Has Science confused the Big Bang with a Whimper?

[rigney]

Having read a mountain of materials, I'm still a rented mule, speaking scientifically. Came across this a few days back and was wondering how there could have been such heat in that first moment of time if nothing had yet been formed (atoms) to create such chaos? Dos any of the following make sense? If so, gimme!

Edited July 11, 2012 by rigney

[rigney]

Having read a mountain of materials, I'm still a rented mule, speaking scientifically. Came across this a few days back and was wondering how there could have been such heat in that first moment of time if nothing had yet been formed (atoms) to create such chaos? Dos any of the following make sense? If so, gimme!

 

Something else to think about!

 

Time before Time

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0408/0408111.pdf

Edited July 12, 2012 by rigney

[HenryB]

Keep in mind that this forum is for speculation, to throw it out and see what sticks, and have fun.

 

 

I don’t go along with the idea that everything shot out of nothing. If I look into an empty box I do not expect to see things move. My theory is that everything begins as a particle with a basic brain and started the journey from its source long before any big bang.

 

The particle is small in the beginning, like the size of the quark compared to the Milky Way. However, each one is able to make a simple yes or no decision and has the ability to remember and learn. It has only one purpose in life and that is to resist motion and to return from where it came. It came from a place where there is no energy or motion, a place where speed = zero, and energy = zero. If you look into the box it shot out of you will see nothing move. Only after a very long time does the particles, as groups, grow to become chemical and biological in size.

 

 

A particle leaves the source with a trace of negative force, which is the reason for it having to leave home. The particle learns during its journey that combining with other particles that the combinations slow down. The combinations become blobs. The blobs leave the uncombined particles to continue their pace.

 

The blobs move at different speeds, each with its own degree of force. But the selection process is not random. The combination process is natural selection and it progresses according to a fixed pattern. The blobs, as a community, still retain that one thought, though.

 

 

Having slowed down (to a speed much, much faster than that of light) the blob attracts other blobs and the blob begins growing, with each blob having its own force signature. At this stage no blob is anywhere near the size of the imagined “God Particle”.

 

 

The “God Particle”, or “God Blob” is a collection of particles that have slowed way, way down and in the earliest stage of becoming a chemical.

 

 

It took eons for an actual “God Blob” to form. When it did it was much, much smaller than any machine can detect. Anything flying out of a proton under duress is a colossus compared to the “God Blob”.

 

 

If science is to understand creation it must use the brain that it was born with and not try to create something out of nothing.

 

 

 

 

[rigney]

Keep in mind that this forum is for speculation, to throw it out and see what sticks, and have fun.

 

 

I don’t go along with the idea that everything shot out of nothing. If I look into an empty box I do not expect to see things move. My theory is that everything begins as a particle with a basic brain and started the journey from its source long before any big bang.

 

The particle is small in the beginning, like the size of the quark compared to the Milky Way. However, each one is able to make a simple yes or no decision and has the ability to remember and learn. It has only one purpose in life and that is to resist motion and to return from where it came. It came from a place where there is no energy or motion, a place where speed = zero, and energy = zero. If you look into the box it shot out of you will see nothing move. Only after a very long time does the particles, as groups, grow to become chemical and biological in size.

 

 

A particle leaves the source with a trace of negative force, which is the reason for it having to leave home. The particle learns during its journey that combining with other particles that the combinations slow down. The combinations become blobs. The blobs leave the uncombined particles to continue their pace.

 

The blobs move at different speeds, each with its own degree of force. But the selection process is not random. The combination process is natural selection and it progresses according to a fixed pattern. The blobs, as a community, still retain that one thought, though.

 

 

Having slowed down (to a speed much, much faster than that of light) the blob attracts other blobs and the blob begins growing, with each blob having its own force signature. At this stage no blob is anywhere near the size of the imagined “God Particle”.

 

 

The “God Particle”, or “God Blob” is a collection of particles that have slowed way, way down and in the earliest stage of becoming a chemical.

 

 

It took eons for an actual “God Blob” to form. When it did it was much, much smaller than any machine can detect. Anything flying out of a proton under duress is a colossus compared to the “God Blob”.

 

 

If science is to understand creation it must use the brain that it was born with and not try to create something out of nothing.

 

 

I'm not keen on creation as such! But that this universe has been here forever, I do believe. And as you say, this part of the forum is speculative at best, and not scientific fact. I believe science is now at a crossroads of understanding what the universe is all about. And I believe the more science finds out about dark matter and dark energy will eventually lead them to what I believe is a cyclical universe. I don't care much for the big bang or big crunch, but a subtle building up of dark matter at the center of this continuum and sitting there quietly until all matter has finally been changed back into: "QUAUQS". Guess you could call it a new genesis? Edited July 12, 2012 by rigney

[HenryB]

Not to confuse creation with “creation”. If there is such a thing as divinity it is way beyond me. I try to understand motion and size and work from that. Motion and size started somewhere. Motion is when one thing moves with respect to another. I try to understand how that first motion happened. As far as size is concerned I do not put a limit on how small or how large something is. It is not how many angels will fit on the tip of a pin, but how large was the first particle to move, and why did it move. Also I do not believe what happens in the universe is random. I believe that if there were another universe that it would behave exactly the same as the one we are in, right down to the thoughts in our head (they probably all happened before).

