If The "big Bang" Theory Is Correct...

[UKMan]

If you believe in the Big Bang theory, then explain what came before that - and in that case, what came before that. If you dont, then what is your opinion or belief?

My own personal opinion is that the answer is so simple, it defies logic:
Space has allways been there and there was nothing before that because it has allways existed!

I also believe that (if there is a God/Creator/Thing/Entity/Whatever - whatever your definition is) - he is only OUR God/etc/etc and that other Gods/etc/etc exist in other universies or/and Galaxies.

Please keep this on a nice level with good deap discussions and no trashing please. Everyone has a right to their own opinion without being flamed - including lil'ol'me :D :lol:

Peace
UKSpaceMan

[Lamsey]

I think that humans automatically assume that there has to be limits to things, to make them fit into their imaginations - infinity is somewhat difficult to picture.

I think that's where things like the Big Bang theory and Creationism come from - an attempt to justify a universe in terms that humans can be comfortable with.

Personally, I'm quite happy with the idea that space is unlimited, always has been and always will be. Others don't find this so easy to accept.

[4play]

my theory is that there was always a universe likes your theory ukman but this is not the first big bang. when the universe expands due to the explosion it is then sucked back together slowly by gravity.

[Gemby!]

i think mummy and daddy called up my stork and said "Hey we want a perfect daughter!" and then mr stork said " why certainly!"

thats how it all began :lol: :lol:

[MediaSlayer]

this is slightly different than the big bang, but its relevant:
one night i was partying with some germans and we were sitting around talking, having a good time. then this subject came up, as it always does. I asked this guy how we came to be in this present state and he said we evolved, like darwin said. He said we came from monkeys, and before monkeys existed there were smaller life forms. Before the smaller life forms, there was no earth, just space. Basically he said everything just came to be. The universe just "happened". When I asked what happens when you die, he said we just "go into the dirt". In other words, nothing happens, your existance is over.

[Lamsey]

Originally posted by MediaSlayer@10 November 2003 - 19:52
When I asked what happens when you die, he said we just "go into the dirt". In other words, nothing happens, your existance is over.
Yeah. Most humans really don't like coming to terms with that one.

[MediaSlayer]

yeah, death is a part of life

[Billy_Dean]

It seems fairly likely that there was a Big Bang. The obvious question that could be asked to challenge or define the boundaries between physics and metaphysics is: what came before the Big Bang?
Physicists define the boundaries of physics by trying to describe them theoretically and then testing that description against observation. Our observed expanding Universe is very well described by flat space, with critical density supplied mainly by dark matter and a cosmological constant, that should expand forever.
If we follow this model backwards in time to when the Universe was very hot and dense, and dominated by radiation, then we have to understand the particle physics that happens at such high densities of energy. The experimental understanding of particle physics starts to poop out after the energy scale of electroweak unification, and theoretical physicists have to reach for models of particle physics beyond the Standard Model, to Grand Unified Theories, supersymmetry, string theory and quantum cosmology.
This exploration is guided by three outstanding problems with the Big Bang cosmological model:
1. The flatness problem
2. The horizon problem
3. The magnetic monopole problem

Flatness problem

The Universe as observed today seems to enough energy density in the form of matter and cosmological constant to provide critical density and hence zero spatial curvature. The Einstein equation predicts that any deviation from flatness in an expanding Universe filled with matter or radiation only gets bigger as the Universe expands. So any tiny deviation from flatness at a much earlier time would have grown very large by now. If the deviation from flatness is very small now, it must have been immeasurably small at the start of the part of Big Bang we understand.
So why did the Big Bang start off with the deviations from flat spatial geometry being immeasurably small? This is called the flatness problem of Big Bang cosmology.
Whatever physics preceded the Big Bang left the Universe in this state. So the physics description of whatever happened before the Big Bang has to address the flatness problem.

Horizon problem

The cosmic microwave background is the cooled remains of the radiation density from the radiation-dominated phase of the Big Bang. Observations of the cosmic microwave background show that it is amazingly smooth in all directions, in other words, it is highly isotropic thermal radiation. The temperature of this thermal radiation is 2.73° Kelvin. The variations observed in this temperature across the night sky are very tiny.
Radiation can only be so uniform if the photons have been mixed around a lot, or thermalized, through particle collisions. However, this presents a problem for the Big Bang model. Particle collisions cannot move information faster than the speed of light. But in the expanding Universe that we appear to live in, photons moving at the speed of light cannot get from one side of the Universe to the other in time to account for this observed isotropy in the thermal radiation. The horizon size represents the distance a photon can travel as the Universe expands.
The horizon size of our Universe today is too small for the isotropy in the cosmic microwave background to have evolved naturally by thermalization. So that's the horizon problem.

Magnetic monopole problem

Normally, as we observe on Earth, magnets only come with two poles, North and South. If one cuts a magnet in half, the result will not be one magnet with only a North pole and one magnet with only a South pole. The result will be two magnets, each of which has its own North and South poles. A magnet cut in half still has two poles
A magnetic monopole would be a magnet with only one pole. But magnetic monopoles have never been seen? Why not?
This is different from electric charge, where we can separate an arrangement of positive and negative electric charges so that only positive charge is in one collection and only negative charge is in another.
Particle theories like Grand Unified Theories and superstring theory predict magnetic monopoles should exist, and relativity tells us that the Big Bang should have produced a lot of them, enough to make one hundred billion times the observed energy density of our Universe.
But so far, physicists have been unable to find even one.
So that's a third motivation to go beyond the Big Bang model to look for an explanation of what could have happened when the Universe was very hot and very small.

