100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Big Bang Debunked? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I think Hawkins theory based on string theory particles appearing and disappearing randomly with no cause/effect principle in effect, shows that matter can and has the ability to sporadically appear. You can't see beyond/further back in time, than the "bang", because there was nothing before. Time and space are relative, no time...no space. Bang, time starts, space starts:) yea, no... can't rap my head around that... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. yes something out of nothing.. that's a lot of matter.. to come out of nowhere.. matter anti matter. doesn't matter.lol..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. question is where did the gravity come from...???. the absence. of air I understand. the absence of light I understand.. but the absence of gravity..hmm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. yes something out of nothing.. that's a lot of matter.. to come out of nowhere.. matter anti matter. doesn't matter.lol.. agreed, i look at the universe as a big recycling pit, trillions of years old... no BB, never any "nothingness" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
. that is. gravity being the one constant throughout the universe.. I'm not referring to mas. gravity. but initial gravity... seems to me it would have to be in place to . begin..hmm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
no1phD
on
Fri 03/14/14 09:34 AM
|
|
.. and I'm not speaking to . inertia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. perhaps less of a big bang.. more . like the growth that we see.. In crystallization.. are in cultured pearls..hmm.. yes I know doesn't explain the mass.. are gravity. but would get rid of inertia.. no explosives required... kid friendly..lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. perhaps less of a big bang.. more . like the growth that we see.. In crystallization.. are in cultured pearls..hmm.. yes I know doesn't explain the mass.. are gravity. but would get rid of inertia.. no explosives required... kid friendly..lol i kind of like the multiple BB theory... http://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/may/05/spaceexploration.universe |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
metalwing
on
Sun 03/16/14 11:28 AM
|
|
... They bring string theory into it to start telling us about a multiverse. Now here's the thing. to say multiverse to to say that the known universe that we've mapped out is all there is & there's copies of it out there somehow. it's totally unprovable & actually a kind to religion in that way. it reminds me of an ancient mythological motif, the world egg or the cosmic egg. parthenogenesis, look up that phrase in relation to religion. they base this off the idea that well in the quantum world, mathematically, all scenarios that could possibly exist all happen simultaneously therefor... multiverse. i'm like what! why? based on what some psychedelic experience cuz... humgf... ya know i'm cool with that... but lol you know. it's not like you can visit these alt worlds. also keep in mind just cuz the math says something must exist doesn't always ring true. other times it's not real, it's for an abstract purpose. like negative numbers, they don't actually exist but they exist in relation to other things. Then there's the problem of how did the inflation go faster than the speed of light? i thought Einstein said that was impossible? Welcome John. There are some mixed concepts here. In the quantum world, all possible locations of subatomic particles actually do occur. It is the basis of quantum physics. Without it, you would sink into your chair as your atoms mix among all that empty space. Quantum physics is well proven. If you expand that concept to the universe as we know it being the size of a subatomic particle, then infinite versions of it could exist too ... leading to the concept of parallel worlds. And Einstein didn't say space could not expand faster than the speed of light. He said matter could not travel faster than the speed of light. If the matter is located in expanding space, it travels at it's own speed plus the speed of the expanding space... somewhat like a plane flying with a tail wind. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... They bring string theory into it to start telling us about a multiverse. Now here's the thing. to say multiverse to to say that the known universe that we've mapped out is all there is & there's copies of it out there somehow. it's totally unprovable & actually a kind to religion in that way. it reminds me of an ancient mythological motif, the world egg or the cosmic egg. parthenogenesis, look up that phrase in relation to religion. they base this off the idea that well in the quantum world, mathematically, all scenarios that could possibly exist all happen simultaneously therefor... multiverse. i'm like what! why? based on what some psychedelic experience cuz... humgf... ya know i'm cool with that... but lol you know. it's not like you can visit these alt worlds. also keep in mind just cuz the math says something must exist doesn't always ring true. other times it's not real, it's for an abstract purpose. like negative numbers, they don't actually exist but they exist in relation to other things. Then there's the problem of how did the inflation go faster than the speed of light? i thought Einstein said that was impossible? Welcome John. There are some mixed concepts here. In the quantum world, all possible locations of subatomic particles actually do occur. It is the basis of quantum physics. Without it, you would sink into your chair as your atoms mix among all that empty space. Quantum physics is well proven. If you expand that concept to the universe as we know it being the size of a subatomic particle, then infinite versions of it could exist too ... leading to the concept of parallel worlds. And Einstein didn't say space could not expand faster than the speed of light. He said matter could not travel faster than the speed of light. If the matter is located in expanding space, it travels at it's own speed plus the speed of the expanding space... somewhat like a plane flying with a tail wind. wouldn't that still be matter traveling at the speed of light? even the plane's pilot would have to make corrections on how fast he gets there... