Here's a question to get you all thinking : What existed before the Big Bang ? If there was something before the big bang, how did it get there and what was around before that ? :-/
The depth of the ultimate question of the universe is almost impossible to imagine.
Ideas and comments welcome.
Full Version: Before The Big Bang
Well, I had a 14 acre lot with an abundance of trees and a nice little fishing pond, but no neighbors. Thought I'd expand the horizon a little, you don't like it? 
;D
Wow, I didn't think I'd have to break out my thesis from M.I.T. to help me form a response to this thread.
It is the ultimate question though, isn't it? Theories abound, and one could easily develop a splitting headache trying to make sense of it all. The only ones who seem to have a definitive answer are the creationists &/or those of certain religious persuasions, but it isn't based on any credible scientific data. That is just an observation by the way, so please don't flame me. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and their justification for them, however un-scientific they may seem.
It may well be that this is a question that will remain unanswered for eternity.
Magikman
;DWow, I didn't think I'd have to break out my thesis from M.I.T. to help me form a response to this thread.
It is the ultimate question though, isn't it? Theories abound, and one could easily develop a splitting headache trying to make sense of it all. The only ones who seem to have a definitive answer are the creationists &/or those of certain religious persuasions, but it isn't based on any credible scientific data. That is just an observation by the way, so please don't flame me. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and their justification for them, however un-scientific they may seem.It may well be that this is a question that will remain unanswered for eternity.
Magikman
That was a well put reply. I read somewhere on the internet(not sure exactly which sight)that the big bang could have been started by another universe from a parellel dimension "bumping into" the edge of its "frontier"(where the two different dimensions meet), creating what we call the big bang from our universe.
Like Magikman stated, I dont think anyone will ever know. For one thing, how would one find the evidence to support ANY theory, much less the rediculous one I just wrote, which isnt even my theory ???
Like Magikman stated, I dont think anyone will ever know. For one thing, how would one find the evidence to support ANY theory, much less the rediculous one I just wrote, which isnt even my theory ???
Its probably not even possible for humans to comprehend the real truth behind the dawn of existence. The human brain is probably incapable of perceiving such a complex and mind-numbingly difficult thing to grasp.
Trying to come up with what existed before the universe began is enough to give Einstein a headache. I don't think there's much chance of anyone coming up with a truly satisfactory explanation. There are of course theories, but being able to prove what happened before the universe was born is futile, given the complete lack of any evidence whatsoever.
It's one of these questions that just can't be answered, but that won't stop generations of scientists for centuries to come, having a dam good go at it.
Trying to come up with what existed before the universe began is enough to give Einstein a headache. I don't think there's much chance of anyone coming up with a truly satisfactory explanation. There are of course theories, but being able to prove what happened before the universe was born is futile, given the complete lack of any evidence whatsoever.
It's one of these questions that just can't be answered, but that won't stop generations of scientists for centuries to come, having a dam good go at it.
Homer,
You probably read about it at the Space.com website where your email address originates from. Here is a little snippet of the theory;
Think parallel branes and five dimensions. Science never sounded so cool.
The new idea would not replace the Big Bang, which has for more than 50 years dominated cosmologists' thinking over how the universe began and evolved. But instead of a universe springing forth in a violent instant from an infinitely small point of infinite density, the new view argues that our universe was created when two parallel "membranes" collided cataclysmically after evolving slowly in five-dimensional space over an exceedingly long period of time.
These membranes, or "branes" as theorists call them, would have floated like sheets of paper through a fifth dimension that even scientists admit they find hard to picture intuitively. (Our conventional view of 3-D physical space, along with time, make up the four known dimensions.)
The idea, put forth earlier this month at a Space Telescope Science Institute meeting in Baltimore, is based on other theories about possible multiple dimensions that are growing in acceptance. It was developed by Neil Turok of Cambridge University, Burt Ovrut of the University of Pennsylvania, and Paul Steinhardt and Justin Khoury of Princeton University.
"The [Ekpyrotic] scenario is that our current universe is [a] four-dimensional membrane embedded in a five-dimensional 'bulk' space, something like a sheet of paper in ordinary three-dimensional space," Turok told SPACE.com. "The idea then is that another membrane collided with ours, releasing energy and heat and leading to the expansion of our universe."
Its interesting to note that the existance of another dimension is looked at as the origin of alot of UFO's and other phenomena. Of course that still doesn't answer the question about the vastness of space and the time and energy it would take to even find us, but.....
Magikman
You probably read about it at the Space.com website where your email address originates from. Here is a little snippet of the theory;
Think parallel branes and five dimensions. Science never sounded so cool.
The new idea would not replace the Big Bang, which has for more than 50 years dominated cosmologists' thinking over how the universe began and evolved. But instead of a universe springing forth in a violent instant from an infinitely small point of infinite density, the new view argues that our universe was created when two parallel "membranes" collided cataclysmically after evolving slowly in five-dimensional space over an exceedingly long period of time.
These membranes, or "branes" as theorists call them, would have floated like sheets of paper through a fifth dimension that even scientists admit they find hard to picture intuitively. (Our conventional view of 3-D physical space, along with time, make up the four known dimensions.)
The idea, put forth earlier this month at a Space Telescope Science Institute meeting in Baltimore, is based on other theories about possible multiple dimensions that are growing in acceptance. It was developed by Neil Turok of Cambridge University, Burt Ovrut of the University of Pennsylvania, and Paul Steinhardt and Justin Khoury of Princeton University.
"The [Ekpyrotic] scenario is that our current universe is [a] four-dimensional membrane embedded in a five-dimensional 'bulk' space, something like a sheet of paper in ordinary three-dimensional space," Turok told SPACE.com. "The idea then is that another membrane collided with ours, releasing energy and heat and leading to the expansion of our universe."
Its interesting to note that the existance of another dimension is looked at as the origin of alot of UFO's and other phenomena. Of course that still doesn't answer the question about the vastness of space and the time and energy it would take to even find us, but.....
Magikman
Magikman
Thanks for the reminder, I forgot where I read that.
As you stated, a parellel universe or multiple dimensions always seem to surface as possible scenarios when talking about the universe or UFO's.
But what that theory doesnt explain is how the FIRST dimension(s) originated.
And since my puny human 3 dimensional brain cant comprehend that stuff, I try not to dwell on it too much.
Homer
Thanks for the reminder, I forgot where I read that.
As you stated, a parellel universe or multiple dimensions always seem to surface as possible scenarios when talking about the universe or UFO's.
But what that theory doesnt explain is how the FIRST dimension(s) originated.
And since my puny human 3 dimensional brain cant comprehend that stuff, I try not to dwell on it too much.
