Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Roy Perry

What if the bang was the spark of life?

56 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

psyche101

Maybe to go on with a point here, I may have not been to Australia, or been there doing the Big Bang, but like the movies, and such, and groups, like my fav, "Men At Work" I have come to the very strong theory, a personal theory, that Australia exists. ( I might need more plausible information on that though, if only I get to go there and enjoy *ahem* experience that theory, ............ in my mind of Australia. ;):D )

So, I feel, why can't it be objectively seen that clues, evidences from the big bang, can be used in that way?

Just wondering......................... ;)

Just thought I should add

"Crowded House"

If you have not listened to them, make sure you do :tu:

This one seems very appropriate for this thread :D :D

Distant Sun Crowded House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
psyche101

It's misnomer that there was no void prior to the Big Bang. It has to do with the physical definition of space and what "space" really is. When physicists say something they have very specific definitions of things that most people don't really think of in the same way. This screws up their understanding of what the scientist is trying to say.

Hi WCF

Hope you do not mind, interesting point this "Pre Big Bang" space. As there was nothing that pertains to physics, there was no time, so how long did it exist for before the big bang if at all ;) Or did it...........

thanks psyche101

I did want it sound it did happen

because there was a big bang

the truth we do not know as whether the big bang or not

sorry

I guess we just misunderstood each other my grammar might the cause

love Roy

Glad you got it in the end Roy :tu: Good luck with your topics.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Codenwarra

MORE BIG BANGS

In the late 1940s and early 1950s it was supposed by some that if the primeval atom idea was true, then all the 92 natural chemical elements from hydrogen to uranium and all their isotopes were produced in the initial expansion. But high energy physicists have been smashing atoms, electrons, protons etc together in cyclotrons and linear accelerators for decades now and it turns out that production of all these elements is very unlikely. What is far more likely is that the initial expansion produced only hydrogen and its isotopes, helium and lithium, with perhaps a trace of beryllium. Only four elements, as emma pointed out earlier on. Calculations based on these experiments show that the proportions should be about 74% hydrogen, 25% helium and the rest lithium and beryllium if any.

In the extreme conditions of the very early universe, under the theory, atoms could not form simply because it was too hot. But the amount of available energy was limited, and as the expansion of the Universe went on, the amount per cubic metre, or cubic mile if you like decreased, because there were more cubic metres or cubic miles for it to spread around in. This "energy per unit volume" is another way of saying "temperature" so as the temperature decreased, a point was reached when free electrons and free nuclei combined to form atoms. This releases light and ultraviolet radiation, which is commonly seen with photographic flash guns, old style neon signs and so forth.

Now wherever astronomers turn their telescopes, (except for planets) they find that the Universe as a whole is still composed of about 74% hydrogen, 25% helium and traces of lithium and other elements. This is still the approximate chemical composition of our Sun and every galaxy and star seen so far. So that's another prediction of the primeval atom theory that turned out to be true.

So where did the elements like carbon, iron, phosphorus, sulphur, oxygen, silicon, aluminium, gold, magnesium, uranium etc which make up planets and life come from? Ironically, the work done by Fred Hoyle provided a part answer.

Under the primeval atom theory, the formation of atoms about 270,000 years after the initial expansion happened in a smaller Universe, so the matter in the Universe (mostly hydrogen and helium) was denser. This led in due time to the formation of many very large stars. The larger the star, the greater the internal pressures and temperatures and the faster nuclear reactions run. These reactions produce large amounts of carbon and eventually iron, but the star cannot go any further than iron, since all further nuclear reactions absorb energy. So large stars have a shorter life, a few million years at most, than smaller ones and will explode in gigantic supernovae, which still happen there and there around the visible Universe at the rate of dozens every hour. During the explosion, localised pressures and temperatures are so great that nuclei like iron, carbon, helium etc are whacked together with such force that they fuse to form all the known chemical elements. The explosion spreads them around space and it is from this material that planets may form. If you happened to be in the Southern Hemisphere early in 1987 you may have seen the supernova in the Large Magellanic Cloud, this was visible to the naked eye. I saw it the night after it was announced.

New stars also form from unused hydrogen and helium and formation of new stars can be seen going on right now in places like the Eagle Nebula. It is believed that our Sun is a third generation star and did not begin to form until about 9 billion years after the initial expansion of the Universe. As the Universe that we see is now known to be about 13.7 billion years old, that makes it quite young as these things go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

Hi WCF

Hope you do not mind, interesting point this "Pre Big Bang" space. As there was nothing that pertains to physics, there was no time, so how long did it exist for before the big bang if at all ;) Or did it...........

Glad you got it in the end Roy :tu: Good luck with your topics.

Actually, there was. You are only 80% there. The problem that we are encountering is the focus on definitions and how we use them in an academic setting and how they translate to layman. There is a monumental gap. Even "academics" get stuck in this trap. Sorry my four year old is crawling all over me and I have to pick my two other boys up. Like this post so I have an anchor to get back to you if you want me to exsplain. There are actually new positioning opening in universities that their sole job is to exsplain what physisisys mean. Truth.

Love Roy. A true human. I have been talking to him for quite a few years. He just dosnt remember when my name was seeker79

Edited by White Crane Feather
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

Here Roy , you might find this of benefit?

Science, Religion, and the Big Bang

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.