 

[rigney]

Not to confuse creation with “creation”. If there is such a thing as divinity it is way beyond me. I try to understand motion and size and work from that. Motion and size started somewhere. Motion is when one thing moves with respect to another. I try to understand how that first motion happened. As far as size is concerned I do not put a limit on how small or how large something is. It is not how many angels will fit on the tip of a pin, but how large was the first particle to move, and why did it move. Also I do not believe what happens in the universe is random. I believe that if there were another universe that it would behave exactly the same as the one we are in, right down to the thoughts in our head (they probably all happened before).

 

I don't believe in creation either, but I do believe in continuation. From where matter first came, none of us have anything more than a WAG? And even though great theories have been formulated by scientists understanding how elements fit into the the periodic table, they are still only theories. I wish science could put a handle on the origin of matter other than saying the universe began as something smaller than an atom and hotter than any understandable heat imaginable. And both, "without a known source".

I just read a post about dust around a galxy simply vanishing in less than a lifetime and explaining it as what dark matter may be. ukgazzer posted it yesterday @1:20 PM. Called it, "Matter turning into Dark Matter". It's also in speculations, and interesting.

Edited July 12, 2012 by rigney

[HenryB]

If you are saying that the cosmic whiz kids are just pulling our leg you could be right. For sure there are tiny grains of dust moving around in the universe, but identifying them from millions and millions of miles away is a bit much. I'd sooner believe that there is someone out there sweeping them up with a broom.

 

 

[rigney]

If you are saying that the cosmic whiz kids are just pulling our leg you could be right. For sure there are tiny grains of dust moving around in the universe, but identifying them from millions and millions of miles away is a bit much. I'd sooner believe that there is someone out there sweeping them up with a broom.

"Tooth Fairies" only trouble those who don't believe in anything but total reality. LOL. And millions of miles away? Why not make that light years? There are some very sharp people here on earth looking out there for answers. All we can do is hope they find them. Since I'm a hardass with my own convictions and can't hide my disdain for those who: "Know Everything", I'm usually out numbered. Cheers! Edited July 12, 2012 by rigney

[HenryB]

Yes, I think the closest dust (like fine particles of soot) is 50 trillion miles away. I think we should wait a while 'til we get a little closer, like maybe a few feet.

[D H]

I don't believe in creation either, but I do believe in continuation.

That is a belief. It isn't scientific. Scientific notions are testable. There are some cosmologists who are working on notions along the lines of "before the big bang", but there are a whole lot more who think that such notions are nonsense, not science, or both.

 

 

From where matter first came, none of us have anything more than a WAG?

A WAG?? Big bang cosmology is not a WAG. There are still some unknowns. Grand unification (combining the electroweak and strong interactions) is something physicists don't know how to do. The inflationary period is perhaps a WAG; there's a lot of cosmologists who don't really like it, and a lot more who only begrudgingly accept it. So the first 10^-32 seconds of the universe is perhaps a bit fuzzy. There's still 14.6 billion years after that where the science is pretty dang solid.

 

 

And even though great theories have been formulated by scientists understanding how elements fit into the the periodic table, they are still only theories.

Come off it. How long have you been at this site? You should know by now that the phrase "only a theory" is a pile of stinking nonsense used by crackpots, creationists, and scientific illiterates. Scientific theories are the best that science can offer.

 

 

I wish science could put a handle on the origin of matter other than saying the universe began as something smaller than an atom and hotter than any understandable heat imaginable. And both, "without a known source".

Why? That is an unreasonable wish, and also represents an ill-formed view of science. Science is constrained to giving answers that are testable. If you want the answer to life, the universe, and everything, either read the Hitchhiker's Guide or seek religion. Religions have no problem with answering unanswerable questions. It's pretty simple: Just pull nonsense out of some orifice. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant. Science is honest. It eventually says "we don't know." There's nothing wrong with "we don't know." It is the honest answer, after all, and it gives future scientists a place where they can extend the boundaries of science.

[rigney]

rigney: From where matter first came, none of us have anything more than a WAG?

 

DH: A WAG?? Big bang cosmology is not a WAG. There are still some unknowns. Grand unification (combining the electroweak and strong interactions) is something physicists don't know how to do. The inflationary period is perhaps a WAG; there's a lot of cosmologists who don't really like it, and a lot more who only begrudgingly accept it. So the first 10-32 seconds of the universe is perhaps a bit fuzzy. There's still 14.6 billion years after that where the science is pretty dang solid.

 

Perhaps a bit fuzzy? Personaly, I'd say fuzzier! I'm not denouncing science, only asking questions. You seem to think that shouldn't be allowed unless a person has a Phd in Physics or Cosmology. This section of the forum is for speculations, not absolute fact. And the age of the universe?

The Universe is Precisely 13.75 Billion Years Old : Discovery News

Edited July 13, 2012 by rigney