Homer
Scientists believe that a human cannot go that far into space because most of the sights would be far beyond out brains ability to process, hence killing us. But, if Einstiens theory is correct, and if space is curved, I think that a man could leave Earth and travel out into deep space only to end up back at Earth with no idea of how he got back. The mind, in my opinion, just could see it. And, before the big bang, perhaps that too is something that we are not ready to see yet.
All this "dawn of existance" stuff is now giving me a headache
Farv,
I know you're one for outrageous claims, but your last is really absurd. Could you show me where any competent scientist has made this rather ludicrous statement;
"Scientists believe that a human cannot go that far into space because most of the sights would be far beyond out brains ability to process, hence killing us."
What exactly is it we are doing by exploring the farthest reaches of space with the Hubble telescope? Neither have I heard about a mass extinction of astronomers lately. Or is it your contention that the telescope is equipped with some special 'filter' that eliminates the 'killing' effect of the picture? Does man only suffer this 'brain embolism' when he attempts to 'physically' view outer space? Just curious. :-/
MAGIKMAN
I know you're one for outrageous claims, but your last is really absurd. Could you show me where any competent scientist has made this rather ludicrous statement;
"Scientists believe that a human cannot go that far into space because most of the sights would be far beyond out brains ability to process, hence killing us."
What exactly is it we are doing by exploring the farthest reaches of space with the Hubble telescope? Neither have I heard about a mass extinction of astronomers lately. Or is it your contention that the telescope is equipped with some special 'filter' that eliminates the 'killing' effect of the picture? Does man only suffer this 'brain embolism' when he attempts to 'physically' view outer space? Just curious. :-/
MAGIKMAN
And another thing Farv
When Einstein stated that the universe is curved, he wasn't implying it was like a race track, where one would just travel 'around' the universe and end up where you left. Light travels in a straight line, until an outside force acts upon it. Gravity caused by dense matter is what causes space to be curved. That being said, if you was to leave in a straight line going away from Earth, you would continue to travel that path until it's disrupted by an outside force IE either something hits you, you hit something, or gravity manipulates your direction. None of which would imply that you would end back at Earth.
By the way, Einsteins theory was proven correct after witnessing a solar eclipse.
Homer[glow=color,strength,width]
When Einstein stated that the universe is curved, he wasn't implying it was like a race track, where one would just travel 'around' the universe and end up where you left. Light travels in a straight line, until an outside force acts upon it. Gravity caused by dense matter is what causes space to be curved. That being said, if you was to leave in a straight line going away from Earth, you would continue to travel that path until it's disrupted by an outside force IE either something hits you, you hit something, or gravity manipulates your direction. None of which would imply that you would end back at Earth.
By the way, Einsteins theory was proven correct after witnessing a solar eclipse.
Homer[glow=color,strength,width]
I think this topic is more metaphysical. If there was nothing before something, then something is not real. When there are no forces to create something, there is nothing. I've thought about this question my whole life and i've came to the conclusion that reality is fake, but i obviously do not understand how fakeness can be created from nothing. AHHHHHH
now i have a headache. :s01 what i don't understand is everything we have to have a beginning, a middle and an end.how can a beginning come from nothing? 'nothing', really doesn't exist either does it? to state the obvious.....'nothing' is a sum of removed parts totalling zero.you have to have something to take away to get/have nothing. yep i got brainache too!
I'm learning about this in my science class this year. According to my book, scientists believe that there was a huge chunk of matter in the center of the Universe that was somewhat like a star. But this object was so small that it couldn't hold so much energy that was being put out and therefore exploded. Sort of like a supernova, eh? I think that this "star" wasn't created out of normal material. Maybe it was created by what little energy there was in the empty space around it. You know, there was supposedly space around, but nothing like planets. After it absorbed this energy, it could have made its own energy after that and start shining, and then explode... That's my theory........ I'm confusing everyone aren't I?
:sdboo
:sdboo
Um, what if there are more planes of existance than the five we know about? One of those planes could have seed this dimension to see what would happen, like a big out of control science product. I'm sure if and when we are able to go out and explore space and experience it first hand we might see how things actually work and obtain a better knowledge base of our surroundings. Doing space reasearch from a planetary base is limited we need to what experiences we have dealt with on Earth, but we can't compare them to what happens in space because space has its own set of rules.
:s6
:s6
This Question is RHETORICAL .......and cant be dis-assembled...... Hence I think this thread has lost its life-span.....
Hello, I hope I'm not out of line here but I've been reading some of the back posts and this post and the one about Zero point energy are among some of the stuff that has captured my interest for the past year or so.
I have one basic thought, that is - once there was nothing and now we are here. That leaves me with the problem of finding out how to get something from nothing, hmmm, not too hard to do --- yeah right lol.
But then came along ZPE and virtual particles, there is some wiggle room here.
I've been on some physics forums and to tell you the truth, I don't understand much of what they say or how they communicate. I'm not that smart. I'm not good at math but I can understand that somehow something came from nothing. I even alluded to this in my BIO when I joined here. Einstein knew that there was a simple clean answer to this problem but he died before he could put his finger on it, poor Albert - he is my mentor.
My thoughts have recently gone to the area of vacuum expansion, I like what its telling me.
I had better stop here because I can talk about this subject forever and I don't want to put anyone off or cause my friends here not to want to talk to me, thinking I'm an old wind bag...actually I am an old wind bag.
I have one basic thought, that is - once there was nothing and now we are here. That leaves me with the problem of finding out how to get something from nothing, hmmm, not too hard to do --- yeah right lol.
But then came along ZPE and virtual particles, there is some wiggle room here.
I've been on some physics forums and to tell you the truth, I don't understand much of what they say or how they communicate. I'm not that smart. I'm not good at math but I can understand that somehow something came from nothing. I even alluded to this in my BIO when I joined here. Einstein knew that there was a simple clean answer to this problem but he died before he could put his finger on it, poor Albert - he is my mentor.
My thoughts have recently gone to the area of vacuum expansion, I like what its telling me.
I had better stop here because I can talk about this subject forever and I don't want to put anyone off or cause my friends here not to want to talk to me, thinking I'm an old wind bag...actually I am an old wind bag.
j6p,
Very interesting stuff, isn't it? I like Einstein as well, a very intelligent person, relatively speaking
About virtual particles, and creating something out of nothing, have you read anything on Stephen Hawking? Hawking Radiation is what I'm refering to. I'm not going to explain it in a post, but look into it if you have time. It explains the creation of particles out of nothing, and to make it interesting, whenever particles are created out of nothing, both positive and negative charged particles are created. Matter and antimatter.