Superstring theory. (http://superstringtheory.com/)


:)

[Kunal]

like i always say, all science is, is a load of made up crap that noone can actually prove :lol:

[Mr. Mulder]

I also think that space has always been here …was watching this fascinating program last night on "String - theory" and how there might be another dimension that balances out the universe and keeps it stable ;)

...wouldn't the question then be "Have they always co-existed or did one come before the other?

[the_faceman]

i reckon that the Big Bang probably did happen. it certainly appears that it did with the current evidence. i don't think you can know anything for sure though, human knowledge is limited by the way we think and understand things for one.

and what do i think came before The Big Bang? well, much of the same maybe..... i kind of like the idea that eventually there will be a Big Crush as some theories suggest, where all the matter in the universe ends up back together as a singularity, setting off another Big Bang. perhaps there has been an infinite loop of this kind of activity. I don't think human's will ever understand even the tiniest percentage of what the universe is and how it works.

i think anything's possible. i don't believe the laws of physics etc hold as solidly as our current knowledge indicates. somewhere, somehow, i think they can all be broken.

[Billy_Dean]

String Theory

A big complicating factor in understanding string cosmology is understanding string theories. String theories and M theory appear to be limiting cases of some bigger, more fundamental theory. Until that's sorted out, anything we think we know today is potentially up for grabs.

That being said, there are some basic issues in string theory cosmology:

1. Can string theory make any cosmological predictions relevant to Big Bang physics?
2. What happens to the extra dimensions?
3. Is there Inflation in string theory?
4. What can string theory tell us about quantum gravity and cosmology?

Low energy string cosmology

Most of the mass in our Universe appears to occur in the form of dark matter. One leading candidate for the composition of this dark matter is something called a WIMP, a Weakly Interacting Massive Particle. One strong candidate for the WIMP comes from supersymmetry.
The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) predicts the existence of spin 1/2 fermions called neutralinos that are the fermionic superpartners of the neutral gauge bosons and Higgs scalars. Neutralinos would have a high mass but interact very weakly with other particles. They could make up a significant portion of the mass density of the Universe without emitting light, so that makes them good candidates for the mysterious source of dark matter in the Universe.
String theories require supersymmetry, so in principle, if neutralinos were discovered to make up cosmic dark matter, that would be good. But if supersymmetry were unbroken, fermions and bosons would be exactly matched in the Universe, and that's not the way things are. The really hard part of any supersymmetric theory is to break the supersymmetry without losing all the advantages of having had the supersymmetry to begin with. (It's very much one of those proverbial cake situations.)
One of the reasons particle and string physicists have liked supersymmetric theories is that they predict zero total vacuum energy, because the fermion and boson vacuum energies cancel each other out. When supersymmetry is broken, the fermions and bosons don't exactly match any more, the cancellation doesn't occur any more.
There seems to be pretty good evidence from the red shifts of distant supernovae that the expansion of our Universe is accelerating due to something like a vacuum energy or a cosmological constant. So whatever path by which supersymmetry is broken in string theory needs to lead at the end to the right amount of vacuum energy to account for this observed acceleration. This is a theoretical challenge, because supersymmetry breaking seems to give too large a contribution.


Cosmology and extra dimensions

Superstring cosmology is enormously complicated by the presence of those pesky six (or seven in the case of M theory) extra space dimensions that are required for quantum consistency of the theory. Extra dimensions that just sit there are challenging enough to deal with in string theory, but in the framework of cosmology, the extra dimensions are evolving in time according to the physics of the Big Bang and whatever happened before it. So what keeps the extra dimensions from expanding to get as big as the three space dimensions that we observe and measure in our Universe?
But wait - there's a complicating factor to the complicating factor: a superstring duality symmetry known as T duality. When a space dimension is rolled up in a circle of radius R, the resulting string theory ends up being equivalent to another string theory with a space dimension rolled up in a circle of radius Lst2/R, where Lst is the string length scale. For many of these theories, when the extra dimension radius R satisfies the condition R = Lst, the string theory has an enhanced symmetry with some massive particles becoming massless. This is called the self dual point and has special significance for many reasons.
This duality symmetry has led to an interesting proposal for pre-Big Bang cosmology where the stringy Universe starts out flat, cold and very large instead of curved, hot and very small. This early Universe is unstable and starts to collapse and contract until it reaches the self dual point, where it heats up and starts to expand to give the expanding Universe we observe today. One advantage to this model is that it incorporates the very stringy behavior of T duality and the self dual point, so it is a very inherently stringy cosmology.


Inflation vs. the giant brane collision

What does string theory predict for the source of the vacuum energy and pressure necessary to drive the inflationary period of accelerating expansion? Scalar fields that could inflate Universe at GUT scale could also be involved in breaking supersymmetry at just above electroweak scale, determining coupling strengths of gauge fields, and maybe even providing the vacuum energy for a cosmological constant. String theory contains the ingredients to build models with supersymmetry breaking and inflation or quintessence, but the trick is to get all the ingredients to work together, and that is still, as they say, an active area of research.
A current alternative model to inflation is the giant brain collision model, also known as the Ekpyrotic Universe, or the Big Splat. This intriguing model starts out with a cold, static five-dimensional spacetime that is close to being perfectly supersymmetric. The four space dimensions are bounded by two three-dimensional walls or three branes, and one of those three-dimensional walls makes up the space that we live on. The other brane is hidden from our perception.
According to this theory, there is a third three brane loose between the two bounding branes of the four dimensional bulk, and when this brane hits the brane we live on, the energy from the collision heats up our brane and the Big Bang occurs in our visible Universe as described elsewhere in this site.
This proposal is quite new, and it remains to be seen whether it will survive careful scrutiny.


