Topic: Christians, if you believe the universe was created by the big bang, what do you think came before?
Anonymous A started this discussion 11 years ago #39,910
Answer me that
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #531,432
God's mum, Chantelle.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #531,434
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
But I thought god was....... Already here? I thought he was the creator? So its been a woman this whole time?
But I thought god was....... Already here? I thought he was the creator? So its been a woman this whole time?
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #531,436
you can't speak about "before" the big bang because time "was created during" the big bang and so therefor talking about "before the big bang" is a failed discussion from conception. Trying to go backwards in time is very much like trying to go faster than light, you can always get closer to it but you can never actually reach it. and the closer you get the harder it is to draw yourself closer. so really the time before the big bang is an infinitely long period of time with a very high rate of passage the further back you go.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #531,438
@previous (squeegee)
> the time before the big bang is an infinitely long period of time
But it's not really any 'period of time' at all. ;)
> the time before the big bang is an infinitely long period of time
But it's not really any 'period of time' at all. ;)
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #531,442
@previous (D)
well, period and rate are two different things. So take two people, one who is stationary and one who is moving close to the speed of light.
So like time dilation, right? The guy moving fast experiences a slower rate of the passage of time from the perspective of the observer, but as far as the fast moving guy is concerned his clock still ticks at the same period. each man would agree that the period of each of their clocks is the same, yet the rates at which they gain time is vastly different. Same goes at the time of the big bang, gravitation and energy were so high that from the perspective of an observer outside the universe the big bang took untold eternities to unfold, but, from the perspective of the big bang everything happened damn near instantaneously.
fun stuff
well, period and rate are two different things. So take two people, one who is stationary and one who is moving close to the speed of light.
So like time dilation, right? The guy moving fast experiences a slower rate of the passage of time from the perspective of the observer, but as far as the fast moving guy is concerned his clock still ticks at the same period. each man would agree that the period of each of their clocks is the same, yet the rates at which they gain time is vastly different. Same goes at the time of the big bang, gravitation and energy were so high that from the perspective of an observer outside the universe the big bang took untold eternities to unfold, but, from the perspective of the big bang everything happened damn near instantaneously.
fun stuff
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 53 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #531,450
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 20 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #531,454
God did you silly goose.
Lothario Cassanova !LOVERh1VM2 joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,465
@531,436 (squeegee)
Not so. Many believe that the universe expands and contracts an infinite number of times, so the Big Bang was just the point of contraction to expansion, which had already happened countless times.
Not so. Many believe that the universe expands and contracts an infinite number of times, so the Big Bang was just the point of contraction to expansion, which had already happened countless times.
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,466
@531,450 (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
far from it! i could never get a handle on the math and stopped pretty short of a degree in physics, i struggled pretty hard and other people really didn't and it became pretty obvious i wasn't going to get a BS in physics let alone go further. I've always had a much easier time understanding concepts though, but some of them only make sense in a mathematical framework. Interestingly enough though the deeper down the rabbit hole you get the more bizarre the models get and some of them are only loosely related to mathematical concepts.
i doubt anything i think is actually "true" especially since i can't make a model
but there are a few thinks i think might be true. black holes are related to dark matter and dark energy, and once we understand one we'll probably understand all 3. i find it interesting that "nothing can escape a black hole" which would imply they would only have local influence but they leak gravity like a son-of-a-bitch and galaxies are almost always found to contain a central super-massive singularity. so they influence the entire galaxy's evolution, and at longer distances galaxies "move away from each other."
they say space is expanding at some accelerating rate, because galaxies are moving away from each other, right? "cosmic inflation" they call it. or dark energy. but, relativity says there is an equivalence between acceleration and the force we feel as gravity.
thought experiment time: one of Einsteins - you're trapped in a box floating in space. no windows, just walls. from the roof of the box a rope extends into eternity, and on the other end god is pulling the rope faster and faster and faster. as you accelerate you'll float to the floor and end up standing there as if you were on earth and there would be no experiment you could do that would prove you weren't experiencing a gravitational field instead of being accelerated linearly.