Very interesting stuff, isn't it? I like Einstein as well, a very intelligent person, relatively speaking
About virtual particles, and creating something out of nothing, have you read anything on Stephen Hawking? Hawking Radiation is what I'm refering to. I'm not going to explain it in a post, but look into it if you have time. It explains the creation of particles out of nothing, and to make it interesting, whenever particles are created out of nothing, both positive and negative charged particles are created. Matter and antimatter.
I don't think the life has not gone out of it just yet.In fact I'm going to ressurect it . (Hahahaha Life damn it I give you life *maniacle laugh*)
In a scientific sense the universe was created by the Big Bang when a small burnt out star imploaded in on itself or there abouts right .So I would think the best theory for what came before the Big bang is an strugle of forces retracting in on each other and then forcing out.Big bang to burnt out star to big bang and so on .
As to the 5 dimensional universe theory I don't by it . I think the human race has limited itself to 3 dimensional thinking for long enough , there must be dozens of dimensions that we haven't classified yet . By this I mean the first 4 dimensions Hieght ,width , Depth and time are all measurements as are gravity and other forces like pressure and then the more philosophical dimensions like change and growth.
Five dimensions is too limited.
Now for the theory I really liked as with Mentalcase I find it Impossible to visualise or even comprehend absolute nothing.
Perhaps life as we know it is more of a Universal consiousness working from a pin point of light , creating a physical world from the collective imaginations of everyone.
I love this stuff
In a scientific sense the universe was created by the Big Bang when a small burnt out star imploaded in on itself or there abouts right .So I would think the best theory for what came before the Big bang is an strugle of forces retracting in on each other and then forcing out.Big bang to burnt out star to big bang and so on .
As to the 5 dimensional universe theory I don't by it . I think the human race has limited itself to 3 dimensional thinking for long enough , there must be dozens of dimensions that we haven't classified yet . By this I mean the first 4 dimensions Hieght ,width , Depth and time are all measurements as are gravity and other forces like pressure and then the more philosophical dimensions like change and growth.
Five dimensions is too limited.
Now for the theory I really liked as with Mentalcase I find it Impossible to visualise or even comprehend absolute nothing.
Perhaps life as we know it is more of a Universal consiousness working from a pin point of light , creating a physical world from the collective imaginations of everyone.
I love this stuff
Aww you guys ...........It took me so long to type that out it took the edge off my resurection 
im glad someone loves discussing these topics. they bore the hell out of me. i took a philosophy class on quantum mechanics once and i vowed to never speak of the subject again. part of the reason was that i felt most of the people in that class were just a bunch of old windbags, HAHA! 
personally, i believe its impossible for us to understand the nature of the universe and why we exist. anything we choose to believe is truth is just an illusion that will be overturned by a future generation with the same confidence in its view as we have in ours. all fools to me
personally, i believe its impossible for us to understand the nature of the universe and why we exist. anything we choose to believe is truth is just an illusion that will be overturned by a future generation with the same confidence in its view as we have in ours. all fools to me
Hello Homer and Kismet, I recently got through with Hawkings "Universe in a Nut Shell", tell you the truth the only viable bit of useful information I gleaned from it was when he described how a virtual particle would react near the event horizon of a black hole. Actually it was well worth reading the entire book for just this one bit of info, I do like Hawkings he reminds me of Timothy Leary before he (Timothy) deep fried his brain.
Back to Hawkings: He explains how a virtual particle (VP) would pop into existence at the event horizon and before it could annihliate, half would be drawn into the black hole and half would escape. Stephen explains that this is how a black hole would appear to be radiating when we know that a black hole can't radiate. It's these VP's that have been turned into real particles that we detect. This is very cool because while Stephen was describing one phenomena I saw the explanation of another, how VP's can become real particles and that might be a link to how matter came to be from nothing ie. our Universe. Ok it's aspirin time here my brain hurts.
Back to Hawkings: He explains how a virtual particle (VP) would pop into existence at the event horizon and before it could annihliate, half would be drawn into the black hole and half would escape. Stephen explains that this is how a black hole would appear to be radiating when we know that a black hole can't radiate. It's these VP's that have been turned into real particles that we detect. This is very cool because while Stephen was describing one phenomena I saw the explanation of another, how VP's can become real particles and that might be a link to how matter came to be from nothing ie. our Universe. Ok it's aspirin time here my brain hurts.
That's a quick explanation of Hawkings Radiation. Since VP's always come in pairs, one positive(matter) and one negative(antimatter), it's the negative that gets pulled into a Black Hole. When it gets pulled into a Black Hole, it annihilates a particle of matter within, and that is how Black Holes can evaporate. That is also why there is far more matter than antimatter in the universe.
Homer, thanks for reminding me about what part of the VP went into the black hole, it's been a while since I read the book and I forgot how that worked. I have a renewed enthusiasm concerning energy/matter creation after giving this reaction, the way you've explained it, more thought.
My main problem has been energy. Where does it come from? I am familiar with the conservation of energy law but that law leaves a void. I do believe that energy has been and is being created. What I mean is--it had to come from somewhere.
With that said I will say that there is and always was energy potential and that's what I've been looking into.
My main problem has been energy. Where does it come from? I am familiar with the conservation of energy law but that law leaves a void. I do believe that energy has been and is being created. What I mean is--it had to come from somewhere.
With that said I will say that there is and always was energy potential and that's what I've been looking into.
j6p,
Your questions on energy can never be answered with absolute certainty, in my opinion, because the beginning of everything can never be known for sure.
If you believe in the Big Bang as the beginning of all space, time and matter, then only potential energy existed, according the the laws of conservation.
But if you believe that the Big Bang was one of an infinite number of Big Bangs, where the universe expands and collapses for eternity, then kinetic energy would have existed before the most recent Big Bang.
There are other thoeries, obviously, but the question of where energy originated, and in what form, depends on the theory.
Your questions on energy can never be answered with absolute certainty, in my opinion, because the beginning of everything can never be known for sure.
If you believe in the Big Bang as the beginning of all space, time and matter, then only potential energy existed, according the the laws of conservation.
But if you believe that the Big Bang was one of an infinite number of Big Bangs, where the universe expands and collapses for eternity, then kinetic energy would have existed before the most recent Big Bang.
There are other thoeries, obviously, but the question of where energy originated, and in what form, depends on the theory.
It could be that the great thinkers of today are misreading a dynamic that is happening in front of their eyes, "big bangs" and "big crunches"....quasars and black holes.
You could be right. I think that even the great thinkers would admit they could be missing something, even something right in front of their eyes.
By the way, do you have any new ideas about the Big Bang, Big Crunch, Quasars or Black Holes?
By the way, do you have any new ideas about the Big Bang, Big Crunch, Quasars or Black Holes?
