The fish Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 WRONG! It's actually that there was everything, in terms of mass and energy, in a very, very, very compact space, which then exploded due to the enormous pressure involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyson Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 WRONG! It's actually that there was everything, in terms of mass and energy, in a very, very, very compact space, which then exploded due to the enormous pressure involved. No, no, not wrong. Remember: all of these are theories. There are several arguments for the big bang theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellfire Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 WRONG! It's actually that there was everything, in terms of mass and energy, in a very, very, very compact space, which then exploded due to the enormous pressure involved. Not to mention that the pics mixing (on purpose) the classic "in the beggining there was nothing" with the big gangbang theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haver Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 WRONG! It's actually that there was everything, in terms of mass and energy, in a very, very, very compact space, which then exploded due to the enormous pressure involved. And in addition, there was no beginning. There is no beginning or end! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 And in addition, there was no beginning. There is no beginning or end! Aye, this be true, as far as I can tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supergrunch Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Stephen Hawking's explanation is that the very concept of something existing before the big bang is meaningless, like being north of the north pole. This seems a bit too much like rhetoric to me, but it makes a fair point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Stephen Hawking's explanation is that the very concept of something existing before the big bang is meaningless, like being north of the north pole. This seems a bit too much like rhetoric to me, but it makes a fair point. You seem to have missed the idea here: it's believed that the all the matter and energy is constant, and that when a universe is "out of steam", the forces take over, and suck it all back together, into a very, very small space. The enormous pressure then causes it to explode, sending it all outwards again. It essentially pulsates, but with a massive variation of the speeds involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shino Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 There's no evidence of the universe coming back together again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 There's no evidence of the universe coming back together again. Direct evidence, no. However, once it slows down to a certain speed, gravity, electromagnetism, and the nuclear forces will take over and the whole lot will be pulled back together, theoretically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Big Bang = True. They can even hear the echos of the bang in deep space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaggis Posted September 20, 2007 Author Share Posted September 20, 2007 Big Bang = True. They can even hear the echos of the bang in deep space. Really? Wow. That's pretty amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Big Bang = True. They can even hear the echos of the bang in deep space. Yep, and my favorite part of it all is that the two scientists who discovered it using a radio telescope initially thought it was interference of source closer to home, so they cleaned the dish of what they referred to in their report as "white dielectric material". You and I know it better as "bird shit". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaggis Posted September 20, 2007 Author Share Posted September 20, 2007 Direct evidence, no. However, once it slows down to a certain speed, gravity, electromagnetism, and the nuclear forces will take over and the whole lot will be pulled back together, theoretically. hasn't that theory of the universe coming in on itself been thought of as not very probable (sp?) though? I thought there was someone thing else much more likely to happen, though I've forgotten exactly what. Also the Universe is still expanding right? I mean new galaxies are still slowly being formed (thats accoring to wiki). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shino Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Direct evidence, no. However, once it slows down to a certain speed, gravity, electromagnetism, and the nuclear forces will take over and the whole lot will be pulled back together, theoretically. The problem is contrary to what the laws of physics would have us believe, it's not slowing down, its accelerating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Also the Universe is still expanding right? I mean new galaxies are still slowly being formed (thats accoring to wiki). Yep, we've still got a long while to go. Are me immediate problem is that the sun will eventually stop. That is, of course, if we don't kill the planet beforehand... The problem is contrary to what the laws of physics would have us believe, it's not slowing down, its accelerating. We don't know that, actually. Until there is more evidence that that it's accelerating, the Big Crunch theory remains in place as the primary one. Here's an idea: maybe stuff is accelerating towards something with a massive mass, and that it's just part of the pulsating universe theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaggis Posted September 20, 2007 Author Share Posted September 20, 2007 That is, of course, if we don't kill the planet beforehand... No, no, no! You've got it all wrong. Global warming doesn't exist, it's all natural. We can carry on doing whatever we like wint no consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Really? Wow. That's pretty amazing. Yep, when they first heard it they thought it was aliens . however it was too perfect to be anything like that and in time they discovered it was the echo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zell Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 No, no, no! You've got it all wrong. Global warming doesn't exist, it's all natural. We can carry on doing whatever we like wint no consequences. We'll probably nuke the fuck out of each other before global warming has any significant effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 No, no, no! You've got it all wrong. Global warming doesn't exist, it's all natural. We can carry on doing whatever we like wint no consequences. Yep, and 9/11 was done by the US government, the moon landing was shot in a sound stage on Mars, and I was the second gunman on the grassy knoll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supergrunch Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Direct evidence, no. However, once it slows down to a certain speed, gravity, electromagnetism, and the nuclear forces will take over and the whole lot will be pulled back together, theoretically. Actually, I think you'll find the big crunch isn't a feasible theory any more, the reason being that it was (relatively) recently discovered that all the galaxies flying apart from one another are speeding up, which nobody predicted. This suggests that everything will simply fizzle out. EDIT: Here we go, wikiproof. :wink: However, recent experimental evidence (namely the observation of distant supernovae as standard candles, and the well-resolved mapping of the cosmic microwave background) has—to considerable surprise—shown that the expansion of the universe is not being slowed down by gravity, but instead, accelerating, suggesting that the universe will not end with a Big Crunch, but will instead expand forever. Although some scientists have contested this theory,[1] most cosmologists have considered the evidence of an accelerating universe to be conclusive since 2002. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaggis Posted September 20, 2007 Author Share Posted September 20, 2007 Yep, and 9/11 was done by the US government, the moon landing was shot in a sound stage on Mars, and I was the second gunman on the grassy knoll. I read that and it reminded me of UK. Anyways, back to the subject. I think the reason why some people find the big bang thoery hard to believe is because it's hard to imaging nothingness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zell Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 But surely the rate of acceleration could be decreasing, so even though we're speeding up, we could end up slowing down again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shino Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 We don't know that, actually. Until there is more evidence that that it's accelerating, the Big Crunch theory remains in place as the primary one. It has been proved, several times. That's where the Dark Energy theory comes from. The universe, while expanding, should be gradually slowing down, not accelerating to the infinity like its doing. Edit: What SuperGrunch said. :P Here's an idea: maybe stuff is accelerating towards something with a massive mass, and that it's just part of the pulsating universe theory. That's what I was saying, maybe there's several universes pulling bits from each other, originating another big bang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Actually, I think you'll find the big crunch isn't a feasible theory any more, the reason being that it was (relatively) recently discovered that all the galaxies flying apart from one another are speeding up, which nobody predicted. This suggests that everything will simply fizzle out. This is most odd... I'll freely admit know relatively little of what little is known/thought. As I said above, it's always possible they are accelerating towards something else. Dark matter could yet play a further crucial role in all this business... I read that and it reminded me of UK. Good, my impression worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supergrunch Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 This is most odd...I'll freely admit know relatively little of what little is known/thought. As I said above, it's always possible they are accelerating towards something else. Dark matter could yet play a further crucial role in all this business... Anyway, hence the whole "nothing existing before the big bang", which I did take from a lecture by Stephen Hawking. Of course, this is just one idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts