|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5846 days) Posts: 109 From: Bozeman, Montana, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Universe Race | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Use "peek" button in the bottom right of any message and you can see the characters used to make the quote box. Thanks...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
I'm saying that the stars had to be created moving and far apart. Which betrays the fact that you don't know the first thing about stellar formation or the Big Bang. Stars were not created in the Big Bang. Matter didn't even form right away. Stars formed millions of years later from the slow gravitational attraction of gas clouds towards their gravitational center. Your concept of the Big Bang is that of a chemical explosive - that is not even remotely similar to the Big Bang. I note that you didnt even bother to reply to my last post. I thought that this meant you understood that your analogy was so far off the mark as to be in a different time zone, but this last post suggests that you simply ignored it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Crooked to what standard Member (Idle past 5846 days) Posts: 109 From: Bozeman, Montana, USA Joined: |
Rahvin writes: There isn't really a "center" to the Universe that we've been able to determine, and the evidence doesn't support the model your analogy illustrates. It seems that there would be a center of the universe. It seems that the center of the universe would be the exact spot the Big Bang happened. Iesous Christos H Theos H Uios Soter Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Crooked to what standard Member (Idle past 5846 days) Posts: 109 From: Bozeman, Montana, USA Joined: |
Rahvin writes: Stars were not created in the Big Bang. Matter didn't even form right away. If matter didn't form from the Big Bang, then what was the point of the Big Bang? I read that the BB created both matter and antimatter. Iesous Christos H Theos H Uios Soter Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
If matter didn't form from the Big Bang, then what was the point of the Big Bang? I read that the BB created both matter and antimatter. Matter is composed of atoms and molecules right? Ok, in the moments after the Big Bang and for nearly about 400 milleniums(400,000yrs) after it, space was way too hot, naked atomic nuclei with no electrons were all there was. Ninety percent of the nuclei were hydrogen, most of the rest were helium...not untill the ambient temp in the expanding universe cooled down from trillions of degrees kelvin to about 3000 degrees kelvin did the nuclei capture electrons turning themselves into atoms, as the atoms gathered they formed the first molecules thus creating MATTER. And, since the first molecules were hydrogen gas is was only a matter of space and time before those gas clouds collapsed by their own gravity, the first Star was born...one hundred times larger than ours. This Sun eventually blew up into a massive supernova and spread all of the elements that were forged inside of it into the awaiting universe to repet the process over and over again drawing matter to them and creating solar systems. After billions of years passed one of those solar systems in a far off galaxy was able to retain water H2O, basic elements, and that sparked life. Billions of years after that you and me are discussing it all online. Cool huh??? Edited by onifre, : No reason given. Edited by onifre, : No reason given. All great truths begin as blasphemies
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
If matter didn't form from the Big Bang, then what was the point of the Big Bang? I read that the BB created both matter and antimatter. Read my earlier post again, and read up a bit more on the Big Bang...from non-Creationist sources, and not from the Science channel. The Big Bang is a term coined by an opponent of the theory - it stuck because it had a nice sound to it, but I swear, the name causes so much confusion as to the nature of the actual model that I truly wish we could rename it. The Big Bang didn't have a purpose, Ichthus. It's just what we call the initial expansion of the Universe, a process that continues today. And it's not that the matter in the Universe is simply moving apart, as in a combustion-based normal explosion. Rather, it is space itself that is expanding. The Big Bang refers to those bare fractions of a second after T=0 where the dimensions of the Universe expanded from what was, essentially, a much smaller form. We can't describe much of the state the Universe was in at that exact moment because modern physics and mathematics reach a singularity at T=0, which basically means that the equations no longer apply, and we stick a big "I don't know" sticker on that particular coordinate of time. Because everything that is in the Universe was compressed into such a tiny space, it was incredibly hot and dense - essentially it was to hot for matter (as we see it today) to exist. Basically, all of the matter in the Universe existed as a quark-gluon plasma - it hadn't even formed into protons and neutrons and electrons or their antimatter counterparts yet. Note that there was no "creation" of matter suggested in the Big Bang - matter simply changed from one form into another, that's all. Actual creation of matter or energy is impossible as per the laws of thermodynamics, and there is no model that supports such an idea in current cosmology. The "creation" of matter and antimatter you're talking about is simply the assembly of the normal subatomic particles from their quark and gluon components, which basically happened as the Universe continued to expand and cool. There were more quarks than antiquarks present in the plasma, and so normal matter emerged as the most prevalent form of matter as opposed to antimatter. Matter/antimatter annihilation eliminated most of the remainder of the antimatter - what we see today is in particle accelerators or generated by high-energy cosmic phenomenon. All of this happened in less than a single second. Almost all matter existed as Hydrogen (with very few heavier elements). Stellar formation occurred much later, and the stellar fusion process was the genesis of all heavier elements. Yes, that means that we are literally made of stardust, the leftovers of an ancient supernova - which is pretty damned cool, if you ask me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5869 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