Hello Homer, I do have a few ideas that I'd like to kick around. I'll have to say that any thoughts I have about how the universe may have came into being are based on cutting edge science. I don't understand a lot of it, just enough that it allows me to form a working hypothesis. This is part of a poem that I use to give a brief explanation of where I'm at. I call it: Ve=E, where V=vacuum, e=expansion and E=energy.
Ve=E:
I've been away on a journey far
no bus no train, plane or car
I traveled back to the dawn of time
used no machine, only my mind
The story I bring, the song I sing
has no brane no bang or string.
Out of nothing did it appear?
How could that happen? Lend an ear.
I'll tell you of vacuums, expanding sans
no radiation, bifurcation or master plans.
The normal order is entropy,
entropy is the order we see.
See ya tomorrow Homer, have a good night...j6p
Ve=E:
I've been away on a journey far
no bus no train, plane or car
I traveled back to the dawn of time
used no machine, only my mind
The story I bring, the song I sing
has no brane no bang or string.
Out of nothing did it appear?
How could that happen? Lend an ear.
I'll tell you of vacuums, expanding sans
no radiation, bifurcation or master plans.
The normal order is entropy,
entropy is the order we see.
See ya tomorrow Homer, have a good night...j6p
Nice work on the poem
But I fail to see how it all ties together. You said "Out of nothing did it appear?" Are you suggesting entropy is the result of Virtual Energy?, or am I misunderstanding you?
Quantum mechanics states anything infinitesimal(particles) cannot remain in our universe for long, and pops in and out of existence within the time that light requires to traverse its tiny sphere. So perhaps particles aren't created, as in VP, but are just changing state. From virtual particle to actual particle to virtual etc. etc. until it either gets annihilated with it's polar opposite, or combines with more particles to actually create something that lasts.
This would mean that there is an finite number of particles and virtual particles. When VP get annihilated, it turns into energy, thus changing state again. Meaning that ALL particles(including virtual particles), whether they have mass or not, and ALL energy, are finite and tied together to create balance.
Now entropy would suggest decaying, as if there is no balance. But just like old forests of this planet, it gets old, decays, perhaps burns down, and starts over again. So entropy could be nothing more than the recycling of the old to make way for the new. If this is the case, there would still be no creation of new particles or energy, but the existing ones changing state.
Just a thought
But I fail to see how it all ties together. You said "Out of nothing did it appear?" Are you suggesting entropy is the result of Virtual Energy?, or am I misunderstanding you?
Quantum mechanics states anything infinitesimal(particles) cannot remain in our universe for long, and pops in and out of existence within the time that light requires to traverse its tiny sphere. So perhaps particles aren't created, as in VP, but are just changing state. From virtual particle to actual particle to virtual etc. etc. until it either gets annihilated with it's polar opposite, or combines with more particles to actually create something that lasts.
This would mean that there is an finite number of particles and virtual particles. When VP get annihilated, it turns into energy, thus changing state again. Meaning that ALL particles(including virtual particles), whether they have mass or not, and ALL energy, are finite and tied together to create balance.
Now entropy would suggest decaying, as if there is no balance. But just like old forests of this planet, it gets old, decays, perhaps burns down, and starts over again. So entropy could be nothing more than the recycling of the old to make way for the new. If this is the case, there would still be no creation of new particles or energy, but the existing ones changing state.
Just a thought
ive had those thoughts scince i were twelve.......its the same with god, if god created everything, how did god become to exist, did god have a mum, was he creathed from coliding bits of matter. if so where did the matter comefrom, or gods mum. and if he was created from nothing then pleaseexplain how youu can make something come from nothing......... 
even hawking radiation/VR must be created some how. how can something just be "there!"
Nice work on the poem
But I fail to see how it all ties together. You said "Out of nothing did it appear?" Are you suggesting entropy is the result of Virtual Energy?, or am I misunderstanding you?
********************************************************************
I am using the term entropy in the context as defined in description
#2 in the Websters New World Dictionary: "A measure of the degree of disorder in a substance or system: entropy always increases and available energy diminishes in a closed system, as the universe."
I'll explain later how this action may pave the way to energy creation.
********************************************************************
Quantum mechanics states anything infinitesimal(particles) cannot remain in our universe for long, and pops in and out of existence within the time that light requires to traverse its tiny sphere. So perhaps particles aren't created, as in VP, but are just changing state. From virtual particle to actual particle to virtual etc. etc. until it either gets annihilated with it's polar opposite, or combines with more particles to actually create something that lasts
.
***********************************************************
Where did all the matter and radiation in the universe come from in the first place? Recent intriguing theoretical research by physicists such as Steven Weinberg of Harvard and Ya. B. Zel'dovich in Moscow suggest that the universe began as a perfect vacuum and that all the particles of the material world were created from the expansion of space...
Think about the universe immediately after the Big Bang. Space is violently expanding with explosive vigor. Yet, as we have seen, all space is seething with virtual pairs of particles and antiparticles. Normally, a particle and anti-particle have no trouble getting back together in a time interval...short enough so that the conservation of mass is satisfied under the uncertainty principle. During the Big Bang, however, space was expanding so fast that particles were rapidly pulled away from their corresponding antiparticles. Deprived of the opportunity to recombine, these virtual particles had to become real particles in the real world. Where did the energy come from to achieve this materialization?
Recall that the Big Bang was like the center of a black hole. A vast supply of gravitational energy was therefore associated with the intense gravity of this cosmic singularity. This resource provided ample energy to completely fill the universe with all conceivable kinds of particles and antiparticles. Thus, immediately after the Planck time, the universe was flooded with particles and antiparticles created by the violent expansion of space. (Kaufmann, 1985, 529-532)
***************************************************
The above article would explain how a VP can become a real particle by an extremely fast expansion.
The problem I see with their treatment is when it's mentioned that the big bang is a concentration of gravity. I believe it takes mass for gravity to exist.
I do believe that the vacuum expansion caused and is continuing to cause energy to be created and this is followed by
matter creation. That is what I mean by Ve=E.
********************************************************************
This would mean that there is an finite number of particles and virtual particles. When VP get annihilated, it turns into energy, thus changing state again. Meaning that ALL particles(including virtual particles), whether they have mass or not, and ALL energy, are finite and tied together to create balance.
Now entropy would suggest decaying, as if there is no balance. ***The entropy I am referring to is the entropy of a vacuum.*** But just like old forests of this planet, it gets old, decays, perhaps burns down, and starts over again. So entropy could be nothing more than the recycling of the old to make way for the new. If this is the case, there would still be no creation of new particles or energy, but the existing ones changing state. ***I like your analogy to a burnt forest. That would compare to my model like this: The forest is surrounded by a vacuum, the forest burns and the surrounding vacuum moves in. The vacuum expands - energy is created.***
Just a thought
********************************************************************
Now to make it clear this is what I see, how something comes out of nothing: The vacuum of space expands increasing the volume of the vacuum. This expansion creates energy. The VP's, strings, branes or whatever they want to say existed before the big bang are caused by this expansion and not the other way around. I would like to add that I don't totally buy into the big bang either. I see it as a stretching of space (again the vacuum) and this matter, our physical universe, pops into existence by the above process.