going back to the scale of the universe, which is the box we are in, what we are experiencing is exactly the same thing, but, it looks like acceleration is what we're seeing instead of a "new gravitational field," or specifically a polar region of a field. so, you could look at it like gravity/anti-gravity. Black holes are the extreme end of the gravitational field and the vastness of empty interstellar space are the opposite end and are devoid of anything but a pressure that really is almost equivalent to a repulsive anti-gravitational push and as the universe travels forward in time the universe accelerates the same way you accelerate when falling towards a gravitational source.
so, like, the universe is reverse falling from an anti-gravitational source whose origin, i think, lies inside black holes. so maybe black holes have direct influence over the space between galaxies. they could maybe be thought of as individual points of entry to the same internal volume. And that internal volume (dark matter one would propose) would have direct influence on "external surface area." (like a balloon filled with water, whatever the water does influences the shape of the malleable container.) and, uh, so like that's a galaxy... the internal volume shapes the surface area, the surface area in this case is where all the magic of life and matter and all that happen... and so then dark energy, or the acceleration of the universe we see (or antigravity the universe experiences or whatever) is what is shaping the internal volume. so, like i jiggle the balloon in my hand and squeeze it and all that and contort it to shape the volume.
dark energy shapes dark matter the way you'd shape a ball of dough into a pizza. you spin it
bear with me.
so, the space between galaxies is actually the same "space" as a black hole.
you have to consider "what is nothing". nothing is nothing. right? so one nothing is no different that another nothing. there is no way to distinguish between them. the space between galaxies contains "nothing." just "virtual particles" that exert a pressure, they say.
and so too inside a black hole is nothing. physics wholly breaks down and the singularity becomes undefinable. it is nothing. so there's an equivalence there. the two are the same thing, which is kind of interesting to consider the implications of that.
maybe you fall into a black hole and become shredded into energy that pops into existence virtually all over interstellar space thus imparting a pressure that "creates space-time itself." or in other words you fall into a black hole and become contained within a tremendous 4th dimensional volume of dark matter and the energy conserved from the conversion of matter into dark matter is dark energy which the universe experiences as cosmic inflation!
yay! i love solving problems like these! now if only someone would do the math.
far from it! i could never get a handle on the math and stopped pretty short of a degree in physics, i struggled pretty hard and other people really didn't and it became pretty obvious i wasn't going to get a BS in physics let alone go further. I've always had a much easier time understanding concepts though, but some of them only make sense in a mathematical framework. Interestingly enough though the deeper down the rabbit hole you get the more bizarre the models get and some of them are only loosely related to mathematical concepts.
i doubt anything i think is actually "true" especially since i can't make a model
but there are a few thinks i think might be true. black holes are related to dark matter and dark energy, and once we understand one we'll probably understand all 3. i find it interesting that "nothing can escape a black hole" which would imply they would only have local influence but they leak gravity like a son-of-a-bitch and galaxies are almost always found to contain a central super-massive singularity. so they influence the entire galaxy's evolution, and at longer distances galaxies "move away from each other."
they say space is expanding at some accelerating rate, because galaxies are moving away from each other, right? "cosmic inflation" they call it. or dark energy. but, relativity says there is an equivalence between acceleration and the force we feel as gravity.
thought experiment time: one of Einsteins - you're trapped in a box floating in space. no windows, just walls. from the roof of the box a rope extends into eternity, and on the other end god is pulling the rope faster and faster and faster. as you accelerate you'll float to the floor and end up standing there as if you were on earth and there would be no experiment you could do that would prove you weren't experiencing a gravitational field instead of being accelerated linearly.
going back to the scale of the universe, which is the box we are in, what we are experiencing is exactly the same thing, but, it looks like acceleration is what we're seeing instead of a "new gravitational field," or specifically a polar region of a field. so, you could look at it like gravity/anti-gravity. Black holes are the extreme end of the gravitational field and the vastness of empty interstellar space are the opposite end and are devoid of anything but a pressure that really is almost equivalent to a repulsive anti-gravitational push and as the universe travels forward in time the universe accelerates the same way you accelerate when falling towards a gravitational source.
so, like, the universe is reverse falling from an anti-gravitational source whose origin, i think, lies inside black holes. so maybe black holes have direct influence over the space between galaxies. they could maybe be thought of as individual points of entry to the same internal volume. And that internal volume (dark matter one would propose) would have direct influence on "external surface area." (like a balloon filled with water, whatever the water does influences the shape of the malleable container.) and, uh, so like that's a galaxy... the internal volume shapes the surface area, the surface area in this case is where all the magic of life and matter and all that happen... and so then dark energy, or the acceleration of the universe we see (or antigravity the universe experiences or whatever) is what is shaping the internal volume. so, like i jiggle the balloon in my hand and squeeze it and all that and contort it to shape the volume.