The problem with acceleration

There is a problem with an accelerating Universe that is fundamentally challenging to string theory, and even to traditional particle theory. In eternal inflation models and most quintessence models, the expansion of the Universe accelerates indefinitely. This indefinite acceleration leads to situation where a hypothetical observer traveling forever through the Universe will be eternally blocked from seeing any evidence of most of the Universe.
The boundary of the region beyond which an observer can never see is called that observer's event horizon. In cosmology, the event horizon is like the particle horizon, except that it is in the future and not in the past.
From the point of view of human philosophy or the internal consistency of Einstein's theory of relativity, there is no problem with a cosmological event horizon. So what if we can't ever see some parts of the Universe, even if we were to live forever?
But a cosmological event horizon is a major technical problem in high energy physics, because of the definition of relativistic quantum theory in terms of the collection of scattering amplitudes called the S Matrix. One of the fundamental assumptions of quantum relativistic theories of particles and strings is that when incoming and outgoing states are infinitely separated in time, they behave as free noninteracting states.
But the presence of an event horizon implies a finite Hawking temperature and the conditions for defining the S Matrix cannot be fulfilled. This lack of an S Matrix is a formal mathematical problem not only in string theory but also in particle theories.
One recent attempt to address this problem invokes quantum geometry and a varying speed of light. This remains, as they say, an active area of research. But most experts doubt that anything so radical is required.


String Theory. (http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo5.html)


:)

[MediaSlayer]

like the big bang itself, this thread exploded, then came to a standstill, and now is slowly shrinking :lol:

[Lamsey]

Billy_Dean, has anyone ever told you that huge blocks of italic text are really unattractive? Most people won't even bother reading it.

[Gemby!]

any huge block of text and i wont read it !

i read all day so i aint gonna read when im relaxing on here !

[Spindulik]

"The Big Bang" is only one of many infinate "Big Bangs", that always was and always will be. It happens in never ending cycles too.

[MediaSlayer]

Originally posted by gemby!@10 November 2003 - 20:19

i read all day
me too

[Mr. Mulder]

I can't read :unsure:

[MediaSlayer]

why did you change your name?

[Mr. Mulder]

why did you change your name?

Who, me?

[MediaSlayer]

no, your sister ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) :P :P

[UKMan]

so far so good - Lamsey, behave yourself please :D

One thing is certain, the human brain is very limited to how much it can comprehend. Even though many respected people claim: "We are on the brink of understanding....", that brink is very wide indeed. ;)

I once tried to understand the following theory:
Divide something in two indefinately - that must be possible, because you cant divide something into two nothings. That kinda explains our limitations.

Peace
UKMan

PS: Please go on.

[Mr. Mulder]

no, your sister ;)  ;)  ;)  ;)  ;)  :P  :P

Well she was called Mandy until she had an operation and ...oh, you were joking :unsure: :P

I used to be called __eric__ which isn't my real name (It's Rob), so I changed it to Arcadia which is the name of an X Files episode.

[MediaSlayer]

uk man:i would say google for "quantum mechanics" but it seems you've got it licked already

Edit:eric, tell mandy you met a nice guy on the klite board if shes interested :lol: ;) :ph34r:

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by UKMan@10 November 2003 - 20:30


I once tried to understand the following theory:
Divide something in two indefinately - that must be possible, because you cant divide something into two nothings. That kinda explains our limitations.


Thats the same type of circular logic that "Proves" a bullet cant kill a man running away.

It has to travel half the distance, by which time the target has moved...etc etc into infinity.



Think i'll stick to my knowledge that i'd die.... :huh:




BTW....

If you have a planet in which the entire Northern Hemisphere is land, and the Southern Hemisphere is water....

Is the Land an Island, or the water a Lake?

[Yogi]

I am and therefore i excist.

I allways like these "infinite" discussions, while most people hardly are able to comprehend their own excistance.

B) Yogi

[UKMan]

Originally posted by MediaSlayer@10 November 2003 - 21:35
uk man:i would say google for "quantum mechanics" but it seems you've got it licked already
Hmm - i've licked somthing i have absolutely no comprehention of :blink:

Rat Faced

Thats the same type of circular logic that "Proves" a bullet cant kill a man running away.
It has to travel half the distance, by which time the target has moved...etc etc into infinity.
I agree - IF the two are travelling the same speed - which they most definately are not (usually) and of course time is one of the factors. I like the comparison anyway, because it poses a very serious problem. Why do people get killed then when shot in the back when running away. We have a theory we can prove wrong - but can we prove the other theory - no of course not.

As regards the "Is the Land an Island, or the water a Lake?" - thats a definition problem between two known facts - but i understand the logic behind your comparison.

One thing is for sure - we all die - but then what. I'll leave that to another thread.

But our comprehension cannot accept that two halves = nothing, because then we would have to accept the fact that nothing can create something. Thats hard to comprehend - therefore its easier (for me) to accept that nothing neverexisted - in other words, space has allways existed. From space was created what we see and comprehend now.

SensualGardening

I am and therefore i excist.
Didnt the Western God say "I Am" - correct me if i'm wrong. But if true, then it poses a lot of questions. By the way, i believe that too.

Peace
UKIAmMan

[MediaSlayer]

Originally posted by UKMan+10 November 2003 - 21:12--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (UKMan @ 10 November 2003 - 21:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MediaSlayer@10 November 2003 - 21:35
uk man:i would say google for "quantum mechanics" but it seems you&#39;ve got it licked already
Hmm - i&#39;ve licked somthing i have absolutely no comprehention of :blink:

[/b][/quote]
this quote:

Divide something in two indefinately - that must be possible, because you cant divide something into two nothings.

was what i was referring to, in a polite way, it was hoped. Anyway, quantum theory holds that you can&#39;t keep splitting, there is a stopping point. That stopping point is the quanta.

[UKMan]

Thanks MediaSlayer - now i know at least what i cant comprehend - :P :blink: what?

[Rotten_Apple]

OK, i got a Q?

Here we are - an imaginary fly in the universe. we are sitting on that singularity when it goes "POP" :rolleyes:
Now as we know the universe is expanding - so lets just flap our little flywings and fly off to the furthest most piece of matter from the epicenter of the "big Bang"

If you look away from this epicenter what would you see?

Would there just be blackness? and if so where is its boundery?

Who cares about the "matter" of the universe... I wanna know about the BLACK stuff...

[seamonkey]

hehe hate to rain on the parade but einstien has already answered all your questions. Although it goes through some crazy physics bending physics it is mathematically possible to prove that time is both finite and without limit as well as the size of the universe you might wanna check up on it :blink: :D :( although you know scientists aer refuting so its all relative :P

[UKMan]

Originally posted by Rotten_Apple@10 November 2003 - 23:33
OK, i got a Q?

Here we are - an imaginary fly in the universe. we are sitting on that singularity when it goes "POP" :rolleyes:
Now as we know the universe is expanding - so lets just flap our little flywings and fly off to the furthest most piece of matter from the epicenter of the "big Bang"

If you look away from this epicenter what would you see?

Would there just be blackness? and if so where is its boundery?

Who cares about the "matter" of the universe... I wanna know about the BLACK stuff...
Nice one Rotten_Apple - maybe thats the nothing in the first place, proving that nothing exists and is therefore something - hmmmm ;) :unsure: :blink:

seamonkey
Well, Einstein is of course just another theorist, a genius to many of course, but still only a theoretician. His complex mathematics may of course be true as to the size of OUR universe, but thats about it. He aint come up with any ideas about whats beyond. Neither has anyone else - except the brainy dudes and dudettes here of course :P

But lets forget maths and physics and just talk about whats simple and basic. Maybe too much clever calculating has clouded the truth from us. I am honestly a true believer of the theory that: "If you can think of it, then its possible".

Peace
UKMan

[leonidas]

I think if one day we discover just one explication about metaphisics, then we&#39;ll comprehend everything ( Just a though, I don&#39;t know why).

Maybe someone could answer that, even if it&#39;s a bit offtopic: Why sciensists say it&#39;s impossible to surpass the light speed?

Actually I found out few time ago that it was a stupid theory.

Just consider 2 rays of light, one coming from the sun to the earth, and the other from the earth to the sun. As speed is a relative notion, the speed mesured should be twice the light speed. Am I right or not? :huh:

I also found out of this theory, that speed may be infinite if you consider speed as an average value. For example if your car is running at 50 km/h in a 1 km distance. It can mean that your car runned at 100 km/h then slowed down to 25.
And what about if you try to mesure the speed of your car in a microscopic distance. I think we could notice speeds like 400km/h. But I&#39;m not sure of that.
What do you think?

[Triadcool]

Nothing came before the big bang. :P

[infamousalbo101]

I was at the planatarium in new york at the space show

a scentist form over there told me " You know when you turn on your tv and u dont your cable line connected to it and see all those little black and white thingys i forgot what he called he was like it does that because the shock waves of the big bang still didnt end

[h4mx0r]

somehow I think we dont exist at all. Life is some illusion that is somewhat a huge multiplayer game or something. No, Im not saying the matrix, but something like that. (without the robots and computers and stuff)

[UKMan]

Originally posted by h4mx0r@11 November 2003 - 06:29
somehow I think we dont exist at all. Life is some illusion that is somewhat a huge multiplayer game or something. No, Im not saying the matrix, but something like that. (without the robots and computers and stuff)
Heres your nice sig so you can start using it if you like:

http://w1.542.telia.com/~u54207239/Gryphonsig.jpg

Peace
UKMan

[brotherdoobie]

If you believe in the Big Bang theory, then explain what came before that - and in that case, what came before that. If you dont, then what is your opinion or belief?



Big Bang Sr. ;)


Peace brotherdoobie

[j2k4]

Originally posted by UKMan@10 November 2003 - 15:44
If you believe in the Big Bang theory, then explain what came before that - and in that case, what came before that. If you dont, then what is your opinion or belief?


I have direct knowledge of this theory:


Before the Big-Bang?

Foreplay.

Before that?

Dinner and/or a movie.

Need I continue?

It&#39;s all very basic. <_<


And now to sleep. :)


Edit: forgot my smiley.

[thewizeard]

Originally posted by j2k4+11 November 2003 - 07:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 11 November 2003 - 07:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-UKMan@10 November 2003 - 15:44
If you believe in the Big Bang theory, then explain what came before that - and in that case, what came before that. If you dont, then what is your opinion or belief?


I have direct knowledge of this theory:


Before the Big-Bang?

Foreplay.

Before that?

Dinner and/or a movie.

Need I continue?

It&#39;s all very basic. <_<


And now to sleep. :)


Edit: forgot my smiley.[/b][/quote]
:o This new revelation from j2k4, will cause scientists the world round, to pull up their trousers, and finally make the choice for the Plasma Theory....

[UKMan]

Like i said, it&#39;s all so simple really :blink: -----&#62;finally gets it :D It was a joke right ? :unsure:

[brotherdoobie]

I dont know but I like pizza&#33;


Peace brotherdoobie

[Wednesday]

Quantum Mechanics and Newtonian Physics aren&#39;t my strongest subjects, but, this paragraph from a book dedicated by Wheeler is brilliant .

"Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, so compelling, that when - in a decade, a century, or a millenium we grasp it, we will all say to each other, how could it be otherwise? How could we have been so stupid for so long? ..... to the still unknown person(s) who will further illuminate the magic of the strange and beautiful world of ours by discovering. How come the quantum? How come the existence?"

[bigboab]

I just bumped this because I can&#39;t have the last post on Tuesday by Wednesday. It was confusing me. :unsure:

[Snee]

According to m-theory, the big bang may have been the result of two colliding universes in m-space. What set of the creation of those universes, or those that came before them or...is a bit more to think about.

[bigboab]

Originally posted by h4mx0r@11 November 2003 - 05:29
somehow I think we dont exist at all. Life is some illusion that is somewhat a huge multiplayer game or something. No, Im not saying the matrix, but something like that. (without the robots and computers and stuff)
I totally agree. I think when your time is over you will find yourself sitting at the side of a giant chess board. You can only hope that the queen does not go first.

[Snee]

Aren&#39;t the aboriginals in Aussie-Land talking about "dream-time", you know, we are all in someone else&#39;s dream. :)

[bigboab]

Come Snny&#33; Get away to your Grandads. On your way back Book a ticket to come over here after Xmas. Mrs Bigboab and I are getting new ones, I can see problems arising. Her whole family can not see the point in algebra. :D

[Snee]

:lol: It would be a change of scenery at least, though I sometimes doubt people around these parts would be able to operate their tv&#39;s, videos, videogames, computers and cellphones without me :rolleyes:

[lynx]

Originally posted by bigboab@11 November 2003 - 13:22
Come Snny&#33; Get away to your Grandads. On your way back Book a ticket to come over here after Xmas. Mrs Bigboab and I are getting new ones, I can see problems arising. Her whole family can not see the point in algebra. :D
We seem to have had a thread-shift here. :blink:

Is this a new slant on the super-string theory? Or just random thoughts materialising out of nowhere? :lol:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by lynx@11 November 2003 - 13:28
We seem to have had a thread-shift here. :blink:


Greetings, lynx&#33; :)

I tried to shift the thread earlier; it seems my efforts were premature.

Glad Snny & bigboab have finally succeeded. :D

[MediaSlayer]

J2k4-Your efforts were fine. I had thought of posting something along those lines, but glad I didn&#39;t. You pulled it off way better than I could have. Anyway, thanks for the laugh. :P

[j2k4]

Originally posted by MediaSlayer@11 November 2003 - 14:12
J2k4-Your efforts were fine.&nbsp; I had thought of posting something along those lines, but glad I didn&#39;t.&nbsp; You pulled it off way better than I could have.&nbsp; Anyway, thanks for the laugh. :P
Why, thank you. :D

You know, it&#39;s odd:

When I was in my late teens or early twenties, I would have gotten on the original train and proceeded with much haste to the engine, just so I could be the "engineer". :(

These days I find it preferable to wave as the train leaves the station so I can get home to the important stuff.

So, if everyone will both excuse the expression and resist the urge to take it as a double entendre:

Big Bang, My Ass&#33;&#33;

[MediaSlayer]

Originally posted by j2k4@11 November 2003 - 18:22

These days I find it preferable to wave as the train leaves the station
HA&#33; that&#39;s a sober image

but to be honest, these days I tend to do the same thing myself :P

[Wednesday]

Originally posted by UKMan@10 November 2003 - 19:44

My own personal opinion is that the answer is so simple, it defies logic:
Space has allways been there and there was nothing before that because it has allways existed&#33;






In a Primeaval form? Before the Big Bang Theory that is.


I believe that "God" is an explanation of something we can&#39;t explain.

[UKMan]

Originally posted by Wednesday+12 November 2003 - 13:53--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Wednesday @ 12 November 2003 - 13:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-UKMan@10 November 2003 - 19:44

My own personal opinion is that the answer is so simple, it defies logic:
Space has allways been there and there was nothing before that because it has allways existed&#33;






In a Primeaval form? Before the Big Bang Theory that is.


I believe that "God" is an explanation of something we can&#39;t explain. [/b][/quote]
No, not in a primeaval form. I mean it has allways existed - there never was any beginning, only to our own galaxy of course, but not to the whole universe. The universe (IMHO) was allways there, so there has never been a beginning so therefore no primeaval form either.

There again, i suppose you could conclude that our own galaxy or part of it was formed by some big-bang - a creation of sorts. These big-bangs have been happening since who knows when - a continuous creation of galaxies through time.

Your views about God are widely shared with many. Many think that we (the human race) have created him just to justify our existance and give us a meaning to life. The only thing that i cannot comprehend in that theori is that i cannot accept that life and nature and everything we see and feel and experience has no purpose. Its a common enough ego trip i suppose, but thats my thoughts anyway. Its too beautifull to be non-essential to something.

Peace
UKMan

[Skweeky]

Originally posted by Rat Faced+10 November 2003 - 21:35--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced &#064; 10 November 2003 - 21:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-UKMan@10 November 2003 - 20:30


I once tried to understand the following theory:
Divide something in two indefinately - that must be possible, because you cant divide something into two nothings. That kinda explains our limitations.


Thats the same type of circular logic that "Proves" a bullet cant kill a man running away.

It has to travel half the distance, by which time the target has moved...etc etc into infinity.



Think i&#39;ll stick to my knowledge that i&#39;d die.... :huh:




[/b][/quote]
Yes, all based on the paradox of Zeno ( he used a turtle in his original text :lol: )

Modern maths solved that with limits, you know, that 8 on its side.