So much more to discuss, we are only scratching the surface.
But I fail to see how it all ties together. You said "Out of nothing did it appear?" Are you suggesting entropy is the result of Virtual Energy?, or am I misunderstanding you?
********************************************************************
I am using the term entropy in the context as defined in description
#2 in the Websters New World Dictionary: "A measure of the degree of disorder in a substance or system: entropy always increases and available energy diminishes in a closed system, as the universe."
I'll explain later how this action may pave the way to energy creation.
********************************************************************
Quantum mechanics states anything infinitesimal(particles) cannot remain in our universe for long, and pops in and out of existence within the time that light requires to traverse its tiny sphere. So perhaps particles aren't created, as in VP, but are just changing state. From virtual particle to actual particle to virtual etc. etc. until it either gets annihilated with it's polar opposite, or combines with more particles to actually create something that lasts
.
***********************************************************
Where did all the matter and radiation in the universe come from in the first place? Recent intriguing theoretical research by physicists such as Steven Weinberg of Harvard and Ya. B. Zel'dovich in Moscow suggest that the universe began as a perfect vacuum and that all the particles of the material world were created from the expansion of space...
Think about the universe immediately after the Big Bang. Space is violently expanding with explosive vigor. Yet, as we have seen, all space is seething with virtual pairs of particles and antiparticles. Normally, a particle and anti-particle have no trouble getting back together in a time interval...short enough so that the conservation of mass is satisfied under the uncertainty principle. During the Big Bang, however, space was expanding so fast that particles were rapidly pulled away from their corresponding antiparticles. Deprived of the opportunity to recombine, these virtual particles had to become real particles in the real world. Where did the energy come from to achieve this materialization?
Recall that the Big Bang was like the center of a black hole. A vast supply of gravitational energy was therefore associated with the intense gravity of this cosmic singularity. This resource provided ample energy to completely fill the universe with all conceivable kinds of particles and antiparticles. Thus, immediately after the Planck time, the universe was flooded with particles and antiparticles created by the violent expansion of space. (Kaufmann, 1985, 529-532)
***************************************************
The above article would explain how a VP can become a real particle by an extremely fast expansion.
The problem I see with their treatment is when it's mentioned that the big bang is a concentration of gravity. I believe it takes mass for gravity to exist.
I do believe that the vacuum expansion caused and is continuing to cause energy to be created and this is followed by
matter creation. That is what I mean by Ve=E.
********************************************************************
This would mean that there is an finite number of particles and virtual particles. When VP get annihilated, it turns into energy, thus changing state again. Meaning that ALL particles(including virtual particles), whether they have mass or not, and ALL energy, are finite and tied together to create balance.
Now entropy would suggest decaying, as if there is no balance. ***The entropy I am referring to is the entropy of a vacuum.*** But just like old forests of this planet, it gets old, decays, perhaps burns down, and starts over again. So entropy could be nothing more than the recycling of the old to make way for the new. If this is the case, there would still be no creation of new particles or energy, but the existing ones changing state. ***I like your analogy to a burnt forest. That would compare to my model like this: The forest is surrounded by a vacuum, the forest burns and the surrounding vacuum moves in. The vacuum expands - energy is created.***
Just a thought
********************************************************************
Now to make it clear this is what I see, how something comes out of nothing: The vacuum of space expands increasing the volume of the vacuum. This expansion creates energy. The VP's, strings, branes or whatever they want to say existed before the big bang are caused by this expansion and not the other way around. I would like to add that I don't totally buy into the big bang either. I see it as a stretching of space (again the vacuum) and this matter, our physical universe, pops into existence by the above process.
So much more to discuss, we are only scratching the surface.
Where to begin...
First of all, I understand what entropy is, and used it correctly in my example. Our examples were different, but the fundamental meaning of entropy remains the same.
So your theory suggests that vacuum expansion created energy which created the particles before the Big Bang, and that the Big Bang is really just a stretching of space(vacuum), and that stretching(expansion) created our physical universe by creating energy and particles etc etc.
The problem I have with your theory is that evidence suggests that the Big Bang started from a single point. By measuring the red shifts of galaxies and galaxy clusters, the conclusion must be made that the matter and energy within these galaxies originated at a single point as well. The universe is not only expanding, but also accelerating. Surely the energy required to push this amount of matter this far into the vacuum would require a centralized explosion such as the Big Bang.
Dark Energy may be the reason this expansion hasn't stopped accelerating, but in my opinion it would take a centralized explosion to start the process. This would contradict your theory, because yours suggests that particles are created from the expansion of vacuum energy. If that were the case, there would be no centralized point of origin. Meaning there would be no Big Bang. If this were the case, then why are the galaxies accelerating pretty much uniformly away from each other in such a manner that they came from the same point? Are you suggesting that when the expansion of vacuum energy creates matter/particles, this energy gives it gives it a great big push? A push with enough force to keep it accelerating for over 15 billion years?
I'm not buying it due to the current arrangements of galaxy clusters and their red shifts. The evidence supports a single point of origin, which is the Big Bang. This doesn't mean that there was nothing before it. Now if vacuum expansion created energy and particles before the Big Bang, as your thoery goes, they would have had to come together, like in a singularity, to create the Big Bang.
If I misunderstand your points, let me know
First of all, I understand what entropy is, and used it correctly in my example. Our examples were different, but the fundamental meaning of entropy remains the same.
So your theory suggests that vacuum expansion created energy which created the particles before the Big Bang, and that the Big Bang is really just a stretching of space(vacuum), and that stretching(expansion) created our physical universe by creating energy and particles etc etc.
The problem I have with your theory is that evidence suggests that the Big Bang started from a single point. By measuring the red shifts of galaxies and galaxy clusters, the conclusion must be made that the matter and energy within these galaxies originated at a single point as well. The universe is not only expanding, but also accelerating. Surely the energy required to push this amount of matter this far into the vacuum would require a centralized explosion such as the Big Bang.
Dark Energy may be the reason this expansion hasn't stopped accelerating, but in my opinion it would take a centralized explosion to start the process. This would contradict your theory, because yours suggests that particles are created from the expansion of vacuum energy. If that were the case, there would be no centralized point of origin. Meaning there would be no Big Bang. If this were the case, then why are the galaxies accelerating pretty much uniformly away from each other in such a manner that they came from the same point? Are you suggesting that when the expansion of vacuum energy creates matter/particles, this energy gives it gives it a great big push? A push with enough force to keep it accelerating for over 15 billion years?
