
writes
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:03:42 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

In message , Chuck Farley
writes
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:38:59 GMT, "Jimmie"
wrote:


"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"Jimmie" wrote in message
. com...
[....]
Anyway I dont think Hubble's observation were very definitive and what he
saw may have been an illusion of sorts because I believe that the universe
could be contracting even though matter in the universe may be moving
further apart. Of course he may have been absolutly correct, I just think
the data does not support the findings well enough to give it the
credability it has received.

Top Ten problems with the Big Bang

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmolog...BBproblems.asp

Well, his first one is just wrong. A static universe isn't stable.

His sixth one is no longer valid. See
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ...94n1/36650/sc0
.html for instance.

I'm no expert, so I'll just ask if dark matter (point 8) has anything to
do with the big bang. AIUI, it's something you need to stop galaxies
falling apart in any model.

Two (or three) out of ten is pretty good for an amateur in 5 minutes :-)

So you feel "He's just wrong" qualifies as a rebuttal! Chuckle.

Perhaps I'd better explain that a static universe must be infinite if
the stars in it aren't to coalesce. That's the only way the pull of
gravity can be even for every object in it. That idea goes back to
Newton.
Such a universe runs into Olbers' paradox.

nightbat wrote

Benign Vanilla wrote:

"Jimmie" wrote in message
. com...
Did the big bang propagate matter through space or did it propagate space
too. What brought this up was we were discussing Hubble's theory of an
expanding universe in High School Physics class. It occured to me that if
the entire universe was reduced to a single pont just prior to the Big
Bang
that Hubbles observations may be useless as the universe could be
collapsing
even though Hubbles observations would seem to indicate expansion.
On the other hand Hubbes deductions would be much more likely if the Big
Bang just scattered matter through space.

The BB didn't occur IN space, it created it. Initially, space contained only
energy, and as it expanded and cooled, mass came to be.

BV.

nightbat

Not according to these links BV, per Big Bang theory premise it
was originally an vacuum void with all energy and matter theoretically
existing in a purported singularity that exploded everywhere and into
the creation of space time itself.

See:
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomfr...2Fbb_home.html

Also see Shortcomings of the BB Standard Cosmology at above same link

Also See Big Bang Theory in-depth:
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomfr...2FBigBang.html

Well the CMB(Cosmic microwave background) put the icing on the cake for
the BB. Gamow predicted years before it was discovered that its
temperature would be 3 K Discovered in 1965 its temp in every direction
was 2.7 Hmmmm shows that theoretical thinking is one of our brain's
great features. This uniform radiation also proved the universe was
"isotropic" That is a much needed feature for the BB theory.
Our COBE also added icing to the cake. Could add (but will leave out
explaining) that "cosmic element abundance" can't be over looked
in showing the BB theory is great thinking. Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Well the CMB(Cosmic microwave background) put the icing on the cake for
the BB. Gamow predicted years before it was discovered that its
temperature would be 3 K Discovered in 1965 its temp in every direction
was 2.7 Hmmmm shows that theoretical thinking is one of our brain's
great features. This uniform radiation also proved the universe was
"isotropic" That is a much needed feature for the BB theory.
Our COBE also added icing to the cake. Could add (but will leave out
explaining) that "cosmic element abundance" can't be over looked
in showing the BB theory is great thinking. Bert

Sorry, and the trillion years you say gravity needs to arrive at present
universe?
Isn't that a bit not standard BB?

Luigi Caselli

Luigi "Standard" BB,and what is a "standard" BB relative to? Possibly
what Google tells us???? Hmmmm Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Luigi "Standard" BB,and what is a "standard" BB relative to? Possibly
what Google tells us???? Hmmmm Bert

Means only, according to last observations, that our universe is 13,7
billion years old (more or less).
You like BB theory so why thinking different?
You say BB is a great theory, you say we have confirmition like the
radiation at 2,7 K and so on...
So why talking about trillion years to evolve universe?
Do you want to destroy such a beautiful theory that you love so much?

Luigi Caselli

Luigi Can't see where I'm destroying the BB theory by giving it more
operational time. Bert