The beginning?

[cee-dee]

OK, so "They" say "everything" began with the Big Bang.

Fair enough, it was quite something and happened faster than the blink of an eye?

"They" also say nothing can travel faster than light?

If that's so, how can "They" view light which "began" shortly after the Big Bang?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19728375

We are "here", they're viewing light from a heck of a long way away, such light will have taken billions of years to get here even at approximately 186,000 miles per second.

So how did we get out "here", so far from that light when it was Starlight so long ago?

OK, were we able to get to the source of that light in an instant, we'd find it was probably no longer there but we are billions of miles from where that light was so how come the matter from which our Solar System was formed got sooooo far away from the Stars they're no "seeing"?

[cee-dee]

Creeky, that just not correct.

It's been done. As I said, the damage and deceleration was the same in all cases.

[upthecreekyetagain]

They crashed a car into a brick wall and the damage was approximately the same as two cars both travelling at 50MPH meeting head on.

As I said, Newtonian physics would expect this result getting closer and closer to the same result as the mass of the brick wall increased.

What hasn't been done and would NOT show the same result is a car travelling at 50MPH crashing into a stationary car.

Read up on Newton's Laws of Motion and the conservation of energy to see why 😉

[cee-dee]

The analogy of the balloon is senseless.

If it were like a balloon, there'd be a big empty space in the middle and everything would be on the outside.

Yes, after a Big Bang I can see how loads of "stuff" could appear to be like an expanding cloud heading off in all directions but it's still propelled. The force of the Big Bang propelled it all.

Propelled outwards /expansion/whatever, much would have left the "site" of the Big Bang so how fast did it travel? Some must have travelled faster than other "stuff" otherwise it'd all be at the same place in space, static/moving or whatever.

I see one of those huge mortar fireworks propelling a shell which explodes at a certain time after ignition. If it wasn't for our gravity, an exploding shell like that would propel all it's contents in all directions. On ignition of the shell itself, the solid explosive becomes an expanding gas, the pressure of which eventually causes the shell to burst scattering it's contents in all directions.

It would be interesting to set one off in Space. 🙂 Trouble is, at the moment we can't get far enough away from the gravitational effects of our Star and it's Planets.

We have theories and theorems, all need "modification" the more "they" look in to them and I don't see how they can have several versions to suit themselves while glibly trotting things out as a fact when they're clearly not a fact.

Trouble is, if you repeat something often enough it gets accepted as fact.

[cee-dee]

In part retort, meant to add to that but got distracted by the News.

"Of darkness visible, so much be lent,

As half to show, half veil, the deep intent" ]:)

[upthecreekyetagain]

You are imagining the big bang as an explosion of matter expanding into empty space.

The theory is that when the big bang occurred there was no space and there was no time.  As there was no time the initial expansion took place in an instance and it was only at this point that time existed and therefore speed existed.

Whilst nothing can travel faster than the speed of light there is nothing in any of Einsteins various theories that says the universe can't expand faster than the speed of light.

[cee-dee]

No, I'm imagining an explosion expanding (if you like) and creating its own space as it goes but it's still supposed to have started at a single point therefore some "stuff" must be travelling faster than "other stuff".

No-one can say what the "outer part" of this so-called balloon is or how it's affected by its travel or where it's going.

Seems to me that as everything is revolving or travelling on a curve, one day it'll all be heading back to where it started.

How with the theories theorems cope with that?

I thought a theorem depended on a proven fact but some of the theorems are using theories as their "proven facts" so just what do "they" really know?

[upthecreekyetagain]

Seems to me that as everything is revolving or travelling on a curve, one day it'll all be heading back to where it started.

Isn't that exactly what is predicted?

If you want to think of the universe in linear terms then imagine  it expanding at the speed of light from a central point.  from any point in the universe nothing observable is travelling faster than the speed of light and light from an object in the universe moving at just less than right angles to the Earth would have been emitted just after the occurrence of the Big Bang.

Anything moving beyond a right angle to the Earth would not be observable as the light would never reach us.

[*forum*decorum*]

God tells us in the bible of how everything came into being.

As he has had no begining and will have no end, he has always been there and always will be. "There"  being the vastness of open space itself,  there has always been time and motion, God made all that exists in the vast universe, placing each and every thing in it's relative place by design.

That is a perfectly logical explanation and so easy to understand, we don't have to be puzzled by the big bang theory that may have happened, it couldn't have happened.   CD said you cannot get something from nothing.

Take a cake for instance, a cake cannot just produce itself, you need an intelligent being to mix all the ingrediants together in a certain way and certain quantities for it to become a cake. Likewise, God is the intelligent being with the correct ingredients the molicules  and he has designed and mixed them in the correct way to produce his creations.

What makes you think he has stopped creating, the universe is expanding isn't it?

He knows each and every star by name, how awe inspiring.

[cee-dee]

Oh dear...................

[charliebird123]

:^O

[not-another-one]

This may help with the CD/Creeky car crash Newtons 3rd Law debate.

[cee-dee]

The argument about the cars is spread over lots of places on the net and the conclusion is that when two identical cars, both travelling at 50MPH which collide head on, the damage and deceleration is exactly the same as one car colliding with an immovable object at 50MPH.

When one car identical to the first two travels at 100MPH and collides with the immovable object, the damage and deceleration are far greater.

Shame Newton can't come and put his oar in to confirm it? ]:)

[upthecreekyetagain]

🙂

I have never argued against that and it is a result that could be predicted using Newtonian physics although of course there is no such thing as an immovable nor non-deformable object 😉

However we were talking about relativity which can again be illustrated using Newtonian physics.

Two identical cars each travelling at 50 mph crash head on - the "damage" will be exactly the same as if one was travelling at 70mph and the other 30mph or one was travelling at 10mph and the other 90mph or if one was stationary and the other travelling at 100mph or indeed if one was reversing at 10mph and the other going forward at 110mph.  What is important is the relative closing speed.

[cee-dee]

You want the last word?

Going back to what I originally said about the cars "It seems to me that the writer has fallen for the same assumption as when two cars, both travelling at 50MPH collide, the effect is the same as one car hitting a brick wall at 100MPH which is not so." note that I said effect?

[not-another-one]

Forgot the link.

http://scienceblogs.com/dotphysics/2010/05/06/mythbusters-energy-explanation/

[not-another-one]

Why are two cars crashing into each other not the same as one car going into a wall at twice the speed?

Explanation: In terms of energy, the energy of motion is called kinetic energy. Kinetic energy depends on the square of the velocity. This means a car moving at twice the speed with have 4 times the kinetic energy

[cee-dee]

Cor, talk about opening a can of worms?

I think I prefer pactical demonstrations and never mind the mathematical "proof".

[not-another-one]

Is that Schrödinger's can of worms ?

[cee-dee]

No, I think Schrödinger's cat killed the worms before they got in the can..

[not-another-one]

That sounds far to certain to have been anything to do with his cat.