I'm not buying it due to the current arrangements of galaxy clusters and their red shifts. The evidence supports a single point of origin, which is the Big Bang. This doesn't mean that there was nothing before it. Now if vacuum expansion created energy and particles before the Big Bang, as your thoery goes, they would have had to come together, like in a singularity, to create the Big Bang.
If I misunderstand your points, let me know
Homer....I am sick. I just got home and heard about our space shuttle and the loss of the entire crew. My mind reels and my heart is heavy. I hope and look forward to us continuing our conversation soon but for now I can't think straight. I hope that you and your family find comfort in each others company as my family is. God Bless...
Thank you j6p,
I hope you and your family finds comfort as well
I hope you and your family finds comfort as well
am i the only one who is glad to have someone like J6p hanging around this place?
I would like to say that I am sorry about the loss of the space shuttle crew
also,
Homer and Jp6 thank you for providing so much fuel for my brain.
Hello Homer, I hope you and our other friends here are well today. Hello Kismet and DSchwartz
I'd like to start off by explaining that I have a problem with some words. The reason I start with this statement is because I would like to bring up the problem that we, as human beings, have in describing stuff, especially technical stuff.
Don't misunderstand me when I go to the dictionary to lay down a word meaning on you, I do this to let you know where my point of reference stems from and also to let you know when I have a different take on the meaning of a word or phrase. Hence my treatment of the word entropy. With that said I would like to relate how I interpret Infinity. I view the universe as infinite and geometrically adding a point of reference to infinity I loose true meaning, at least in the context of which we are talking. Simply put there is no point of reference in the universe it is boundless.
With this in mind I hope that you see what I mean when I say that matter pops into existence as the universe expands. I see no centralized point for a single "big bang" to have happened rather I see many bangs that are all being carried away from each other along with the expansion, this also would account for the red shift.
The "dots on a balloon" illustration was a good way of describing how the universe is expanding, it looks good but it also leaves the wrong impression. I believe that our minds cause us to look at that balloon for what it is and in doing that we are naturally guided to see a surface and an area outside of this surface. Thats not how it works, it's a good model to show expansion of a one dimensional surface but there are three dimensions in the real universe and there is no outside. I didn't include the fourth dimension, that being time, because it doesn't have any bearing on our conversation at this point.
Time, thats a whole nudder subject that hurts my head...
I'd like to start off by explaining that I have a problem with some words. The reason I start with this statement is because I would like to bring up the problem that we, as human beings, have in describing stuff, especially technical stuff.
Don't misunderstand me when I go to the dictionary to lay down a word meaning on you, I do this to let you know where my point of reference stems from and also to let you know when I have a different take on the meaning of a word or phrase. Hence my treatment of the word entropy. With that said I would like to relate how I interpret Infinity. I view the universe as infinite and geometrically adding a point of reference to infinity I loose true meaning, at least in the context of which we are talking. Simply put there is no point of reference in the universe it is boundless.
With this in mind I hope that you see what I mean when I say that matter pops into existence as the universe expands. I see no centralized point for a single "big bang" to have happened rather I see many bangs that are all being carried away from each other along with the expansion, this also would account for the red shift.
The "dots on a balloon" illustration was a good way of describing how the universe is expanding, it looks good but it also leaves the wrong impression. I believe that our minds cause us to look at that balloon for what it is and in doing that we are naturally guided to see a surface and an area outside of this surface. Thats not how it works, it's a good model to show expansion of a one dimensional surface but there are three dimensions in the real universe and there is no outside. I didn't include the fourth dimension, that being time, because it doesn't have any bearing on our conversation at this point.
Time, thats a whole nudder subject that hurts my head...
j6p,
I agree with some of what you say, but respectfully disagree with you on others. This is what I believe, and keep in mind, it’s not a fact or theory, but a belief.
I believe in an eternal God that is the creator of the universe. I believe that all particles and matter and energy was created by God. I believe God either created the Big Bang, or set in motion that which would make it happen. I believe that God created the universe by design, and not accident. I believe that all particles, matter, energy etc etc that would ever be in the universe was already in the universe as of the Big Bang. I will speak of nothing prior to the Big Bang, since I have no thought on that.
Ok, to make it all work, I believe that all things can change state. For example, you say that particles are created from the energy caused by expansion. I won’t argue with that, since I believe particles “pop up” for some reason and by some process. But…I believe that it came from something, and not from nothing. Meaning I don’t believe anything is created out of nothing.
So…particles can turn into energy(which is fact), and this remains energy until it’s state is changed into a particle. So when a particle “pops up”, it is because the energy that popped it up had itself turned into energy from a particle. The cycle, in my opinion, can continue for eternity. Nothing new has been added or subtracted from the universe, only the changing of it’s form.
Since the Big Bang, and especially in the early years of the universe, there was an enormous amount of energy as matter was being blown from the ‘bang’. Many of these matter turned into energy through annihilation, and this energy could either remain as energy(Dark Energy to continue the expansion) or at some point in time pop up as particles. Sort of a recycling.
Again, this is my belief. My belief in God the creator is unwavering, and my belief in the recycling process can be changed as additional evidence presents itself.
I agree with some of what you say, but respectfully disagree with you on others. This is what I believe, and keep in mind, it’s not a fact or theory, but a belief.
I believe in an eternal God that is the creator of the universe. I believe that all particles and matter and energy was created by God. I believe God either created the Big Bang, or set in motion that which would make it happen. I believe that God created the universe by design, and not accident. I believe that all particles, matter, energy etc etc that would ever be in the universe was already in the universe as of the Big Bang. I will speak of nothing prior to the Big Bang, since I have no thought on that.
Ok, to make it all work, I believe that all things can change state. For example, you say that particles are created from the energy caused by expansion. I won’t argue with that, since I believe particles “pop up” for some reason and by some process. But…I believe that it came from something, and not from nothing. Meaning I don’t believe anything is created out of nothing.
So…particles can turn into energy(which is fact), and this remains energy until it’s state is changed into a particle. So when a particle “pops up”, it is because the energy that popped it up had itself turned into energy from a particle. The cycle, in my opinion, can continue for eternity. Nothing new has been added or subtracted from the universe, only the changing of it’s form.
Since the Big Bang, and especially in the early years of the universe, there was an enormous amount of energy as matter was being blown from the ‘bang’. Many of these matter turned into energy through annihilation, and this energy could either remain as energy(Dark Energy to continue the expansion) or at some point in time pop up as particles. Sort of a recycling.
