The Big Bang Theory Topic

[QuIcKPoInT]

My big bang theory will be hard to understand but i will tell you anyway

the theory is that; from nothing we can create something by using vibrations, heat, cold and static

 

if you have an unlimited amount of space, you can almost do anything (even if there is nothing to use)

 

what i am trying to say is that you can use the expansion of nothing to create small vibrations

 

everything is made of vibrations: inside the atom we see protons, neutrons and electrons but what we don't see is whats inside a neutron or a proton...

 

a proton is actually made up of small bands of vibrations

 

someone once said that all things are always moving (or vibrating)

 

back to the big bang theory, we now understand that by using the extreme forces of an unlimited space we can also create hot and cold spots by vibrations that are caused by the expansion of nothing!

 

STATIC. static is created by vibrations too, so if we can create protons, neutrons and electrons by vibrations then we can create the ATOM...

 

but.. even if you create one atom then it still wouldn't create what we are now

 

but.. we have unlimited amount of space here guys... we can actually create bigger atoms than the ones we know of right now, in fact, we can create atoms that are so powerful, that the atom itself is too unstable to get any bigger... and BOOM!

 

 

THE BLACK HOLE THEORY

 

it starts off as believing that the black hole isnt exactly a hole but instead

 

it appears as a black ball, sucking all matter into the core or the centre of the black hole

 

this allows us to come up with more ideas on what black holes can do and what they really are

 

 

My Theory is that all matter that enters a black hole "or ball" it compresses into an extremely small size (close to an atom) and they just keep compressing matter and more matter and more matter, sadly its just gonna do that to a point that i have had no thought about until i just wrote this sentence XD.

 

nope, i was wrong

 

 

you still cant create something from nothing

 

 

but i had a few ideas XD

[Solve]

"something from nothing" is an interesting consideration. The notion is that "If there is something then it should have been created from something" and so on. Finally it is believed that the ultimate thing is created from Nothing and we can go further by asking "From where did "Nothing" came from ? or How "Nothing" was Created ? "

[LightHeavyW8]

You will frequently see the proclamation here that "Nothing can travel faster than light", and that's exactly what BBers think - that Space, i.e., Nothing, is expanding... faster than light!

 

 

LHW

[Klaynos]

You will frequently see the proclamation here that "Nothing can travel faster than light", and that's exactly what BBers think - that Space, i.e., Nothing, is expanding... faster than light!

 

 

LHW

 

Travelling faster than light and expanding faster than light is not the same thing.

[LightHeavyW8]

Traveling faster than light and expanding faster than light is not the same thing.

How can we tell which phenomenon we are observing?

 

LHW

[Spyman]

Observational evidence

 

Theoretical cosmologists developing models of the universe have drawn upon a small number of reasonable assumptions in their work. These workings have led to models in which the metric expansion of space is a likely feature of the universe. Chief among the underlying principles that result in models including metric expansion as a feature are:

 

• the Cosmological Principle which demands that the universe looks the same way in all directions (isotropic) and has roughly the same smooth mixture of material (homogeneous).
   
  
• the Copernican Principle which demands that no place in the universe is preferred (that is, the universe has no "starting point").
  

Scientists have tested carefully whether these assumptions are valid and borne out by observation. Observational cosmologists have discovered evidence - very strong in some cases - that supports these assumptions, and as a result, metric expansion of space is considered by cosmologists to be an observed feature on the basis that although we cannot see it directly, scientists have tested the properties of the universe and observation provides compelling confirmation. Sources of this confidence and confirmation include:

 

• Hubble demonstrated that all galaxies and distant astronomical objects were moving away from us, as predicted by a universal expansion. Using the redshift of their electromagnetic spectra to determine the distance and speed of remote objects in space, he showed that all objects are moving away from us, and that their speed is proportional to their distance, a feature of metric expansion. Further studies have since shown the expansion to be extremely isotropic and homogeneous, that is, it does not seem to have a special point as a "center", but appears universal and independent of any fixed central point.
   
  
• In studies of large-scale structure of the cosmos taken from redshift surveys a so-called "End of Greatness" was discovered at the largest scales of the universe. Until these scales were surveyed, the universe appeared "lumpy" with clumps of galaxy clusters and superclusters and filaments which were anything but isotropic and homogeneous. This lumpiness disappears into a smooth distribution of galaxies at the largest scales.
   
  
• The isotropic distribution across the sky of distant gamma-ray bursts and supernovae is another confirmation of the Cosmological Principle.
   
  
• The Copernican Principle was not truly tested on a cosmological scale until measurements of the effects of the cosmic microwave background radiation on the dynamics of distant astrophysical systems were made. A group of astronomers at the European Southern Observatory noticed, by measuring the temperature of a distant intergalactic cloud in thermal equilibrium with the cosmic microwave background, that the radiation from the Big Bang was demonstrably warmer at earlier times. Uniform cooling of the cosmic microwave background over billions of years is explainable only if the universe is experiencing a metric expansion.
  

Taken together, the only theory which coherently explains these phenomena relies on space expanding through a change in metric. Interestingly, it was not until the discovery in the year 2000 of direct observational evidence for the changing temperature of the cosmic microwave background that more bizarre constructions could be ruled out. Until that time, it was based purely on an assumption that the universe did not behave as one with the Milky Way sitting at the middle of a fixed-metric with a universal explosion of galaxies in all directions (as seen in, for example, an early model proposed by Milne). Yet before this evidence, many rejected the Milne viewpoint based on the mediocrity principle.

 

The spatial and temporal universality of physical laws was until very recently taken as a fundamental philosophical assumption that is now tested to the observational limits of time and space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

[LightHeavyW8]

Ah, but what do we have HERE? Dissidents? Crackpots, I say - every #@*& one of 'em!

 

 

LHW

[swansont]

Ah, but what do we have HERE? Dissidents? Crackpots, I say - every #@*& one of 'em!

 

 

LHW

 

!

Moderator Note

This is a thread for QuIcKPoInT's speculation. Hijacking it with other objections to the Big Bang is against the rules.

 

If you wish to discuss what a crock of excrement that letter is, start a new thread

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

LightHeavyW8's hijack has been moved to http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/54581-big-bang-wrong/

[Fivetide]

Mass exist because it can exist, it’s not some kind of extensile excuse for existence it’s a simple fact. We can’t postulate on why, and not even on where from, the question is “How much”. How much separates the argument, is there more mass than the universe or only what we know? Is our universe the only one ever to exist , if so it will be the last and therefore everything we ever discus about science is irrelevant , finding a unified theory is pointless, all what we discover will fade away like the expanding universe, all matter decaying into radiation.

 

Hawkings postulated the big bang, but did he explain why it was a only the mass that makes the universe , why that specific amount, why not a 1000 x’s more or where’s the pressure wave of energy that would have had to been pushed in front of the explosion, your saying that all the radiation – mass in the universe came to a point perfectly in a single moment.. ? What if there was more mass, more radiation or mass than the “big bang”, where is it ?