Big Bang Question

nightbat wrote

Granite Stone wrote:

I always thought that the universe is trillions of years old and the
big bang wwas a useless argument. We just discovered light 13 billions
years away yet everyone said the universe is 4 billion years old. I
believe the universe is trillions years old and the discovery of the
13 billion-light is just the beginning.

jon
ottawa

nightbat

Well, the Universe being theoretically a few trillion years is
better then just 4 billion years old like approximately our sun, still
it is closer to infinity which is the time frame of energy. If you think
the 13 billion-light is just the beginning isn't that a circular
argument because you're back to the very beginning which you claimed was
a lot older then that? Stick with energy's proven time frame,
mathematicians would most probably tend to agreed with you.


the nightbat

nightbat wrote

Benign Vanilla wrote:

"Granite Stone" wrote in message
om...
I always thought that the universe is trillions of years old and the
big bang wwas a useless argument. We just discovered light 13 billions
years away yet everyone said the universe is 4 billion years old. I
believe the universe is trillions years old and the discovery of the
13 billion-light is just the beginning.

The 13.5 billion light year figure is simply a measurement of our sphere of
view. The Universe is surely bigger, we just can't see past that mark yet.

BV.

nightbat

Yep, BV, appearances can be deceiving, however the mathematical
proof of energy is not. So the energy based Universe is correspondingly
larger, energy eternal, and timely infinite, and self indestructible, so
yes larger fits even if we can't physically see it in totality yet.


the nightbat

nightbat wrote

Odysseus wrote:

John Zinni wrote:

"Granite Stone" wrote in message
om...
I always thought that the universe is trillions of years old and the
big bang wwas a useless argument. We just discovered light 13 billions
years away yet everyone said the universe is 4 billion years old. I

I know of no one (but you) who says the universe is 4 billion years old.

AISTR when I was quite young I came across that figure (perhaps at
school, or in popularized-for-youth reading material) as the age of
the Earth or the Solar system, but I don't remember ever seeing it
given for the whole universe.

--
Odysseus

nightbat

Ha, ha, ha, ha, Odysseus, that's because probably some of those
real old science schools books originally had our observed approx. 4
billion year old Solar system as the entire known Universe. Wasn't until
early twentieth century and better telescopes that we all got a clearer
and relayed picture that some of those first thought of point stars
turned out to be actually distant galaxies. We are still finding even
approximated more then 13 billions of years older star bodies using
infrared and radio scopes. Einstein by the way was originally trying to
just figure out at first the physical thought huge 4 billion year old
estimated Universe when quantum energy indications, better telescopes,
and Hubble came along.


the nightbat

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.

Mass came to be because of gravitational waves which lead back right
into the bigbang's earliest moments.

greetings

*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*

lid (bigbang2_dot_tk) wrote in message ...
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.

Mass came to be because of gravitational waves which lead back right
into the bigbang's earliest moments.

greetings

*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*


So how did gravitational waves cause matter to precipitate out of the
previous high-energy, high-density photon-matter-antimatter
equilibrium?

And where did the all the antiparticles go?

Double-A

bigbang2_dot_tk wrote:

Mass came to be because of gravitational waves which lead back right
into the bigbang's earliest moments.

That seems almost tautological, considering that mass and gravitation
come as a package, so to speak.

--
Odysseus

"bigbang2_dot_tk" wrote in message
...
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.

Mass came to be because of gravitational waves which lead back right
into the bigbang's earliest moments.

Aren't gravitational waves a function of mass? And if so, how did we have
gravity if there was no mass?

BV.

Aren't gravitational waves a function of mass? And if so, how did we have
gravity if there was no mass?

The Mass celebrates Gravitas.

_______
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

"bigbang2_dot_tk" wrote in message
...
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.

Mass came to be because of gravitational waves which lead back right
into the bigbang's earliest moments.

greetings

*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*---



ok let us all admit it. It is all a mystery in which there is no possible
way to explain. The Creator was, and forever shall be. We will only know a
billioneth of one percent of His ways. Stop wasting time trying to put it
down in formulae or rational thought. Yes indeed, thank God for
gravitational waves.















--------------------*

i think nightbat as got a point (if I understand him correctly.)

Lately when I read about "the universe"--I find that highly presumptious.
Because now I'm starting to wonder if this is just "our universe", the only one
we are aware of and investigating at the moment.

I am just a novice astronomer, I still am in the process of digesting
Einstein's relativity theory, the space/time continuum and all the other great
theorys that have come down the grapevine since this morning, but it seems to
me that because dark matter exists, and that a possibility of shadow matter (or
shadow universes) exist, then why is the Big Bang capitalized as if its the
only one? It would seem to me that energy is infinite, it has no beginning.
How could a scientist recognize a "first cause"; something that seems
inconceivable with the current data.

Please if any team/group is currently arguing these ideas let me know, as I
would like to expand on this thread!

Regards,

Tom M.