dark energy shapes dark matter the way you'd shape a ball of dough into a pizza. you spin it
bear with me.
so, the space between galaxies is actually the same "space" as a black hole.
you have to consider "what is nothing". nothing is nothing. right? so one nothing is no different that another nothing. there is no way to distinguish between them. the space between galaxies contains "nothing." just "virtual particles" that exert a pressure, they say.
and so too inside a black hole is nothing. physics wholly breaks down and the singularity becomes undefinable. it is nothing. so there's an equivalence there. the two are the same thing, which is kind of interesting to consider the implications of that.
maybe you fall into a black hole and become shredded into energy that pops into existence virtually all over interstellar space thus imparting a pressure that "creates space-time itself." or in other words you fall into a black hole and become contained within a tremendous 4th dimensional volume of dark matter and the energy conserved from the conversion of matter into dark matter is dark energy which the universe experiences as cosmic inflation!
yay! i love solving problems like these! now if only someone would do the math.
squeegee double-posted this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,467
@531,465 (Lothario Cassanova !LOVERh1VM2)
actually, that's not true! the expansion of space-time is an unignorable and observable fact of the universe! Einstein hated it so much he called the cosmological constant his greatest blunder, but it's actually surprisingly accurate! unfortunately the universe will stretch itself completely apart until even quarks fly apart =D
actually, that's not true! the expansion of space-time is an unignorable and observable fact of the universe! Einstein hated it so much he called the cosmological constant his greatest blunder, but it's actually surprisingly accurate! unfortunately the universe will stretch itself completely apart until even quarks fly apart =D
(Edited 35 seconds later.)
Lothario Cassanova !LOVERh1VM2 replied with this 11 years ago, 43 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,468
@previous (squeegee)
I am aware of that, but if the universe infinitely contracts and expands, then time existed before what we call the Big Bang, which was actually just one expansion event among infinite ones.
I am aware of that, but if the universe infinitely contracts and expands, then time existed before what we call the Big Bang, which was actually just one expansion event among infinite ones.
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,471
@previous (Lothario Cassanova !LOVERh1VM2)
> I am aware of that, but if the universe infinitely contracts and expands,
it doesn't contract, it only expands. there's no mechanism for large scale contraction. only local attraction through gravitation. saying it expands and contracts is like saying time goes forward then backwards. it can't happen because the mechanism only works one way.
> then time existed before what we call the Big Bang, which was actually just one expansion event among infinite ones.
the singularity that existed before is identical to the singularity that exists at the end. they are one and the same. time can only flow forward despite the fact that the singularity time is moving towards is the same as the singularity time is moving away from!
this is actually a unique property of being within an event horizon, any attempt to turn around and accelerate backwards only leads to you gaining momentum in the direction of the singularity. adding velocity only draws you closer. this is what is happening at the universal scale. the whole universe is being drawn into the same singularity that expanded during the big bang.
there is no cyclical universe in the sense that you're thinking. especially since universes are beyond each others horizon making measures of their proximity in any dimension utterly meaningless. if the universe expands and contracts then the expansion and contraction of all iterations of the universe would occur simultaneously. not cyclically.
and that's basically multiverse theory, which has massive problems.
> I am aware of that, but if the universe infinitely contracts and expands,
it doesn't contract, it only expands. there's no mechanism for large scale contraction. only local attraction through gravitation. saying it expands and contracts is like saying time goes forward then backwards. it can't happen because the mechanism only works one way.
> then time existed before what we call the Big Bang, which was actually just one expansion event among infinite ones.
the singularity that existed before is identical to the singularity that exists at the end. they are one and the same. time can only flow forward despite the fact that the singularity time is moving towards is the same as the singularity time is moving away from!
this is actually a unique property of being within an event horizon, any attempt to turn around and accelerate backwards only leads to you gaining momentum in the direction of the singularity. adding velocity only draws you closer. this is what is happening at the universal scale. the whole universe is being drawn into the same singularity that expanded during the big bang.
there is no cyclical universe in the sense that you're thinking. especially since universes are beyond each others horizon making measures of their proximity in any dimension utterly meaningless. if the universe expands and contracts then the expansion and contraction of all iterations of the universe would occur simultaneously. not cyclically.
and that's basically multiverse theory, which has massive problems.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,472
@531,465 (Lothario Cassanova !LOVERh1VM2)
And from where did you receive your Ph.D. in astrophysics?