[UKMan]

Originally posted by Skweeky+12 November 2003 - 16:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Skweeky @ 12 November 2003 - 16:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Rat Faced@10 November 2003 - 21:35
<!--QuoteBegin-UKMan@10 November 2003 - 20:30


I once tried to understand the following theory:
Divide something in two indefinately - that must be possible, because you cant divide something into two nothings. That kinda explains our limitations.


Thats the same type of circular logic that "Proves" a bullet cant kill a man running away.

It has to travel half the distance, by which time the target has moved...etc etc into infinity.



Think i&#39;ll stick to my knowledge that i&#39;d die.... :huh:





Yes, all based on the paradox of Zeno ( he used a turtle in his original text :lol: )

Modern maths solved that with limits, you know, that 8 on its side. [/b][/quote]
Ahh the good old Co-op :D
How far can you run from the co-op with something you&#39;ve stolen before someone catches up with you - i&#39;m beginning to understand :blink:

Peace
UKCo-opMan

[Skweeky]

Until you run out of breath? (and what is a co-op??? :huh: )

[creamer]

Originally posted by UKMan@10 November 2003 - 19:44
If you believe in the Big Bang theory, then explain what came before that - and in that case, what came before that. If you dont, then what is your opinion or belief?

My own personal opinion is that the answer is so simple, it defies logic:
Space has allways been there and there was nothing before that because it has allways existed&#33;

I also believe that (if there is a God/Creator/Thing/Entity/Whatever - whatever your definition is) - he is only OUR God/etc/etc and that other Gods/etc/etc exist in other universies or/and Galaxies.

Please keep this on a nice level with good deap discussions and no trashing please. Everyone has a right to their own opinion without being flamed - including lil&#39;ol&#39;me :D :lol:

Peace
UKSpaceMan
nice subject i think this comes in with my theory that things can always get bigger an things can always get smaller and within all that there will always be matter so there is no begining and no end so no start or no end :blink: :blink: mind mashing

[UKMan]

Originally posted by Skweeky@12 November 2003 - 16:15
Until you run out of breath? (and what is a co-op??? :huh: )
The sign for the co-op (a food store chain) is the 8 on its side - it is or was one of the first food stores in the UK that gave out stamps on every purchase and that you collected to save up and buy stuff with - ;)

[creamer]

Originally posted by Lamsey+10 November 2003 - 19:53--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lamsey &#064; 10 November 2003 - 19:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MediaSlayer@10 November 2003 - 19:52
When I asked what happens when you die, he said we just "go into the dirt". In other words, nothing happens, your existance is over.
Yeah. Most humans really don&#39;t like coming to terms with that one. [/b][/quote]
so do u think that being dead is like not being born yet coz i do

[UKMan]

Originally posted by creamer+12 November 2003 - 16:22--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (creamer @ 12 November 2003 - 16:22)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-UKMan@10 November 2003 - 19:44
If you believe in the Big Bang theory, then explain what came before that - and in that case, what came before that. If you dont, then what is your opinion or belief?

My own personal opinion is that the answer is so simple, it defies logic:
Space has allways been there and there was nothing before that because it has allways existed&#33;

I also believe that (if there is a God/Creator/Thing/Entity/Whatever - whatever your definition is) - he is only OUR God/etc/etc and that other Gods/etc/etc exist in other universies or/and Galaxies.

Please keep this on a nice level with good deap discussions and no trashing please. Everyone has a right to their own opinion without being flamed - including lil&#39;ol&#39;me&nbsp; :D&nbsp; :lol:

Peace
UKSpaceMan
nice subject i think this comes in with my theory that things can always get bigger an things can always get smaller and within all that there will always be matter so there is no begining and no end so no start or no end :blink: :blink: mind mashing [/b][/quote]
Hello creamer - dont think we&#39;ve met - thx for joining in :)

Peace
UKMan

[creamer]

Originally posted by Rotten_Apple@10 November 2003 - 22:33
OK, i got a Q?

Here we are - an imaginary fly in the universe. we are sitting on that singularity when it goes "POP" :rolleyes:
Now as we know the universe is expanding - so lets just flap our little flywings and fly off to the furthest most piece of matter from the epicenter of the "big Bang"

If you look away from this epicenter what would you see?

Would there just be blackness? and if so where is its boundery?

Who cares about the "matter" of the universe... I wanna know about the BLACK stuff...
THe black stuff is nothingness so how can they be an end to something that is not there

[creamer]

Originally posted by UKMan+12 November 2003 - 15:29--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (UKMan @ 12 November 2003 - 15:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by creamer@12 November 2003 - 16:22
<!--QuoteBegin-UKMan@10 November 2003 - 19:44
If you believe in the Big Bang theory, then explain what came before that - and in that case, what came before that. If you dont, then what is your opinion or belief?

My own personal opinion is that the answer is so simple, it defies logic:
Space has allways been there and there was nothing before that because it has allways existed&#33;

I also believe that (if there is a God/Creator/Thing/Entity/Whatever - whatever your definition is) - he is only OUR God/etc/etc and that other Gods/etc/etc exist in other universies or/and Galaxies.

Please keep this on a nice level with good deap discussions and no trashing please. Everyone has a right to their own opinion without being flamed - including lil&#39;ol&#39;me :D :lol:

Peace
UKSpaceMan
nice subject i think this comes in with my theory that things can always get bigger an things can always get smaller and within all that there will always be matter so there is no begining and no end so no start or no end :blink: :blink: mind mashing
Hello creamer - dont think we&#39;ve met - thx for joining in :)

Peace
UKMan [/b][/quote]
u allright dude, i dont know if this makes sense, but anyone who does come near to any of thses questions will end up in a metal instatute never 2 be heard

[j4y3m]

:blink: im sacred now :(

[Snee]

Originally posted by j2k4+11 November 2003 - 19:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 11 November 2003 - 19:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-lynx@11 November 2003 - 13:28
We seem to have had a thread-shift here. :blink:


Greetings, lynx&#33; :)

I tried to shift the thread earlier; it seems my efforts were premature.