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they say the big bang was sparked by quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations require space to be preexisting. The Big Bang was the beginning of Space-Time and therefore could not have been caused by quantum fluctuations by any current theory. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they say the big bang was sparked by quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations require space to be preexisting. The Big Bang was the beginning of Space-Time and therefore could not have been caused by quantum fluctuations by any current theory.  it's odd how you say that like it has to be true...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wouldn't that still be matter traveling at the speed of light? even the plane's pilot would have to make corrections on how fast he gets there... Well that's where the analogy breaks down, as all analogies do, at some point. The analogy is helpful for us to see that there can be two different contributions to a movement, but it can also cause confusion because it doesn't carry the critical difference between 'movement through space' and 'expansion of space'. You are right, MightMoe, that with a tailwind, the plane is still moving (relative to the earth) at a speed of: 'tail wind speed' + 'plane's speed relative to tail wind'. This result is a legit and meaningful measure of speed, relative to the earth's surface. If we tried to carry this over to metalwings statements, it would look like 'speed relative to space' + 'speed due to the expansion of space', but there are some very serious issues that come up when we do this. I don't understand them all. What does 'speed' even mean, if we are just trying to sum with the expansion of space itself? Is it correct and meaningful to do this? This raises some other questions about how things look to the observer, looking across a distance of expanding space, which I don't understand. What I do know is that any seeming 'greater than lightspeed' travel that might result doesn't invalidate relativity - the explanation I've heard is that relativity's lightspeed constraint deals with motion through space, not motion of space itself. (Hence some imaginings of a faster than light travel mechanism in which a bubble of space is made to move relative to surrounding space....) I may be repeating myself here, but I'm not happy with my lack of clarity: MetalWing is right and the distance between two chunks of matter can increase faster than the speed of light, if space itself is expanding. We might like to look at that and claim that this is some kind of 'movement faster the speed of light', but its not at all the kind of movement we are talking about when we say that 'nothing can move faster than c'. What I've read is that: when we say 'nothing can move faster than c', we are talking about the objects movement through space. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If quantum theory is right in its domain at all, the above argument for needing a space time weave for fluctuations to occur in points in the direction of multiple big bangs. This is reasoning, and perhaps human arguments are not sufficient for putting deeper truth of the cosmos, but it is indicative. Thanks for all the comments here and the utterly fantastic dialogues!
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hello all,
I believe in God and science are one of the same. and I do believe that the earth is older then we think, and the fact that ppl has only been on earth for 6,000 yrs, is really hard for me to believe! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hello all, I believe in God and science are one of the same. and I do believe that the earth is older then we think, and the fact that ppl has only been on earth for 6,000 yrs, is really hard for me to believe! People have been here a lot longer than 6000 years. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At least speculations like these can be talked about in a public setting nowadays, no witch hunts or threatening dry stocked stakes! http://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/may/05/spaceexploration.universe How did Penrose come to his conclusoin that concentric circles of gravitational force are from other univereses having expanded until they met with the opposing pull of multiple black holes? Or did I read it wrong? Glad to be in a place where I'm not going to get stared at, laughed at, or threatend for even asking the question, by the way. http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/sir-roger-penrose-alternate-theory-of-the-big-bang/ i agree with a lot of what Roger Penrose says about "things" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. question is where did the gravity come from...???. the absence. of air I understand. the absence of light I understand.. but the absence of gravity..hmm. I believe, though it could always be incorrect, gravity appears as a result of a strong enough magnetic pull combined with a thick enough atmosphere to ensure enough oxygenation plus gravity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question: Has anybody ever seen Stalin's chimpanzee experiments? From 1928? If so, any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question: Has anybody ever seen Stalin's chimpanzee experiments? From 1928? If so, any thoughts? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Ivanovich_Ivanov_(biologist) http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926701.000-the-forgotten-scandal-of-the-soviet-apeman.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee Might be possible through Genetic Manipulation,but unethical IMO! Island of Doctor Moreau. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Island_of_Doctor_Moreau |
|
|
|
|
