Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Question about the big bang theory

mrsatan
Posts: 428
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 8:38:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
To be clear, I have very limited knowledge about cosmology in general, and my understanding of the big bang theory is rather basic.

That said, I find myself wondering if it's possible the universe already existed and the bang happened within it, expanding and adding to it, rather than creating the whole of it?
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
Quan
Posts: 97
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 9:26:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
That is the big bang theory. The big bang theory didn't create anything. The entire Universe was condensed into an unimaginably small space.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 9:57:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If I recall correctly, nobody actually thinks there was a "bang." The popular theory in scientific circles is sort of gradual expansion. The term "Big Bang" originated by an opponent of some theory, calling it the "Big Bang" to show how ridiculous it was.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 10:46:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
First, it's important to remember that the "Big Bang" as the theory is called is actually not a valid representation of what the theory tries to prove. Second, the Big Bang Theory does not postulate that an explosion happened in already existing space, but that it created space itself. Finally, the universe was never "point-like". True, Hubble's Law theorizes that at an earlier time in the Universe's existence, the matter in the Universe was more dense, but that isn't a justification enough for claiming that there was ever a "point-like" Universe.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
mrsatan
Posts: 428
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 11:06:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I appreciate the replies, and I know it didn't create anything, poor wording on my part. I should've said forming. And from what I've read it is a gradual expansion, though I didn't know how it got the name "big bang".

More accurately, I'm wondering if a black hole could accumulate enough matter to end in a "big bang" expansion.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 2:13:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 11:06:57 AM, mrsatan wrote:
I appreciate the replies, and I know it didn't create anything, poor wording on my part. I should've said forming. And from what I've read it is a gradual expansion, though I didn't know how it got the name "big bang".


The Big Bang Theory actually got its name from a staunch opponent of the theory, Fred Doyle, who gave the theory that name to explain how ludicrous the theory was.
More accurately, I'm wondering if a black hole could accumulate enough matter to end in a "big bang" expansion.

No. Here is a good article on that: http://www.ronen.net....

Essentially, the Big Bang's singularity lies in the past, not the future, as a black hole implies.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 2:29:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 2:13:10 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:06:57 AM, mrsatan wrote:
I appreciate the replies, and I know it didn't create anything, poor wording on my part. I should've said forming. And from what I've read it is a gradual expansion, though I didn't know how it got the name "big bang".


The Big Bang Theory actually got its name from a staunch opponent of the theory, Fred Doyle, who gave the theory that name to explain how ludicrous the theory was.
More accurately, I'm wondering if a black hole could accumulate enough matter to end in a "big bang" expansion.

No. Here is a good article on that: http://www.ronen.net....

Essentially, the Big Bang's singularity lies in the past, not the future, as a black hole implies.

Fred Doyle?

Any relation to Fred Hoyle?
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 2:37:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 2:29:04 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 7/31/2013 2:13:10 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:06:57 AM, mrsatan wrote:
I appreciate the replies, and I know it didn't create anything, poor wording on my part. I should've said forming. And from what I've read it is a gradual expansion, though I didn't know how it got the name "big bang".


The Big Bang Theory actually got its name from a staunch opponent of the theory, Fred Doyle, who gave the theory that name to explain how ludicrous the theory was.
More accurately, I'm wondering if a black hole could accumulate enough matter to end in a "big bang" expansion.

No. Here is a good article on that: http://www.ronen.net....

Essentially, the Big Bang's singularity lies in the past, not the future, as a black hole implies.

Fred Doyle?

Any relation to Fred Hoyle?

Oops. That's supposed to read Fred Hoyle

My new computer isn't very sensitive.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 3:25:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 8:38:47 AM, mrsatan wrote:
To be clear, I have very limited knowledge about cosmology in general, and my understanding of the big bang theory is rather basic.

That said, I find myself wondering if it's possible the universe already existed and the bang happened within it, expanding and adding to it, rather than creating the whole of it?