quote: Contrary to reason, the big bang and the resultant universe it allegedly resulted in cannot be permitted to have a center. The "Copernican Principle" is assumed. Despite its name, it cannot be attributed to Copernicus. Neither is there any evidence to support it, at least according to Stephen Hawking. For purposes of this light discussion, I'll take the hit for "appeal to authority". But I give you my word as well: there ain't no evidence. That's why it's an assumption rather than a conclusion. Worse still, if the universe has a center, all observations are consistent with Earth being at or close to it. Furthermore, if you assign reverse vectors to the visible matter in order to see where everything came from... well, that just makes them howl. As I said, reason has been dispensed with in cosmology. Only the oldest versions of the big bang considered a physical explosion. These are the versions perpetuated in schoolbooks and pop science to keep the actual current big bang safe from being laughed out of the schoolhouse by the students. As silly as those versions were/are, they ain't nothin' compared to the real deal. All that being said, your analogy is fairly accurate. Since Einstein's day they've been trying to come up with a fudge factor that will allow gravity to increase (or in some versions actually reverse) at long distances and hold things together, while still matching observations closely enough for them to fudge the observations to comply. Actually, they've mostly given up on finding one; but never underestimate the diehards. Inertia favors your analogy, and gravity can't prevent this. In order to exert more gravity, what do you need? More mass! More mass = more inertia, and by all mainstream accounts they don't have nearly enough mass to slow things down even if you throw in dark matter. But don't get sidetracked by dark matter. It's primary function is to hold galaxies together. There ain't enough visible mass and the velocities are just crazy - well not crazy, God knew what He was doing. Without dark matter, galaxies fly apart in a few thousand years. So there has to be dark matter, because the galaxies haven't flown apart in billions of imaginary years. I won't tax you with what I know of the dark energy fantasy at this time. Like the rest, it's funny but at the same time very sad business. They've been into blind faith for quite some time now. But anyhow, to stop your analogy from being on target, they'd have to devise something that counteracts inertia and is capable of preventing the universe from flying apart. The mainstream bin's empty, so expect trash that's either 50 years out-of-date, or straight out of a sci-fi novel. Or invented ad hoc, can't forget that category. Ah, if only there were drag in empty space... you might get to refine your analogy. But once something reaches escape velocity in a vacuum, there's no turning back without some means of thrust. If there had been a big bang, everything would have to have been exceeding this velocity from the very start. This applies no matter how many loopy extra imaginary dimensions are added.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Responding to this message is against my better judgment.
Ichthus writes:
For a moment, just shut up and try to read what I have to say and then try to think it through before you respond. It seems that there would be a center of the universe. It seems that the center of the universe would be the exact spot the Big Bang happened. Imagine a balloon. The surface area of the 2 dimensional surface of the balloon represents space. As the balloon inflates, the surface area of the balloon increases. Now, if you are only confined to the 2 dimensional surface of the balloon, where is the center? There is no center. But if you are to stand on any point of the balloon, it would seem that every other point on the balloon is moving away from you. At this point, I know you are tempted to say that the center of the balloon is actually the 3rd dimensional space inside the balloon. But remember that you are not allowed to leave the 2 dimensional surface of the balloon. If you were go back in time, you would see the surface area of the balloon decrease until right before it reaches infinitesimally small. Now, try to apply that to 3 dimensional space. There is no center of the 3 dimensional universe just like there is no center on the 2 dimensional surface of the balloon. We are 3 dimensional creatures, so we are confined to referring everything to the 3 dimensional space that we know. But for just a moment, try to think of it from this perspective. There is no center of the 3 dimensional universe that we can observe just like there is no center of the 2 dimensional surface of the balloon. I highly recommend you go to your local library and pick up the book Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott. Try to read it with an open mind. It will greatly explain to you why it is so difficult for 3 dimensional beings like ourselves to think outside the box. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
CTD writes:
Uhhh, I don't know what planet you're living on, but this isn't the reason why Fritz Zwicky proposed the existence of dark matter.