And from where did you receive your Ph.D. in astrophysics?
Lothario Cassanova !LOVERh1VM2 replied with this 11 years ago, 21 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,473
Syntax joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,475
@OP
> Answer me that
Such an easy question to reply2
Foreplay.
The Big Bang was a rather explosive Orgasm.
> Answer me that
Such an easy question to reply2
Foreplay.
The Big Bang was a rather explosive Orgasm.
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,476
Anonymous H double-posted this 11 years ago, 18 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,478
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 14 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,479
Just came in from a Foggy nite on beach with firepit n marshmallows and hot chocolate2Morrow nite I plan on drowning self in Champagne after major evening events as much to Celebrate
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 30 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,485
@531,475 (Syntax)
it really matters which perspective you're coming from. so let's play god.
the beginning of the universe is identical to the ending of the universe, in that they are the same. not they are similar or behave identically, the are literally the same event.
So what happens in the beginning, we've got singularity, and as i established earlier from "an outsider's perspective" the big bang would take an eternity but inside the universe it would happen almost instantly, but what does that actually look like? At the end of the universe all matter would be overcome by the repulsive force of dark energy. particles themselves would rip apart down to the quarks and the quarks would all fly away from each other and at that point even quarks would break down, but how to break down an elementary particle? black holes have the answer! at the event horizon virtual particles form in the vacuum thus shedding mass by obtaining an offset when a freed up virtual partner particle materializes outside the horizon as if by magic and zooms off into interstellar space.
essentially at the "end of the universe" the last existing elementary particles all expand and spreads way, way way out, so that absolutely no part of the universe can effect another, as far as each elementary particle is concerned all the others just disappeared and its the only one that exists. space is ripped apart and the elementary particle is completely enveloped in singularity and exists essentially for eternity that way. it's a weird condition, because the particle is not touching the singularity. but since there is nothing but particle and singularity they are as close as they can be without actually touching.
so, there's some energy issues to consider here. the energy contained withing the particle would be equivalent to the energy contained within the singularity (which presumably is surrounded by all of the matter and energy that used to make up the universe) otherwise the particle would continue to draw closer to the more massive singularity.
by drawing the particle near it's sort of pumping it up with more and more energy, until finally there is equilibrium between the energy levels. once you have two identical things, they cease being distinct. what you are left with is singularity.
so at the beginning of time there was singularity. from god's perspective singularities are unstable, they are always generating virtual particles and perfectly offsetting the energy of whatever they absorb. so what happens from god's perspective, is that a particle goes through the universe and falls super, super close to a black hole and gains a lot of energy doing so, and right before it can touch the singularity all of the particles of the universe "bounce off of" the last particle at the end of the universe to create all of the mass of the beginning of the universe in a huge explosion.
So the end and the beginning are the same event. mind you "the same event" means the exact same instance in time, not one universe after another.
it's not the kind of loop that would make for a cyclical universe, just a really unintuitive one.
it really matters which perspective you're coming from. so let's play god.
the beginning of the universe is identical to the ending of the universe, in that they are the same. not they are similar or behave identically, the are literally the same event.
So what happens in the beginning, we've got singularity, and as i established earlier from "an outsider's perspective" the big bang would take an eternity but inside the universe it would happen almost instantly, but what does that actually look like? At the end of the universe all matter would be overcome by the repulsive force of dark energy. particles themselves would rip apart down to the quarks and the quarks would all fly away from each other and at that point even quarks would break down, but how to break down an elementary particle? black holes have the answer! at the event horizon virtual particles form in the vacuum thus shedding mass by obtaining an offset when a freed up virtual partner particle materializes outside the horizon as if by magic and zooms off into interstellar space.
