"In Search of the Big Bang" (brief review)

Aren't we all!

Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel wrote:

Aren't we all!

Look in any direction - all 4(pi) steradians. Direct exactly in-line
at the end of your gaze is the Big Bang. Idiot.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

The big bang could not have started
as a mass singularity. If it did its
gravity would make it a black hole without any possibility of
expansion.

So do we take away gravity?
No. Because if we do we automtically
produce universal boudaries/an open
universe. Otherwise without gravity
the cosmology is one that violates
the No Boundary Proposal.

No gravity equals a violation of
the no boudary Proposal.

How do you like that?

So if you keep gravity and you don't
want a black hole the original matter
must be spread out. If it's spread out
it will not have a gravity so strong
as to not be able to expand/inflate.

"Nick" wrote in message
ups.com...
The big bang could not have started
as a mass singularity. If it did its
gravity would make it a black hole without any possibility of
expansion.

So do we take away gravity?
No. Because if we do we automtically
produce universal boudaries/an open
universe. Otherwise without gravity
the cosmology is one that violates
the No Boundary Proposal.

No gravity equals a violation of
the no boudary Proposal.

How do you like that?

So if you keep gravity and you don't
want a black hole the original matter
must be spread out. If it's spread out
it will not have a gravity so strong
as to not be able to expand/inflate.


In a high energy, low mass environment gravity is a non-effective force.
Current models of the universe give it around 10^-37 seconds before gravity
kicks in. This is a very long time.

Also, I thought big bang theory implied the universe began as a sea of
energy (photons?) which wouldn't have been affected (or have) gravity until
the other forces interacted enough to create objects with mass?

Dear T Wake:

"T Wake" wrote in message
...

"Nick" wrote in message
ups.com...
The big bang could not have started
as a mass singularity. If it did its
gravity would make it a black hole without
any possibility of expansion.

So do we take away gravity?
No. Because if we do we automtically
produce universal boudaries/an open
universe. Otherwise without gravity
the cosmology is one that violates
the No Boundary Proposal.

No gravity equals a violation of
the no boudary Proposal.

How do you like that?

So if you keep gravity and you don't
want a black hole the original matter
must be spread out. If it's spread out
it will not have a gravity so strong
as to not be able to expand/inflate.

In a high energy, low mass environment gravity
is a non-effective force. Current models of the
universe give it around 10^-37 seconds before
gravity kicks in. This is a very long time.

When the average particle energy is huge, yes.

Also, I thought big bang theory implied the
universe began as a sea of energy (photons?)

Probably quarks first, then the strong and weak interactions,
*then* EM forces (and the photon).

which wouldn't have been affected (or have)
gravity until the other forces interacted
enough to create objects with mass?

Photons also create curvature, and respond to curvature. But in
a small closed Universe, with uniform mass/energy distibution,
gravitation pulls uniformly in all directions. Net: no
particular pull, except to localized "lumps".

David A. Smith

So "The Big Bang" in is infinite directions?????????
What a handy hiding place! The chances of tracing the origin being
infinite also.................

..Jim G c'=c+v

" wrote in message
ups.com...
So "The Big Bang" in is infinite directions?????????
What a handy hiding place! The chances of tracing the
origin being infinite also.................

Hi Jim,

Come on, you know better than that. The theory
also says the universe was homogenous at large
scales so conditions here were the same as
everywhere else. The hydrogen atoms in your body
were made in the bang. You are still making the
common mistake of thinking of it as a localised
explosion in otherwise empty space, or are you
just trolling on a quiet weekend ;-)

George

George Dishman wrote:
" wrote in message
ups.com...
So "The Big Bang" in is infinite directions?????????
What a handy hiding place! The chances of tracing the
origin being infinite also.................

Hi Jim,

Come on, you know better than that. The theory
also says the universe was homogenous at large
scales so conditions here were the same as
everywhere else. The hydrogen atoms in your body
were made in the bang.

G'day George
I think it much more likely that the H in my system has been
in the form of emr particles (of whatever denomination- and including
nutrinos etal), and higher on the nuclear table
an INFINITE number of times. I just happen to be a combination of those
in the H mode at this period.
As for the homogoneity, pop the balloon (in vacuum), and the air LOOSES
its homogeneity. I realise that BB purports that an "external"
expansion carries matter with it, in order to bring about the increase
in volume of the universe, but it doesn't wash!
The air molecules on one side have a gravitational attraction towards
the other side (on average) which discount the homogenous expansion of
the universe--- or is that why anti-gravity is required??

Jim G
c'=c+v

You are still making the
common mistake of thinking of it as a localised
explosion in otherwise empty space, or are you
just trolling on a quiet weekend ;-)

George

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear T Wake:

"T Wake" wrote in message
...

"Nick" wrote in message
ups.com...
The big bang could not have started
as a mass singularity. If it did its
gravity would make it a black hole without
any possibility of expansion.

So do we take away gravity?
No. Because if we do we automtically
produce universal boudaries/an open
universe. Otherwise without gravity
the cosmology is one that violates
the No Boundary Proposal.

No gravity equals a violation of
the no boudary Proposal.

How do you like that?

So if you keep gravity and you don't
want a black hole the original matter
must be spread out. If it's spread out
it will not have a gravity so strong
as to not be able to expand/inflate.

In a high energy, low mass environment gravity
is a non-effective force. Current models of the
universe give it around 10^-37 seconds before
gravity kicks in. This is a very long time.

When the average particle energy is huge, yes.

Also, I thought big bang theory implied the
universe began as a sea of energy (photons?)

Probably quarks first, then the strong and weak interactions,
*then* EM forces (and the photon).

which wouldn't have been affected (or have)
gravity until the other forces interacted
enough to create objects with mass?

Photons also create curvature, and respond to curvature. But in
a small closed Universe, with uniform mass/energy distibution,
gravitation pulls uniformly in all directions. Net: no
particular pull, except to localized "lumps".

David A. Smith

" wrote in message
oups.com...


George Dishman wrote:
" wrote in message
ups.com...
So "The Big Bang" in is infinite directions?????????
What a handy hiding place! The chances of tracing the
origin being infinite also.................

Hi Jim,

Come on, you know better than that. The theory
also says the universe was homogenous at large
scales so conditions here were the same as
everywhere else. The hydrogen atoms in your body
were made in the bang.

G'day George
I think it much more likely that the H in my system has been
in the form of emr particles (of whatever denomination- and including
nutrinos etal), and higher on the nuclear table
an INFINITE number of times. I just happen to be a combination of those
in the H mode at this period.

That would be an alternative view but I
was addressing the apparent error in your
understanding of the Big Bang model. In
that, the hot, dense phase occurred
everywhere, not at a single location.

As for the homogoneity, pop the balloon (in vacuum), and the air LOOSES
its homogeneity.

In the balloon analogy, it is the (2D)
rubber that represents our (3D) space.
The rubber is homogenous but gets
thinner as the balloon swells.

I realise that BB purports that an "external"
expansion carries matter with it,

Nope, we discussed this at length many
months ago. The expansion is of the
three dimensions of space. Go back to
our lengthy thread with Sean.

in order to bring about the increase
in volume of the universe, but it doesn't wash!
The air molecules on one side have a gravitational attraction towards
the other side (on average) which discount the homogenous expansion of
the universe--- or is that why anti-gravity is required??

That is what creates galaxies. Over
short ranges matter is drawn together
by gravity while it is too weak at
longer ranges and the universe
continues to expand.

The cosmological term is required only
because the expansion appears to be
speeding up when it was expected to
be slowing down.

George