We know of the Big Bang because we can observe that the universe is expanding, and have calculated when it must have had zero size. The universe isn't expanding "into" anything, it's more like the surface of the Earth in that if you go far enough in one direction, you'll return to your starting point. The Big Bang wasn't an explosion in space, but an explosion of space.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 3:46:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 9:57:12 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
If I recall correctly, nobody actually thinks there was a "bang." The popular theory in scientific circles is sort of gradual expansion. The term "Big Bang" originated by an opponent of some theory, calling it the "Big Bang" to show how ridiculous it was.

Gradual expansion? The current consensus is that the universe grew from something smaller than the size of a grapefruit to something billions of lightyears across in a minute fraction of a second, you call that gradual?

The singularity began infinitesimally small and cosmic inflation kicked in at 10 to the minus 36 seconds and by 10 to the minus 32 seconds it had expanded by at least 10 to the 78 in volume...that's from zero to the entire visible universe in less than an instant, nothing gradual about that.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 3:54:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 2:13:10 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:06:57 AM, mrsatan wrote:
I appreciate the replies, and I know it didn't create anything, poor wording on my part. I should've said forming. And from what I've read it is a gradual expansion, though I didn't know how it got the name "big bang".


The Big Bang Theory actually got its name from a staunch opponent of the theory, Fred Doyle, who gave the theory that name to explain how ludicrous the theory was.

Must be a typo, it was Fred Hoyle.

More accurately, I'm wondering if a black hole could accumulate enough matter to end in a "big bang" expansion.

Could be, nobody really knows where the first one came from, a lot of physicists speculate that a series of expansions and contractions have been occurring, a series of Big Bangs followed by Big Crunches. Our physical theories can't tell us much at that level so yeah, maybe so, or maybe not.

No. Here is a good article on that: http://www.ronen.net....

Essentially, the Big Bang's singularity lies in the past, not the future, as a black hole implies.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 5:38:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 11:06:57 AM, mrsatan wrote:
I appreciate the replies, and I know it didn't create anything, poor wording on my part. I should've said forming. And from what I've read it is a gradual expansion, though I didn't know how it got the name "big bang".

More accurately, I'm wondering if a black hole could accumulate enough matter to end in a "big bang" expansion.

Black holes don't "bang". If they're less massive than the moon, their temperature is greater than that of the vacuum of space and they evaporate instantly. If they're more massive and therefore colder, they just keep growing and growing and growing.
mrsatan
Posts: 428
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 9:16:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 5:38:52 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:06:57 AM, mrsatan wrote:
I appreciate the replies, and I know it didn't create anything, poor wording on my part. I should've said forming. And from what I've read it is a gradual expansion, though I didn't know how it got the name "big bang".

More accurately, I'm wondering if a black hole could accumulate enough matter to end in a "big bang" expansion.

Black holes don't "bang". If they're less massive than the moon, their temperature is greater than that of the vacuum of space and they evaporate instantly. If they're more massive and therefore colder, they just keep growing and growing and growing.

Any thoughts on what might happen if a black hole were to catch a star like this one in it's pull? (Apparently the star should actually have become a black hole itself)

http://www.space.com...
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2013 1:23:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/1/2013 9:16:38 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 7/31/2013 5:38:52 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:06:57 AM, mrsatan wrote:
I appreciate the replies, and I know it didn't create anything, poor wording on my part. I should've said forming. And from what I've read it is a gradual expansion, though I didn't know how it got the name "big bang".

More accurately, I'm wondering if a black hole could accumulate enough matter to end in a "big bang" expansion.

Black holes don't "bang". If they're less massive than the moon, their temperature is greater than that of the vacuum of space and they evaporate instantly. If they're more massive and therefore colder, they just keep growing and growing and growing.


Any thoughts on what might happen if a black hole were to catch a star like this one in it's pull? (Apparently the star should actually have become a black hole itself)

http://www.space.com...

It would pull it apart and absorb the contents, just like it does to other stars.