The beginning?

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"?



It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Live long and prosper.

Message 1 of 312
See Most Recent
311 REPLIES 311

The beginning?

How an earth can I, or anybody else, unravel the mysterious of the universe if two people cannot agree of the damage caused by two cars travelling at 50 mph here on earth!

Best I wait for an alien intervention or the results of the latest James Webb telescope!







Message 41 of 312
See Most Recent

The beginning?

All will become clear when Pete arrives and points out the car crash is the Tories fault.

Message 42 of 312
See Most Recent

The beginning?

It just shows you that a practical demonstration of a fairly simple effect has to be cluttered with loads of theoretical smoke-screens by some who'd rather do things the most difficult and impractical way?



Sooooo, if such a simple Earthly experiment produces so much argument, what chance is there of agreement about things which, for the forseeable future can only be a matter for theoretical debate?



It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Live long and prosper.

Message 43 of 312
See Most Recent

The beginning?

So, what do we understand to be the facts so far? ?:|






Message 44 of 312
See Most Recent

The beginning?

So, what do we understand to be the facts so far?



1, so far no facts have been established.



2, There has been a car crash though the damage seems to vary according to your point of view on the theory behind it.



3, The big bang might have been the fault of God.



4, God was not driving a car.



Message 45 of 312
See Most Recent

The beginning?

5, CD regrets ever having started this thread,.

Message 46 of 312
See Most Recent

The beginning?

Not-another-one!  :^O:^O:^O



Another useless fact, in the overall scheme of things,  is  .......


the world is not flat (allegedly)!







Message 47 of 312
See Most Recent

The beginning?

It would be if it smashed into a stationary wall (not another planet travelling at an equal velocity).



On the other hand both cars in the previously mentioned crash did have flat tyres (not sure if that counts though).



Message 48 of 312
See Most Recent

The beginning?


5, CD regrets ever having started this thread,.




What I regret is the nonsensicals trying to be funny and failing dismally. ]:)



It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Live long and prosper.

Message 49 of 312
See Most Recent

The beginning?


All will become clear when Pete arrives and points out the car crash is the Tories fault.











If an unstoppable force meets an immovable object....



There would be an endless transfer of energy



Enter CD and Creeky.  😉

Message 50 of 312
See Most Recent

The beginning?

Let's forget the nonsensicals and get back on track? B-)



Now at the time of the Big Bang, "stuff" had no mass (?) but then "they" conveniently bend the Laws of Physics/Motion/Mass/Energy and any "Laws" you care to invent and say that "stuff" (with no mass, remember?) "expanded" faster than the speed of light?



Soooo, as there was "nothing" to slow it down (an object, when propelled by a force will continue in the direction of that force until acted upon by another force) why did it not continue at that speed?



There was no mass to slow it down therefore there was no gravity? To have gravity "things" must have mass?



Somehow "stuff" with no mass acquired mass from somewhere? Ah-ha, the Dark Matter? I just knew Dark Matter would have to get in on the act?



Oh, perhaps it was the Dark Energy that slowed everything down?



Maybe Dark Matter was "out there" all along, it wasn't created by the Big Bang?



Blimey, it's all too much, I must take a rest for now.



It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Live long and prosper.

Message 51 of 312
See Most Recent

The beginning?

Do you HAVE to post those tiresome, silly pics which have absolutely nothing to do with the thread in question?



It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Live long and prosper.

Message 52 of 312
See Most Recent

The beginning?

The people of Liverpool bend laws all the time (ignore them infact). Perhaps the big bang started there which would explain how they didn't seem to apply.

Message 53 of 312
See Most Recent

The beginning?


The "objects" are made of "stuff" with mass, it must therefore have had mass "in the beginning".


 


I don't think anyone has "explained" yet how something without mass can, after travelling through "space" somehow gain mass?


 


If it IS possible for something without mass to gain mass, how come all the "stuff" without mass hasn't yet gained mass?


 


You see, when people can't explain something, they fall back on "it happened". Failing that, it's on with some other "invention" to explain away the fact that "they" don't know.


 



 


Where does it say something without mass gained mass?


I don't know much about this, but as far as I understand at the beginning there was infinite density. Density = Mass/volume  and since volume was zero a finite amount of mass over zero volume would produce this infinite density.  Then give it some volume through sudden expansion and you have mass (mass = volume x density).


 


??

All that we are is what we have thought.
Message 54 of 312
See Most Recent

The beginning?

I refer you back to #6, #7 and #8.



It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Live long and prosper.

Message 55 of 312
See Most Recent

The beginning?

Yes I read those thank you and agree with Arthur's post.


Hence I don't understand why you said what you did in the quote of yours I put in my reply. 

All that we are is what we have thought.
Message 56 of 312
See Most Recent

The beginning?