But don't get sidetracked by dark matter. It's primary function is to hold galaxies together. There ain't enough visible mass and the velocities are just crazy - well not crazy, God knew what He was doing. Without dark matter, galaxies fly apart in a few thousand years. So there has to be dark matter, because the galaxies haven't flown apart in billions of imaginary years. I won't tax you with what I know of the dark energy fantasy at this time. Like the rest, it's funny but at the same time very sad business. They've been into blind faith for quite some time now.
Right, and believing in a god that watches you when you masturbate isn't blind faith?
But anyhow, to stop your analogy from being on target, they'd have to devise something that counteracts inertia and is capable of preventing the universe from flying apart. The mainstream bin's empty, so expect trash that's either 50 years out-of-date, or straight out of a sci-fi novel. Or invented ad hoc, can't forget that category.
Apparently, you haven't gone past the 80's yet. Because in the 90's, they've observed that the universe really is literally flying apart, at an accelerated speed mind you.
Ah, if only there were drag in empty space... you might get to refine your analogy. But once something reaches escape velocity in a vacuum, there's no turning back without some means of thrust. If there had been a big bang, everything would have to have been exceeding this velocity from the very start. This applies no matter how many loopy extra imaginary dimensions are added.
I'm sorry, I didn't know you were such a prominent physicist. Mind giving us the math behind this fantasy of yours?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
The "Copernican Principle" is assumed... ...Neither is there any evidence to support it Really? The CP essentially states that we are not priviledged observers, our place in the Universe is not special. This is observationally confirmed at just about every astronomical/cosmological length scale you care to imagine, not just our place in the Solar System (the origination of the name 'Copernican Principle for obvious reasons.)
Worse still, if the universe has a center, all observations are consistent with Earth being at or close to it. Earth??? Really? Or do you mean the Solar System, or the Galaxy? Or the Local Group? Or perhaps the entire Virgo Supercluster? Let's just say for sake of argument that the VS is the centre of the Universe... now do you claim that the Earth has a central special location within the VS?
Furthermore, if you assign reverse vectors to the visible matter in order to see where everything came from... well, that just makes them howl. I'm sorry, but this is complete nonsense. Where did you read this, or did you make it up?
Only the oldest versions of the big bang considered a physical explosion. The big bang has NEVER involved a physical explosion, despite all of the popular misrepresentations. I suggest being more familiar with the actual science before you start making such proclamations.
These are the versions perpetuated in schoolbooks and pop science to keep the actual current big bang safe from being laughed out of the schoolhouse by the students. As silly as those versions were/are, they ain't nothin' compared to the real deal. Strange - I have never been laughed at when teaching the cosmology of the big bang, either to my graduate students or, later, to my more advanced school students.
All that being said, your analogy is fairly accurate. Ah, you really don't understand any of this, do you?
Since Einstein's day they've been trying to come up with a fudge factor that will allow gravity to increase (or in some versions actually reverse) at long distances and hold things together, while still matching observations closely enough for them to fudge the observations to comply. Care to explain this gibberish more clearly? What fudge was anyone looking for 'since Einstein'? Are you completely misunderstanding Lambda (the Cosmological Constant) or are you alluding to dark matter? If so, you're the best part of a century out !!!
Inertia favors your analogy, and gravity can't prevent this. In order to exert more gravity, what do you need? More mass! More mass = more inertia, and by all mainstream accounts they don't have nearly enough mass to slow things down even if you throw in dark matter. I'm sorry, but your layman explanation of General Relativity here seems rather screwed. Care to explain to me what you mean?