Glad Snny & bigboab have finally succeeded. :D [/b][/quote]
One tries one&#39;s best. :)

EDit: Though I&#39;m not sure whether the big bang theory is sound I believe that even though the universe may have been around before this hypothetical event, there may have been some form of transition phase in the nature of the universe at some point.
I believe I&#39;ve read that there is evidence of an altering rate of vibration-frequencies within particles, the laws of physics are dependent of this, meaning that they are constantly changing, the change is of course so subtle as to not be noticable, but it is still there.

@stupidguy: you&#39;re sacred??? :blink:

[lynx]

It has been proposed that the big bang theory can be explained by superstring theory as a "theory of everything". What it does not seem to address is the different forces in the universe.

The known forces are:
gravity - a relatively weak force whose effect is detectable over vast distances;
electromagnetic forces - much stronger than gravity but with a relatively short range;
the weak nuclear force - much stronger again, but whose effect does not even reach beyond the nucleus;
the strong nuclear force - stronger again, but it&#39;s effect does not even escape from the prime nuclear building blocks of protons and neutrons.

Anyone see a pattern here?

The last two of these forces are so short ranged that we cannot even detect them directly, though we obviously see their effects and the energy which is unleashed when they are broken. We are unaware of what forces may be involved in combining quarks, mesons, etc to form nuclear particles, but following the pattern shown above it is reasonable to assume that such a force would be far greater than the strong nuclear force, but it&#39;s effective range would be so small as to be almost ineffectual. But such a force is almost certain to exist.

All these forces seem to have one thing in common - they are very successful at holding together the things they are supposed to hold together. But we seem to suggest that gravity is different and is not doing it&#39;s job, and that the universe is therefore expanding. Perhaps it is not gravity&#39;s job. But if we look at other things in the atomic world, we see one other common thing amongst all the particles. They all spin and vibrate.

What limits these vibrations? I certainly don&#39;t know, but it is not necessarily sensible to assume that the forces they are vibrating against cause the limitation, since that would require the assumption that the force increases with distance under certain circumstances. So perhaps it is logical to assume a model like a planetary body in an elliptical orbit. Indeed, could the elliptical orbits of planets, stars etc be taken as the vibration at gravitational level?

Perhaps the universe vibrates too. At the moment we may be seeing an outward phase of the vibration. If so, this will be followed by an inward vibrational phase. Following the conditions placed on smaller bodies, it would not be sensible to assume that gravity would be the limiting factor for such a vibration, but perhaps there is another force of which we are not aware. If it exists it&#39;s rate of change could be so small that we may not be able to detect it. We have not so far detected the force which holds sub-atomic particles together, perhaps this is another such force.

I like this idea far more as a "theory of everything".

[UKMan]

lynx:
Ive seen somewhere a theori that the universe actually vibrates at a given frequency. What frequency that is, i cant remember.

I have a question for you. Where do we draw the line between examining under the surface and what we actually see. In other words, could the Old Testament have been written in another way? Is the Book Of Revelations in actual fact a Science Fact sheet?

Peace
UKMan

[Gemby!]

so if the big bang does exist will it affect anything else in our lives or will it just be a theory &#39;proved right &#39;

[Snee]

@lynxie: why the string-theory still?, I thought it was outdated/changed to m-theory.

(with the addition of one dimension from the supergravity-theory, the strings have become part of a membrane, floating among other membranes/universes in m-space.)

@UKman: I don&#39;t know about the science, but the bible certainly seems to contain instructions for building a society, the best way possible in those days.

Not a christian myself though, so i&#39;m on uncertain ground here :unsure:

[lynx]

I wasn&#39;t proposing that the super-string theory (which is still popular depending on the academic circles) was any good, indeed I was pointing out one of it&#39;s shortfalls. I don&#39;t know much about m-theory, but if one of the propositions is a super-gravity that seems to partly fit in with what I was suggesting.

However, I was suggesting that we are currently seeing the expansionist part of a vibration, rather than an expansion from nothing, and will be followed by a contracting phase of the vibration. The resulting conclusion is that the universe has always existed.

[Wednesday]

Originally posted by UKMan@12 November 2003 - 15:22

The sign for the co-op (a food store chain) is the 8 on its side - it is or was one of the first food stores in the UK that gave out stamps on every purchase and that you collected to save up and buy stuff with -&nbsp; ;)
Course it took you 5 years to save enough stamps for a tin of beans. :lol:

[UKMan]

Originally posted by Wednesday+12 November 2003 - 23:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Wednesday @ 12 November 2003 - 23:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-UKMan@12 November 2003 - 15:22

The sign for the co-op (a food store chain) is the 8 on its side - it is or was one of the first food stores in the UK that gave out stamps on every purchase and that you collected to save up and buy stuff with - ;)
Course it took you 5 years to save enough stamps for a tin of beans. :lol: [/b][/quote]
Yeah - dont that just p*ss you off :(

Snny: Good point.

lynx: was Christ a space dude from the future warning us of our destiny? Just a question that i have often wondered about.

Peace
UKMan

[Wednesday]

Originally posted by lynx@12 November 2003 - 20:09



What limits these vibrations? I certainly don&#39;t know, but it is not necessarily sensible to assume that the forces they are vibrating against cause the limitation, since that would require the assumption that the force increases with distance under certain circumstances. So perhaps it is logical to assume a model like a planetary body in an elliptical orbit. Indeed, could the elliptical orbits of planets, stars etc be taken as the vibration at gravitational level?

there is another force of which we are not aware. If it exists it&#39;s rate of change could be so small that we may not be able to detect it. We have not so far detected the force which holds sub-atomic particles together, perhaps this is another such force.