essentially at the "end of the universe" the last existing elementary particles all expand and spreads way, way way out, so that absolutely no part of the universe can effect another, as far as each elementary particle is concerned all the others just disappeared and its the only one that exists. space is ripped apart and the elementary particle is completely enveloped in singularity and exists essentially for eternity that way. it's a weird condition, because the particle is not touching the singularity. but since there is nothing but particle and singularity they are as close as they can be without actually touching.
so, there's some energy issues to consider here. the energy contained withing the particle would be equivalent to the energy contained within the singularity (which presumably is surrounded by all of the matter and energy that used to make up the universe) otherwise the particle would continue to draw closer to the more massive singularity.
by drawing the particle near it's sort of pumping it up with more and more energy, until finally there is equilibrium between the energy levels. once you have two identical things, they cease being distinct. what you are left with is singularity.
so at the beginning of time there was singularity. from god's perspective singularities are unstable, they are always generating virtual particles and perfectly offsetting the energy of whatever they absorb. so what happens from god's perspective, is that a particle goes through the universe and falls super, super close to a black hole and gains a lot of energy doing so, and right before it can touch the singularity all of the particles of the universe "bounce off of" the last particle at the end of the universe to create all of the mass of the beginning of the universe in a huge explosion.
So the end and the beginning are the same event. mind you "the same event" means the exact same instance in time, not one universe after another.
it's not the kind of loop that would make for a cyclical universe, just a really unintuitive one.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 20 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,487
@previous (squeegee)
> "the same event" means the exact same instance in time, not one universe after another.
Then you already no that every attempt to measure the moment of the big bang And the edge of the universe, appear to be at the very same exact moment in time. The math on this is just horrid to follow but I have started and stopped from equation at get go to solution.
There is still the need for a super super super computer to get closer to the moment - singularity of the Big Bang.
I study a wide range of things that interest me and this is one that also has not found a solution currently and is very odd.
You are familiar with the theory of how people migrated from the Bering Strait to Alaska - USA as we know it and all the way down to Chile.
Now did you no that every attempt at dating the first to arrive in Chile - Appear to have arrived at the same time as those in every other part of our continent.
At least the last time I looked
Time it comes down to Time. I have a terrific book to recommend on the Big Bang
> "the same event" means the exact same instance in time, not one universe after another.
Then you already no that every attempt to measure the moment of the big bang And the edge of the universe, appear to be at the very same exact moment in time. The math on this is just horrid to follow but I have started and stopped from equation at get go to solution.
There is still the need for a super super super computer to get closer to the moment - singularity of the Big Bang.
I study a wide range of things that interest me and this is one that also has not found a solution currently and is very odd.
You are familiar with the theory of how people migrated from the Bering Strait to Alaska - USA as we know it and all the way down to Chile.
Now did you no that every attempt at dating the first to arrive in Chile - Appear to have arrived at the same time as those in every other part of our continent.
At least the last time I looked
Time it comes down to Time. I have a terrific book to recommend on the Big Bang
Green !laPOOAetKg joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,508
Big crunch.
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,514
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 34 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,515
So, what you are all saying is, NOTHING existed before the big bang.
Which means god didn't exist, nor has he ever existed, before or after the big bang.
Which means god didn't exist, nor has he ever existed, before or after the big bang.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,520
Green !laPOOAetKg replied with this 11 years ago, 35 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,521
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 2 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,544
And not one single christian has been able to respond to this.... Wow!
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,545
@previous (A)
Yep. We, a forum composed entirely of God-fearing Christians, have been outplayed. Well done, OP. We are all suffering a crisis of faith right now.
Yep. We, a forum composed entirely of God-fearing Christians, have been outplayed. Well done, OP. We are all suffering a crisis of faith right now.
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,547
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,554
@531,487 (Syntax)
yes! the "edge of our universe" is actually the big bang! travel in any direction will only draw you closer to the singularity. being inside a universe is really very similar to being inside an event horizon in that regard. you can't escape and all directions originate from the same source point!
@531,514 (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
that is what they call it!
yes! the "edge of our universe" is actually the big bang! travel in any direction will only draw you closer to the singularity. being inside a universe is really very similar to being inside an event horizon in that regard. you can't escape and all directions originate from the same source point!
@531,514 (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
that is what they call it!
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,584
@previous (squeegee)
> yes! the "edge of our universe" is actually the big bang! travel in any direction will only draw you closer to the singularity. being inside a universe is really very similar to being inside an event horizon in that regard. you can't escape and all directions originate from the same source point!
