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

[UKMan]

Originally posted by Skweeky@12 November 2003 - 16:15
Until you run out of breath? (and what is a co-op??? )

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; &nbsp;

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 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"
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

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 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]

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.

Greetings, lynx&#33;

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

Glad Snny & bigboab have finally succeeded. [/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???

[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;