But don't get sidetracked by dark matter. It's primary function is to hold galaxies together. There ain't enough visible mass and the velocities are just crazy Can you quantify 'crazy'? Do you simply mean 'different' to that predicted by the visible mass?
Without dark matter, galaxies fly apart in a few thousand years Do they??? I am surprised! But I guess if you think of galaxies poofing into existence by magic, complete with their observed rotation curves, AND with a complete absence of dark matter, then yes, I guess they would fly apart!!! I'll remember to stop teaching that. Thanks. By the way, can I see your calcs that show this 'flying apart' prediction, as I'm not familiar with them.
I won't tax you with what I know of the dark energy fantasy at this time. Oh, please, don't let me stop you. I would love to hear what you know...
But anyhow, to stop your analogy from being on target, they'd have to devise something that counteracts inertia and is capable of preventing the universe from flying apart. The mainstream bin's empty, so expect trash that's either 50 years out-of-date, or straight out of a sci-fi novel. Or invented ad hoc, can't forget that category. The analogy is completely incorrect - no more needs to be said. But perhaps you could explain why you think the analogy is on target?
If there had been a big bang, everything would have to have been exceeding this velocity from the very start. This applies no matter how many loopy extra imaginary dimensions are added. I'm sorry, what velocity? Peculiar velocity with respect to a particular local comoving frame? Or do you mean perceived recession velocity of one comoving frame from the perspective of some other comoving frame? In which case, which 'other' comoving frame? Or are you not sure what you mean? CTD, from your language, attitude, and arrogance expressed in your post, you seem to want to portray yourself as someone with some knowledge of cosmology. I'm afraid I have to tell you that your knowledge is at best woefully inadequate, and in the main is simply wrong. Might I suggest that next time you try to pass yourself as knowledgable in a subject, you do so in the absence of professionals of that subject? Edited by cavediver, : No reason given. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Ok, in the moments after the Big Bang and for nearly about 400 million years after it It was ~400,000 years after the big bang that recombination occured, where electrons recombined with the bare nuclei to form neutral hydrogen and helium. This gave rise to the CMBR. It was much much later, when the first energetic objects started to form (quasars probably) that the gases were re-ionised. However, the Universe was sufficiently large by this time that the re-ionisation did not return the Universe to an opaque state, as it had been in prior to recombination. By the time we get to 400 million years, we're into the first star formation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
400,000 years after the big bang that recombination occured, where electrons recombined with the bare nuclei to form neutral hydrogen and helium. This gave rise to the CMBR. It was much much later, when the first energetic objects started to form (quasars probably) that the gases were re-ionised. However, the Universe was sufficiently large by this time that the re-ionisation did not return the Universe to an opaque state, as it had been in prior to recombination. By the time we get to 400 million years, we're into the first star formation. My bad on the time figures, I meant to write 400 millenia, but I was thinking in the millions. Thanks for catching that i'll edit it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Paul,
Paulk writes: The big problem is that stars did NOT begin at the same point. Paul you really got me confused with this one. Son Goku told me HereSon Goku writes: 13.7 billion years ago the whole universe was about the size of a pea. If all mass and energy was compressed into such a small area, why didn't everything start at the same place? If it was under so much pressure how did it get out? I have a problem with the universe being the size of a pea maybe some of you fellows can help my understanding a little. Mass and energy can not be created. They can change places.But how do you get the volume of mass and energy that is in the universe in something so small? Could someone, anybody, everybody please explain? God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
If all mass and energy was compressed into such a small area, why didn't everything start at the same place? Because stars didn't begin to form until 100s of millions of years after the big bang.
But how do you get the volume of mass and energy that is in the universe in something so small? How do you manage to get all that mass and energy into something as small as our Universe is now?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
cavediver writes: But how do you get the volume of mass and energy that is in the universe in something so small? How do you manage to get all that mass and energy into something as small as our Universe is now? Actually, I have the same question. Probably naively I would think that each Planck volume (is there such a thing? - in any case, I'm trying to refer to the smallest unit of space) could only contain a single fundamental "something", whatever that might be, whether quarks or superstrings or whatever. Once all Planck volumes in the universe contain a "something", then isn't that the greatest possible density? And is this at all related to why current models have difficulty describing what happened before T=10-43? --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024