>
>
> that is what they call it!
Which is currently generally accepted. Given the majority of space is filled with dark matter and we still have not a clue wot dark matter and dark energy are - We actually
No so little. Is there atomic spacetime? Scientists say yes n others say don't have a clue but still looking.
14 Billion years ago and we no so much n so little. There are very bright PhD's that say that before the Big Bang there was nothing, nothing at all, not even time itself.
Then at singularity gravity upside down - repulsive - opposite the attractive force it is. This is the stuff that makes the Quantum math so fuckin difficult to follow. Cosmic inflation.
Thing is you're totally spot on because every tool we have including stuff on ground which was produced by an Amateur Scientist in his back yard with his home brew Radio Telescope to current Hubble
I just looked this up to be accurate:
Only way that can occur with my Engineering rational mind is from Cosmic Inflation which defies the concept that Speed of Light is a limitation given the size of the Universe and Speed of light as a limitation just does not equate. At least one proof Speed of light is not the fastest speed obtainable.
> yes! the "edge of our universe" is actually the big bang! travel in any direction will only draw you closer to the singularity. being inside a universe is really very similar to being inside an event horizon in that regard. you can't escape and all directions originate from the same source point!
>
>
> that is what they call it!
Which is currently generally accepted. Given the majority of space is filled with dark matter and we still have not a clue wot dark matter and dark energy are - We actually
No so little. Is there atomic spacetime? Scientists say yes n others say don't have a clue but still looking.
14 Billion years ago and we no so much n so little. There are very bright PhD's that say that before the Big Bang there was nothing, nothing at all, not even time itself.
Then at singularity gravity upside down - repulsive - opposite the attractive force it is. This is the stuff that makes the Quantum math so fuckin difficult to follow. Cosmic inflation.
Thing is you're totally spot on because every tool we have including stuff on ground which was produced by an Amateur Scientist in his back yard with his home brew Radio Telescope to current Hubble
I just looked this up to be accurate:
the temperature of the background radiation left over from that primordial blast is uniform, in every patch of the sky, to one part in 100,000.
Only way that can occur with my Engineering rational mind is from Cosmic Inflation which defies the concept that Speed of Light is a limitation given the size of the Universe and Speed of light as a limitation just does not equate. At least one proof Speed of light is not the fastest speed obtainable.
Syntax joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 32 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,592
Syntax joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 54 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,601
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,602
@531,466 (squeegee)
What if dark matter operates on a similar principal to magnetism? That is, two poles which are absolutely opposed to each other? At one end, you have a black hole which draws in all things and the other a repellant point which drives away all things.
What if dark matter operates on a similar principal to magnetism? That is, two poles which are absolutely opposed to each other? At one end, you have a black hole which draws in all things and the other a repellant point which drives away all things.
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 18 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,605
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,607
So inbetween work which needs to be complete Soon so I can have a terrific Friday evening I decided to quick C wot one famous Scientist has to say about Speed of Light being exceeded re Inflation theory on Big Bang
Big Bang Amendments
(The Big Bang set of conjectures are accurately described as a moving target. These amendments are intended to solve a few of Big Bang's problems.)
Big Bang Amendments
(The Big Bang set of conjectures are accurately described as a moving target. These amendments are intended to solve a few of Big Bang's problems.)
1) Inflation Conjectures (no evidence)
Inflation conjectures amend Big Bang, by claiming that the conjectured Universe Expansion underwent an astounding acceleration (magnitudes greater than light speed), and then slowed down to essentially zero (22 millimeters per second / light-year) all within the very first second. The authors propose that this was caused by gravity reversing its force due to a False Vacuum. This stretching is supposed to smooth out all wrinkles in the initial lumpiness.
The conjectures are intended to solve some of Big Bang's generally accepted problems including - Horizon, Smoothness, Flatness, Magnetic monopoles and arbitrary initial conditions.
There are now at least half a dozen very different Inflation conjectures (Old Inflation, New Inflation, Chaotic, Stochastic, Modified Gravity or "Eternal" Inflation, Hybrid, Supersymetric, etc.) none of which are widely supported. One early (1981) concept claims the Universe doubled in size every 1030 of a second for some 100 doublings; growing from smaller than atomic size to a ball that would encompass our nearest 20 galaxies in less than a second.