Again, this is my belief. My belief in God the creator is unwavering, and my belief in the recycling process can be changed as additional evidence presents itself.
Homer, my opinion is that your belief is based on sound reason. I rarely talk religion or politics but I will make an exception here, briefly.
First of all I am a Catholic. I was born, raised and educated in the Catholic faith but now I find myself at odds with about 93% of their teachings. The Nuns of Our Lady of the Rosary and the Priests and Brothers of St.Tommy(Thomas)Moore high school taught me well. They slapped, smacked, whacked, threatened and just plain scared the living shit out of us kids into believing in God.....their God. So yes Homer I too believe in God but I'll have nothing to do with any organized religion. I've heard it said that man created God....nah, man created religion.
Now with that said I will add that unlike the teachings of many religions, Catholicism included, I can't believe that we weren't intended to know the secrets of the universe. I was taught, (usually with a whack across the knuckles) "don't ask, don't question God. They are "Divine Mysteries" and shouldn't be questioned." ------ Bullshit.
You see I truly believe that God wants us to know how He did it and thats what I am going after. I want to know how.
As a foot note to my above rant I want to say the following: 1st - I apologize for going off, thats why I don't talk religion. My beliefs are strong and non-debatable.
2nd - I refer to God as "He" because I am most comfortable with that, I am not gender bias. I accept God being referred to as HE - She - It - etc. as long as it's done with respect. Oddly though I am also at ease with folks who truly do not believe in God, My Deity made me to accept that all are His children.
Homer, That vacuum I referred to many times? I suspect it is caused by God removing Himself from the equation. I offered "Ve=E" as my short explanation of creation I'll now offer the way it should have read: "(-G)>Ve=E". The (-G) would be minus Gods presence.
The way I see it is that God is everywhere and eternal. The only way to get a void is for God to remove Himself from a part of the "everywhere". That would leave a vacuum.
First of all I am a Catholic. I was born, raised and educated in the Catholic faith but now I find myself at odds with about 93% of their teachings. The Nuns of Our Lady of the Rosary and the Priests and Brothers of St.Tommy(Thomas)Moore high school taught me well. They slapped, smacked, whacked, threatened and just plain scared the living shit out of us kids into believing in God.....their God. So yes Homer I too believe in God but I'll have nothing to do with any organized religion. I've heard it said that man created God....nah, man created religion.
Now with that said I will add that unlike the teachings of many religions, Catholicism included, I can't believe that we weren't intended to know the secrets of the universe. I was taught, (usually with a whack across the knuckles) "don't ask, don't question God. They are "Divine Mysteries" and shouldn't be questioned." ------ Bullshit.
You see I truly believe that God wants us to know how He did it and thats what I am going after. I want to know how.
As a foot note to my above rant I want to say the following: 1st - I apologize for going off, thats why I don't talk religion. My beliefs are strong and non-debatable.
2nd - I refer to God as "He" because I am most comfortable with that, I am not gender bias. I accept God being referred to as HE - She - It - etc. as long as it's done with respect. Oddly though I am also at ease with folks who truly do not believe in God, My Deity made me to accept that all are His children.
Homer, That vacuum I referred to many times? I suspect it is caused by God removing Himself from the equation. I offered "Ve=E" as my short explanation of creation I'll now offer the way it should have read: "(-G)>Ve=E". The (-G) would be minus Gods presence.
The way I see it is that God is everywhere and eternal. The only way to get a void is for God to remove Himself from a part of the "everywhere". That would leave a vacuum.
j6p
No apologies needed. From what I got from your discussion, you had a miserable experience with religion. I don't like organized religion either, and don't associate myself with any. I meant to leave religion alone, so whether someone wants to say God, Creator, Spirit, Deity, Life Force etc. etc. it would mean the same thing for the sake of this discussion.
That's an interesting equation you have there, by the way
No apologies needed. From what I got from your discussion, you had a miserable experience with religion. I don't like organized religion either, and don't associate myself with any. I meant to leave religion alone, so whether someone wants to say God, Creator, Spirit, Deity, Life Force etc. etc. it would mean the same thing for the sake of this discussion.
That's an interesting equation you have there, by the way
From a PHILISOPHICAL point of view, I'd be willing to agree that seeing the universe, or rather, what is beyond it, could kill someone. After all, people die of fright and suffer massive mental trauma and shock from the unexpected or traumatic often... to truely see how massive the universe is and how small we are...?
I'd love to be amongst the first generations of psychologists when massive space travel begins...
I'd love to be amongst the first generations of psychologists when massive space travel begins...
| QUOTE (Homer @ Apr 29 2001, 11:26 AM) |
| That was a well put reply. I read somewhere on the internet(not sure exactly which sight)that the big bang could have been started by another universe from a parellel dimension "bumping into" the edge of its "frontier"(where the two different dimensions meet), creating what we call the big bang from our universe. Like Magikman stated, I dont think anyone will ever know. For one thing, how would one find the evidence to support ANY theory, much less the rediculous one I just wrote, which isnt even my theory ??? |
yes. the bigbang is triggered by another supernova-colliding with each other. but this is not how the whole universe begun. this is how our constellation Milkyway belived to have been originated. Its now a known fact that our universe existed long b4 the bigbang - parellel dimentions collides, supernova explodes, the birth of a new star, & the ever ellussive existense pf the blackholes. All these are so called normal activities in the cosmos.
Hmmmnn..... about einstein's theory of the "absulot vacuum of space" it means & its a fact (look it up CNN or Spacejournal) the vacuum which einstien described is not pulling objects in the vastness of space, but rather expanding in an absulot speed. it is moving far -far away from each other- forever expanding the universe. The theory of 3dimentional space was been a hard ache-aching task to prove /xplain wut he really meant: but lately physicist xplains that Einstien 3dimentional space is really FLAT. and oh yes light travels in a straight path. But in a 3dimentional -flat space, Straight path is not travellimg from point A------2--------B. buT bending space time continuem from A 2 B. Its a simple rule yet so complex. - + look it up! we are forever expanding, somehow some force is pulling all the galaxies together from pole 2 pole. but not into fusion with each other but rather pulling them appart. A whole new dawn of man's search for its place in the cosmos. OUR SEARCH FOR THE UNSEEN FORCE.
(this is not in contrast to others post. its just my side of the story)
pls. xcuse my poor spelling
im 17- eating physics for breakfast..
(this is not in contrast to others post. its just my side of the story)
pls. xcuse my poor spelling
im 17- eating physics for breakfast..
Spaceman,
The big bang theory is thought to be the point where all the matter in the universe started from a single point, then exploded outward. A supernova is an exploding massive star. One can’t have a star without a universe, so the big bang could not have been the result of a supernova.