If, at the moment of the Big Bang, "stuff" had no mass, how did it gain mass?



At the moment of the Big Bang, this "stuff" (without mass) "expanded" faster than the speed of light and Einstein said something with mass cannot travel etc, etc, etc.



"They" really don't know and "they" keep on wriggling things to suit themselve when it suits them.



"They" say Einsteins theory doesn't hold up for the moment of the Big Bang sooooooo, why do they keep putting things out as a fact when they're really only a theory? BBL



It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Live long and prosper.

Message 57 of 312
See Most Recent

The beginning?

I'll ask again - where did it say there was no mass?


There was infinite density which is mass in a zero volume.


 


You talk about scientists in a disparaging way - "wriggling things to suit themselves when it suits them" as if this mind-boggling question should be easily solved to perfection and everyone's satisfaction. :^O


 


You say - They" say Einsteins theory doesn't hold up for the moment of the Big Bang sooooooo, why do they keep putting things out as a fact when they're really only a theory?


 


I don't believe that anyone has said that the Big Bang Theory is a fact. It is just a theory and which so far is the best model (not fact) these very clever physicists with only human brains can come up with. As you have said yourself, there are realised problems with the idea of a 'singularity'. 


 


Anyway, it won't be the final theory I am sure. There are other theories emerging now

All that we are is what we have thought.
Message 58 of 312
See Most Recent

The beginning?

Other theories / models, such as this:


 


Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end


 


By suggesting that mass, time, and length can be converted into one another as the universe evolves, Wun-Yi Shu has proposed a new class of cosmological models that may fit observations of the universe better than the current big bang model. What this means specifically is that the new models might explain the increasing acceleration of the universe without relying on a cosmological constant such as dark energy, as well as solve or eliminate other cosmological dilemmas such as the flatness problem and the horizon problem.


 


Shu, an associate professor at National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan, explains in a study posted at arXiv.org that the new models emerge from a new perspective of some of the most basic entities: time, space, mass, and length. In his proposal, time and space can be converted into one another, with a varying speed of light as the conversion factor. Mass and length are also interchangeable, with the conversion factor depending on both a varying gravitational “constant” and a varying speed of light (G/c2).


 


Basically, as the universe expands, time is converted into space, and mass is converted into length. As the universe contracts, the opposite occurs.“We view the speed of light as simply a conversion factor between time and space in spacetime,” Shu writes. “It is simply one of the properties of the spacetime geometry. Since the universe is expanding, we speculate that the conversion factor somehow varies in accordance with the evolution of the universe, hence the speed of light varies with cosmic time.”


 


As Shu writes in his paper, the newly proposed models have four distinguishing features:


 


• The speed of light and the gravitational “constant” are not constant, but vary with the evolution of the universe.


 


• Time has no beginning and no end; i.e., there is neither a big bang nor a big crunch singularity.


 


• The spatial section of the universe is a 3-sphere [a higher-dimensional analogue of a sphere], ruling out the possibility of a flat or hyperboloid geometry.


 


• The universe experiences phases of both acceleration and deceleration.


 


He tested one of the models against current cosmological observations of Type Ia supernovae that have revealed that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. He found that, because acceleration is an inherent part of his model, it fits the redshift data of the observed supernovae quite well. In contrast, the currently accepted big bang model does not fit the data, which has caused scientists to search for other explanations such as dark energy that theoretically makes up 75% of the mass-energy of the universe.


 


Shu’s models may also account for other problems faced by the standard big bang model. For instance, the flatness problem arises in the big bang model from the observation that a seemingly flat universe such as ours requires finely tuned initial conditions. But because the universe is a 3-sphere in Shu’s models, the flatness problem “disappears automatically.”


 


Similarly, the horizon problem occurs in standard cosmology because it should not be possible for distant places in the universe to share the same physical properties (as they do), since it should require communication faster than the speed of light due to their great distances. However, Shu’s models solve this problem due to their lack of big bang origin and intrinsic acceleration.


 


“Essentially, this work is a novel theory about how the magnitudes of the three basic physical dimensions, mass, time, and length, are converted into each other, or equivalently, a novel theory about how the geometry of spacetime and the distribution of mass-energy interact,” Shu writes. “The theory resolves problems in cosmology, such as those of the big bang, dark energy, and flatness, in one fell stroke.”

Read more at: http://phys.org/news199591806.html#jCp

All that we are is what we have thought.
Message 59 of 312
See Most Recent

The beginning?

I'm disparaging because "they" speak of theories as if they're a fact when they're not.



When questioned or put on the spot, some, and also some on discussion forums become somewhat disparaging to the point where they become abusive because they can't answer convincingly a point put to them.



It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Live long and prosper.

Message 60 of 312
See Most Recent