No version of Inflation provides an explanation for either the proposed acceleration or slowing using any kind of physics we can test in a laboratory or physical forces as we know them. In fact, the slowing is rarely discussed at all. The only explanation offered is a mythical "Inflaton field" or a decay of the False Vacuum. Incidentally, while the Inflation is supposed to have begun and remains wholly uniform through this gigantic dynamic change, apparently it doesn't end uniformly; there are some spots that continue inflating after everything else has quit.
Update July 2012: Doubt about Inflation is now widespread. "Inflation has destroyed itself. It logically self-destructed." - Max Tegmark, MIT 2012
Link directly to this definition -- http://www.CosmologyScience.com/glossary.htm#Inflation
Inflation conjectures amend Big Bang, by claiming that the conjectured Universe Expansion underwent an astounding acceleration (magnitudes greater than light speed), and then slowed down to essentially zero (22 millimeters per second / light-year) all within the very first second. The authors propose that this was caused by gravity reversing its force due to a False Vacuum. This stretching is supposed to smooth out all wrinkles in the initial lumpiness.
The conjectures are intended to solve some of Big Bang's generally accepted problems including - Horizon, Smoothness, Flatness, Magnetic monopoles and arbitrary initial conditions.
There are now at least half a dozen very different Inflation conjectures (Old Inflation, New Inflation, Chaotic, Stochastic, Modified Gravity or "Eternal" Inflation, Hybrid, Supersymetric, etc.) none of which are widely supported. One early (1981) concept claims the Universe doubled in size every 1030 of a second for some 100 doublings; growing from smaller than atomic size to a ball that would encompass our nearest 20 galaxies in less than a second.
No version of Inflation provides an explanation for either the proposed acceleration or slowing using any kind of physics we can test in a laboratory or physical forces as we know them. In fact, the slowing is rarely discussed at all. The only explanation offered is a mythical "Inflaton field" or a decay of the False Vacuum. Incidentally, while the Inflation is supposed to have begun and remains wholly uniform through this gigantic dynamic change, apparently it doesn't end uniformly; there are some spots that continue inflating after everything else has quit.
Update July 2012: Doubt about Inflation is now widespread. "Inflation has destroyed itself. It logically self-destructed." - Max Tegmark, MIT 2012
Link directly to this definition -- http://www.CosmologyScience.com/glossary.htm#Inflation
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 26 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,608
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 47 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,609
@531,602 (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
yes, but think about the repellant point which drives away all things as being manifest at all points instead of a singular point like a black holes attraction.
and that repellant force we experience as dark energy which inflates space and keeps it from collapsing!
literally the opposite, rater than a fake opposite like a white hole that would spew matter out like a black hole draws matter in. that's only a partial picture, the complete picture is that we exist inside a wormhole where black holes connect to empty space.
so the whole "we exist in a wormhole" is a newer idea that gained traction recently, basically galaxies form inside them. pretty sure they are thinking black holes "warp space" to connect themselves with the empty space which inflates to accelerate galaxies away from each other.
i think that's what they were talking about, i'd have to read up on it, and i will, becuase it sounds not entirely dissimilar from my own pet "theories."
yes, but think about the repellant point which drives away all things as being manifest at all points instead of a singular point like a black holes attraction.
and that repellant force we experience as dark energy which inflates space and keeps it from collapsing!
literally the opposite, rater than a fake opposite like a white hole that would spew matter out like a black hole draws matter in. that's only a partial picture, the complete picture is that we exist inside a wormhole where black holes connect to empty space.
so the whole "we exist in a wormhole" is a newer idea that gained traction recently, basically galaxies form inside them. pretty sure they are thinking black holes "warp space" to connect themselves with the empty space which inflates to accelerate galaxies away from each other.
i think that's what they were talking about, i'd have to read up on it, and i will, becuase it sounds not entirely dissimilar from my own pet "theories."
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 11 years ago, 26 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #531,611
@previous (squeegee)
> yes, but think about the repellant point which drives away all things as being manifest at all points instead of a singular point like a black holes attraction.
That is exactly what I was getting at.
> yes, but think about the repellant point which drives away all things as being manifest at all points instead of a singular point like a black holes attraction.
That is exactly what I was getting at.