GreyWeather Posted August 1, 2006 #26 Share Posted August 1, 2006 I myself don't beleive in the big bang. the sound waves were picked up by a very simplistic device, sure it may have been very sensitive, but you have to ask yourself this. "once the big bang happened, the sound waves would have been lost forever, due to the fact that they had nothing at all to reflect off." What I think they heard, was a "close" refracted sound wave from a supernova. We can never understand how the universe began, because it's impossible to figure out. seeing as there was nothing around when and after it happened (I mean the first couple seconds/hours after it happened), so we can never really find out how it began or what made it happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted August 1, 2006 #27 Share Posted August 1, 2006 I myself don't beleive in the big bang. the sound waves were picked up by a very simplistic device, sure it may have been very sensitive, but you have to ask yourself this. "once the big bang happened, the sound waves would have been lost forever, due to the fact that they had nothing at all to reflect off." What I think they heard, was a "close" refracted sound wave from a supernova. We can never understand how the universe began, because it's impossible to figure out. seeing as there was nothing around when and after it happened (I mean the first couple seconds/hours after it happened), so we can never really find out how it began or what made it happen. There are no sound waves from the big bang. Sound does not travel through a vacuum and space is about as close to a vacuum as you can get. The big bang was postulated because it was observed that the galaxies are all rushing away fro each other. This showed that the universe had a definite start at a definite time. It was calculated that if the big bang did happen then space should not have totally cooled down leading to background radiation. After this calculation was made the background radiation was found showing that the temperature of space is 3K (3 degrees above absolute zero) exactly as calculated. What is more this background radiation can not becaused by a localised event such as a supernova as it comes, more or less, uniformly from all directions. The big bang is so well established as a theory not because it was theory which was designed to fit the observations but because it was a theory that predicted what should be observed and was confirmed by later observations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyWeather Posted August 1, 2006 #28 Share Posted August 1, 2006 There are no sound waves from the big bang. Sound does not travel through a vacuum and space is about as close to a vacuum as you can get. The big bang was postulated because it was observed that the galaxies are all rushing away fro each other. This showed that the universe had a definite start at a definite time. It was calculated that if the big bang did happen then space should not have totally cooled down leading to background radiation. After this calculation was made the background radiation was found showing that the temperature of space is 3K (3 degrees above absolute zero) exactly as calculated. What is more this background radiation can not becaused by a localised event such as a supernova as it comes, more or less, uniformly from all directions. The big bang is so well established as a theory not because it was theory which was designed to fit the observations but because it was a theory that predicted what should be observed and was confirmed by later observations. hm I 'spose, but I still don't believe in that theory, we can't ever really prove nor disprove what made the universe happen/explode into being (i'm not trying to say a 'god' made it either ¬_¬ ).Though the string theory sounds stable, that their are multi-verses that 'rub' against each other, and one bumped into another to create this universe. but it doesn't do more than calm our thirst for 'beginning of time' knowledge which doesn't really matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted August 1, 2006 #29 Share Posted August 1, 2006 hm I 'spose, but I still don't believe in that theory. That is your right. Not all cosmologist accept it either, however the vast majority do. At the moment I have seen nothing that leads me to think that the majority are wrong. However the majority have been wrong in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyWeather Posted August 1, 2006 #30 Share Posted August 1, 2006 That is your right. Not all cosmologist accept it either, however the vast majority do. At the moment I have seen nothing that leads me to think that the majority are wrong. However the majority have been wrong in the past. true, but the string theory and multiverse sound reasonable. I guess we'll debunk or figure out the right theory in a few hundred years, as our technology develops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted August 1, 2006 #31 Share Posted August 1, 2006 (edited) true, but the string theory and multiverse sound reasonable. I guess we'll debunk or figure out the right theory in a few hundred years, as our technology develops. They may sound reasonable but they have very little evidence to support them. String theory is an attempt to explain the wave/particle duality of quantum particles and is not in conflict with the big bang. Edited August 1, 2006 by Waspie_Dwarf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyWeather Posted August 2, 2006 #32 Share Posted August 2, 2006 They may sound reasonable but they have very little evidence to support them. String theory is an attempt to explain the wave/particle duality of quantum particles and is not in conflict with the big bang. well, in some concepts it is. Big bang theory is based on a singlearity that somehow exploded into matter and anti-matter, matter had the advantage. String theory is based on the concept tof two colliding 'bubbles' (or two univeres) which made our universe 'explode' into existance. hmm... actually there could be a link between those two theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted August 2, 2006 #33 Share Posted August 2, 2006 well, in some concepts it is. Big bang theory is based on a singlearity that somehow exploded into matter and anti-matter, matter had the advantage. String theory is based on the concept tof two colliding 'bubbles' (or two univeres) which made our universe 'explode' into existance. hmm... actually there could be a link between those two theories. What you are describing is not String Theory. String Theory states that what standard physics thinks of as particles with 0 dimensions are actually one dimensional "strings". How these "strings" vibrate determine the properties of the particles. String theory has several different versions. Depending on which version of string theory you believe they predict that the universe has between 10 and 26 spatial dimensions. Wikipedia article: String Theory I think what you are refering to is Brane cosmology. This is a possible although not necessary consequence of superstring theory. However this theory states that the two colliding branes (or bubbles as you call them) created the big bang, so it is not an alternative to the big bang but an attempt to explain how it occured. Wikipedia article: Brane Cosmology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shun Posted August 2, 2006 #34 Share Posted August 2, 2006 (edited) note to self- they don't read what I post... Edited August 2, 2006 by shun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyWeather Posted August 2, 2006 #35 Share Posted August 2, 2006 What you are describing is not String Theory. String Theory states that what standard physics thinks of as particles with 0 dimensions are actually one dimensional "strings". How these "strings" vibrate determine the properties of the particles. String theory has several different versions. Depending on which version of string theory you believe they predict that the universe has between 10 and 26 spatial dimensions. Wikipedia article: String Theory I think what you are refering to is Brane cosmology. This is a possible although not necessary consequence of superstring theory. However this theory states that the two colliding branes (or bubbles as you call them) created the big bang, so it is not an alternative to the big bang but an attempt to explain how it occured. Wikipedia article: Brane Cosmology ah >.< its been a long while since I last spoke about the string theory. Thank for clearing my confusion up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellapenella Posted October 8, 2014 #36 Share Posted October 8, 2014 I was just thinking... What came before the big bang? Don't tell me it's nothing because I refuse to believe it! How can there be nothing? And if there was, what caused the big bang? Also, what's inside a black hole? More nothing? Even though they suck in so much. The beauty of God is that , no one will ever be able to answer that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellapenella Posted October 8, 2014 #37 Share Posted October 8, 2014 In the book of Enoch , black holes were spoken about. Like , portals or something ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellapenella Posted October 8, 2014 #38 Share Posted October 8, 2014 my thoughts are , does time effect the abode of where time is non existent ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now