What about temperature and stress? as per Kepler&#39;s universal harmony theory

[lynx]

Originally posted by Wednesday@12 November 2003 - 22:48
What about temperature and stress? as per Kepler&#39;s universal harmony theory
Exactly. What about it? :blink:

[Evil Gemini]

http://server3.uploadit.org/files/121103-PacMan.JPG

Thats too funny :lol:

[SniperInTheShadows]

I should not have read this thread so late at night, i&#39;m never going to get to sleep now with how my mind&#39;s sorting through all the info everyone&#39;s posted lol

@ UKMan - "lynx: was Christ a space dude from the future warning us of our destiny? Just a question that i have often wondered about" - Perhap&#39;s that might explaine the idea of his rebirth? Born in the future only to die in the past just to be born in the future and on and on, meaning there would be an infinite loop in space and time where everything has actually already happened and will happen again and again. I&#39;m not going to even attempt to take that any further as i&#39;ll just end up confusing myself and probably everyone else along with me lol

Concerning the Big Bang, if space alway&#39;s existed then it must alway&#39;s have been occupied in one form or another (and I don&#39;t mean by life as such, not even by planets or atom&#39;s or partical&#39;s etc) for the Big Bang to have taken place, but if that&#39;s the case then where did space and the required elements for the Big Bang come from? .... trying to pull my mind back together here as I can feel it trying to escape out my ears thinking about this lol ..... If space did not exist though, then there must have been something else for it to come into existence, and if that is true then what came before space?

Was the Big Bang responsible for the existence of space and everything in it, or was space somehow responsible for the Big Bang?

I do not believe that anyone will ever find out how it all started, what was before and what will be after.

Now concerning the vibration&#39;s theory, just a little something that I wondered when I read that (i&#39;d heard it before but didn&#39;t wonder about this) - what if someone discovered the exact frequency of the vibration&#39;s and was able to reproduce them and interupted them? Would space collapse in on itself, would the past, present and future all collapse into one single moment in time where everything and everyone from all those tenses exist at exactly the same moment in time, or would time actually be altered in anyway due to the ripples in the vibration&#39;s that would most likely happen causing the past, present and future to all be altered at exactly the same moment?

Ok, my head&#39;s totaly f&#39;d now and soz if i&#39;ve totaly screwed up my meaning&#39;s and fact&#39;s in my comment&#39;s and question&#39;s lol :-)

&#33;Very&#33; interesting thread UKMan, also very confusing and brain melting lol :-)

Sniper.

[Wallace_Askew]

there is a very interesting NOVA episode on string theory, check it out. NOVA (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html)

[UKMan]

Originally posted by Wallace_Askew@13 November 2003 - 05:46
there is a very interesting NOVA episode on string theory, check it out. NOVA (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html)
Nice link - thx - next 3 hours of boredom are saved ;)

Allthough i am more interested in what us laymen think, this is probably very good background stuff - i hope.

Peace
UKMan

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by Lamsey@11 November 2003 - 06:15
Billy_Dean, has anyone ever told you that huge blocks of italic text are really unattractive? Most people won&#39;t even bother reading it.
Lamesy has anyone told you you&#39;re an 18 year old kid?


:)

[soopaman]

Thought I&#39;d copy my reply into this thread from Billy Dean&#39;s Topic in the News section.

QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 13 November 2003 - 08:48)
The Big Bang Theory is slowly creeping into more and more people&#39;s mind, which is a good thing. String theory will, I believe, answer questions we are now asking.



I&#39;m a fan of Big Bang theory but have a few reservations with regard to SuperString Theory. Mainly that experimentation to prove the existence of Strings hasn&#39;t been developed yet. That&#39;s not to say it won&#39;t be developed in the future but the amounts of energy needed to "uncover" these subatomic particles is staggering and there&#39;s not enough natural resources on this planet to build an atom smasher powerful enough or large enough to accomplish this. Still the unification of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics could well lie in the direction of SuperString Theory. Only time will tell I guess.

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by soopaman@13 November 2003 - 18:30
Thought I&#39;d copy my reply into this thread from Billy Dean&#39;s Topic in the News section.

That wasn&#39;t my thread Soopa, that was Protak&#39;s.

[soopaman]

Apologies to Protak and yourself Billy. :lol:

So how do you feel they&#39;ll get round the particle accelerator energy problem??

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by soopaman@13 November 2003 - 18:57
So how do you feel they&#39;ll get round the particle accelerator energy problem??
I think they&#39;ll come up with something else, they always do. I have a lot of respect for the scientific community. I remember a lecture by Stephen Hawking a few years ago where he said that only three people in the world understood superstring theory, and that it was 100 years before it&#39;s time. He meant the scientific world did not have the means to test the theory. But 100 years is a long time in science, I&#39;m more optimistic in that regard.


:)

[soopaman]

I find it a bit weird that we, as a species, may have to break the established laws of physics in order to have the means to conduct an experiment to prove the existence of Strings. It&#39;s a brainkiller and no mistake&#33;&#33; :lol:

[junkyardking]

There&#39;s actualy a theory called the COSMIC MEMBRANE THEORY which explains what happened before the big bang, it was able to explain alot of what string theory couldnt.

In laymans terms an infinite amount of universes float in a quantum soup they think that when two of these universes crashed into each other it created this universe,

Actualy the theory supports infinite dimesions e.g. like the tv program sliders or some epsiodes of star trek.

There was a bbc doco about it http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/...lunitrans.shtml