"Its now a known fact that our universe existed long b4 the bigbang”
Where is the proof? I think you are either misinformed or a liar. There are no free rides on this forum, because I won’t allow it. I’m not saying our universe DIDN’T exist before the big bang, but I’m saying it is not a known fact. Where is the proof about parallel dimensions? And if the big bang wasn’t the beginning, then how do you know it was OUR universe that was before it?
“parellel dimentions collides, supernova explodes, the birth of a new star, & the ever ellussive existense pf the blackholes. All these are so called normal activities in the cosmos.”
Since when did parallel dimensions become an activity? And except for parallel dimensions, we all know the other things mentioned are normal activities in the cosmos, but what does that have to do with the big bang and before?
The big bang theory is thought to be the point where all the matter in the universe started from a single point, then exploded outward. A supernova is an exploding massive star. One can’t have a star without a universe, so the big bang could not have been the result of a supernova.
"Its now a known fact that our universe existed long b4 the bigbang”
Where is the proof? I think you are either misinformed or a liar. There are no free rides on this forum, because I won’t allow it. I’m not saying our universe DIDN’T exist before the big bang, but I’m saying it is not a known fact. Where is the proof about parallel dimensions? And if the big bang wasn’t the beginning, then how do you know it was OUR universe that was before it?
“parellel dimentions collides, supernova explodes, the birth of a new star, & the ever ellussive existense pf the blackholes. All these are so called normal activities in the cosmos.”
Since when did parallel dimensions become an activity? And except for parallel dimensions, we all know the other things mentioned are normal activities in the cosmos, but what does that have to do with the big bang and before?
there is an on going study about the existence of a much older Universe. i have to disagree with you HOMER. nothing's wrong with what spaceman trying to imply.
i find this impunderable.
i find this impunderable.
KATSUNARI,
If you disagree with me, then it appears you haven't read what I posted, because nothing I posted can be disagreed with by ANYONE! You stated you disagreed with me, but didn't state what it was I said you disagreed with. How convenient
You said: "there is an on going study about the existence of a much older Universe"
So what? I never said anything contrary to that. But thats not what your old buddy Spaceman said. He said 'Its now a known fact that our universe existed long b4 the bigbang', and I'm simply calling him out on that fact, fully expecting to be amply supplied with the facts as soon as he replies to this post.
You said: "nothing's wrong with what spaceman trying to imply"
Yet you don't question his absolute certainty and 'well known facts'?
I will say to you as I said to Spaceman. You are either misinformed or a liar, and the only exception to this is perhaps you misunderstood what was posted.
If you disagree with me, then it appears you haven't read what I posted, because nothing I posted can be disagreed with by ANYONE! You stated you disagreed with me, but didn't state what it was I said you disagreed with. How convenient
You said: "there is an on going study about the existence of a much older Universe"
So what? I never said anything contrary to that. But thats not what your old buddy Spaceman said. He said 'Its now a known fact that our universe existed long b4 the bigbang', and I'm simply calling him out on that fact, fully expecting to be amply supplied with the facts as soon as he replies to this post.
You said: "nothing's wrong with what spaceman trying to imply"
Yet you don't question his absolute certainty and 'well known facts'?
I will say to you as I said to Spaceman. You are either misinformed or a liar, and the only exception to this is perhaps you misunderstood what was posted.
welll........i think if we wouldve known the answer to THAT question, then man wouldnt have been studying space science and cosmology any more.
we'll find it soon!!! (meaning, centuries!!
we'll find it soon!!! (meaning, centuries!!
woohooo -bigbang- difinition a massive supernova u dummy! 
parallel dimensions- read Stephen hawking "Brief History of Time" & Michiako kiko
and u calling me a liar- wat i have stated is based on current studies of the universe - u see we will never agree, my professor warns us about this, since there is no definite answers to these questions - there is always some wannabe -know it all -hu wanted to defy himself with his own stupidity. why wont u write ur own book, instead of hanging around on some internet chatroom.-- (let me guess--here comes homers ever dramatic speech of self acclaimed physicist) --
parallel dimensions- read Stephen hawking "Brief History of Time" & Michiako kiko
and u calling me a liar- wat i have stated is based on current studies of the universe - u see we will never agree, my professor warns us about this, since there is no definite answers to these questions - there is always some wannabe -know it all -hu wanted to defy himself with his own stupidity. why wont u write ur own book, instead of hanging around on some internet chatroom.-- (let me guess--here comes homers ever dramatic speech of self acclaimed physicist) --
Spaceman,
You said: "and u calling me a liar- wat i have stated is based on current studies of the universe" and "my professor warns us about this, since there is no definite answers to these questions"
But contradictory to this you said: "Its now a known fact that our universe existed long b4 the bigbang"
Understand I'm not calling you a liar because you believe in recent studies, but because you called them 'known facts', which they are not.
No dramatic speech necessary as your own words proved either your lie or your ignorance.
You said: "and u calling me a liar- wat i have stated is based on current studies of the universe" and "my professor warns us about this, since there is no definite answers to these questions"
But contradictory to this you said: "Its now a known fact that our universe existed long b4 the bigbang"
Understand I'm not calling you a liar because you believe in recent studies, but because you called them 'known facts', which they are not.
No dramatic speech necessary as your own words proved either your lie or your ignorance.
Homer, my friend. We have debated things of great depth and have discussed light subjects and I trust that we will do so again in the future. We disagree and we agree and we let some things lie but we've never resorted to name calling and childish personal attacks such as your little friend does.
Homer you are dealing with a child here. A child that knows more than we could ever hope to know, he is "17" and he eats physics for breakfast. You can not win an argument with such a person, you can not get your point of view through to such a person because he is brilliance personified. I have learned one thing in my travels that has helped me keep my senses in such circumstances: Never argue with a fool, they will bring you down to their level and beat the shit out of you.
BTW Homer, please relay to your friend that on my other post, the one discussing "Recent stats. on our Universe". My source was NASA in a 3/6/03 report but I will concede that your friend and his professor have a more current and reliable source of information. I would be curious to view their sources...just for the fun of it.
Homer you are dealing with a child here. A child that knows more than we could ever hope to know, he is "17" and he eats physics for breakfast. You can not win an argument with such a person, you can not get your point of view through to such a person because he is brilliance personified. I have learned one thing in my travels that has helped me keep my senses in such circumstances: Never argue with a fool, they will bring you down to their level and beat the shit out of you.
BTW Homer, please relay to your friend that on my other post, the one discussing "Recent stats. on our Universe". My source was NASA in a 3/6/03 report but I will concede that your friend and his professor have a more current and reliable source of information. I would be curious to view their sources...just for the fun of it.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.