Big Bang and black hole

[Severian]

If the expansion of the universe is accelerating does't it mean that the universe is open ?

 

It is a lot more complicated than that once you include dark energy or a cosmological constant. These sites might help:

 

http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo21.html

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec21.html and on

[Jacques]

Thanks Severian for the links!

This bring an other question: why does the cosmological constant add up instead of subtracting. The dark energy accelerate the expansion of the universe contrary to matter. It is some kind of anti-gravity. Gravity addup in the equation so why does "anti-gravity" doesn't subtrac ?

Thanks again

[PersonCube]

Okay, durr, come on people...

 

THE UNIVERSE IS A CUBE

 

 

Geez, not /rocket science/

~Cubes

[Jacques]

So nobody can explain how the big bang is possible except a cue from the Rebel

At the risk of blaspheming in the eyes of other forum members. Some have said that c was a lot faster then than it is now. Meaning mass did indeed go faster than light.

[Sayonara]

The big bang doesn't really need an explanation.

[[Tycho?]]

The big bang doesn't really need an explanation.

 

Why in the world not?

[Sayonara]

Because physics sets out to describe the universe, and whatever caused the big bang is outside that scope.

[jordan]

That's begining to sound like a creationist-style argument to me.

[Sayonara]

What? The fact that something outside the universe is not part of the universe?

[jordan]

You can substitute the word "God" for each time you see "big bang" in your last three posts and it sounds like what every creationist says.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by saying that the big bang is out of our current scope of understanding. Why make it sound like scientists don't care about what caused it?

[Sayonara]

I didn't say it was outside the scope of our understanding; I said it was outside the scope of what physics aims to describe.

 

Saying "creationists make invalid claims too" doesn't really refute what I said.

[jordan]

You've lost me. Jacques asked for an explanation of what caused the big bang. You replied "why do we need one", in escence saying that we don't really need one. Then you yourself brought in the fact that physics does not cover that. Jacques never asked about physics, just if we can explain it. So by sidesteping the question, it looks to me as though you have resorted to the same creationist-style arguements that you so hate.

[Sayonara]

Actually, I did not say "why do we need one?". That implies subscription to the belief that there is no answer, or at best apathy towards the question, neither of which are attributes I have.

I said the big bang didn't really need an explanation. Assuming we believe it happened, that's all we really need to know as far as the rest of the universe goes. Insofar as we understand the universe, what happened after point zero was independent of what happened before it.

 

This lack of explanation is not unique to physics - there is no science that describes events outside this universe. Obviously that doesn't mean that there wasn't 'a cause'.

 

The creationist approach would be to suggest some made-up explanation, surely?

[jordan]

All of which is understandable. But the fact that events before and after the big bang are seperate is independent of the fact that we are going to search for a cause to the big bang. So the fact that everything subsequent to the big bang can be understood without actualy understanding the big bang doesn't answer the question "What caused it"?

[Sayonara]

But the fact that events before and after the big bang are seperate is independent of the fact that we are going to search for a cause to the big bang.

Yes. However that doesn't really mean anything, other than the fact that you need to start by defining a new framework of 'everything', without knowing what that everything comprises.

 

 

So the fact that everything subsequent to the big bang can be understood without actualy understanding the big bang doesn't answer the question "What caused it"?

In what way exactly did my "it doesn't really need an explanation" reply suggest to you that I was trying to answer that question?

[jordan]

In what way exactly did my "it doesn't really need an explanation" reply suggest to you that I was trying to answer that question?

That's exactly what I've been trying to figure out. It didn't answer his question, but if it wasn't an attempt to answer it, what was it?

 

But where is this going anyway? I guess I understand now what you were getting at, I just don't agree with it.

[Sayonara]

That's exactly what I've been trying to figure out. It didn't answer his question, but if it wasn't an attempt to answer it, what was it?

An on-topic comment directly related to and affecting the discussion in hand, pointing out to Jacques one of the reasons he has not got the replies he had hoped for, in direct response to his questioning of said lack of responses.

 

So, mind telling me why you are the thought police all of a sudden?

[us.2u]

The universe was...still is & proberly always will be, because I believe even nothing is something & those kind of physics are beyond us all: as clever as man may be if inelligence was responsible for creation; then that intelligence is far superior to ours, so if we were created... then God is a Divine super-intelligent being or super intelligent alien; if we became about by mysterious chemical reactions accidently or otherwise, I guess we'll never know, but however I became... I'm grateful, & love to explore out-there...

[jordan]

An on-topic comment directly related to and affecting the discussion in hand' date=' pointing out to Jacques one of the reasons he has not got the replies he had hoped for, in direct response to his questioning of said lack of responses.

 

So, mind telling me why you are the thought police all of a sudden?[/quote']

Alright. This doesn't pertain to the discussion much anymore. I was only curious about your first two responses because they disapointed me. I hope that there is some way to discover a cause for the big bang and to see you give up on it so quickly was disapointing. Surely there is someone out there working on it. In fact, I know there is. But just because that's not contained in the spectrum of physics doesn't mean there aren't presentable theories.

[Sayonara]

Alright. This doesn't pertain to the discussion much anymore.

The debate with you was never intended to. My o/p in this chain did, and still does.

 

 

I was only curious about your first two responses because they disapointed me.

I really don't like this phrase, but it seems to fit: "That's your problem".

 

 

I hope that there is some way to discover a cause for the big bang and to see you give up on it so quickly was disapointing.

I don't really think I did "give up" on anything, bearing in mind the meaning of the words I carefully chose, and the order I put them in.

[Guest scienceboy]

Hi

At the Big Bang period all the mass of the universe was contained in a very small volume. I think that the density and mass is enought to consider the universe at that time has a black hole and from a blackhole nothing can go out.

Then how is it possible that the Bigbang happened ?

Do we live in a blackhole ?

 

Big bang and black hole are the two important predictions

of general theory of relativity. Their nature is compleatly opposite to each other. Nothing can come from

a black hole (forget about Hawkin's radiation) everything goes into it. Everything comes from the big bang, nothing goes into it. Now one can understand that they are on the two opposite ends. If you like, you can call a big bang: anti black hole or white hole.

bye

[Sayonara]

Yeah, except that's wrong.

[Jacques]

Can you explain more why you thinks that's wrong?

[Sayonara]

For a start, it is not factually correct that nothing leaves a black hole. Hand-waving with "just forget the stuff that leaves them" doesn't work without some damned good evidence.

[ed84c]

For a start, it is not factually correct that nothing leaves a black hole. Hand-waving with "just forget the stuff that leaves them" doesn't work without some damned good evidence.

 

'' A black hole has no hair'' i.e. u cannot know what whent into a black hole once it has become one with the singualrity.

 

However it can loose mass, e.g. hawking radiation. And now those damned string theorists recond black holes are ''fuzzy''