Misconceptions about the Big Bang
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-11-2012, 03:30 AM
RE: Misconceptions about the Big Bang
I still want an explanation of that signature....

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2012, 10:28 AM
RE: Misconceptions about the Big Bang
(20-11-2012 03:30 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  I still want an explanation of that signature....

The first one is the full version of Einstein's mass-energy equivalence formula, you know E=mc2? The full version takes into account momentum. It's really just the Pythagorean Theorem from highschool math, (a2+b2=c2) except a=mc2, b=pc, and c=E

The second one shows the decay of Carbon-14 to Nitrogen-14, emitting an electron and an anti-electron neutrino in the process.

The third shows the reaction of Potassium metal with water, to create potassium hydroxide and hydrogen gas. I would have gone further and shown how the hydrogen reacts with oxygen in there air to create more water and a lot more energy, but I ran out of room. Anyway, the end result is a bang.

It's all science. And it works, bitches.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2012, 11:58 AM (This post was last modified: 20-11-2012 12:01 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Misconceptions about the Big Bang
(18-11-2012 08:37 PM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  1. Why did the singularity expand?
A wild guess appears!

I imagine it has something to do with heat.

"After its initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. While protons and neutrons combined to form the first atomic nuclei only a few minutes after the Big Bang, it would take thousands of years for electrons to combine with them and create electrically neutral atoms. [sic]"

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
20-11-2012, 01:21 PM
RE: Misconceptions about the Big Bang
(17-11-2012 01:03 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  There's a common misunderstanding people seem to have about the Big Bang event/theory: they seem to think that the theory implies that the universe came from nothingness.

This is not the case.

The Big Bang theory postulates the expansion of the universe from what's known as a singularity, that is a point of infinitely dense matter and energy, where our current understanding of physics breaks down (the equations spit out "Infinity", or "Undefined", or "Divide by Zero Error"). Singularities are found today inside of black holes; however the primordial singularity may or may not have been a black hole.


The Big Bang theory DOES NOT say anything about that singularity's properties (other than it containing all mass/energy in the universe and possibly rolled up dimensions), and DEFINITELY does not say anything about what came before the singularity. Nowhere in the Big Bang theory do you find the term "nothingness".

The Big Bang could have been a one-off event from nothingness. It could have been one of a billion, a trillion, a googolplex of universes being born all at once. It could have been born from the ashes of dying universe that collapsed in on itself, or it could have been a descendent of a black hole in another universe. The Big Bang could have been set off by a supernatural being called God, or all of our reality could be a simulation in another universe's computer, just some hyper-dimensional grad student's PhD thesis.

The Big Bang theory says nothing about any of this. All it says is that the universe started out near-infinitely small, and expanded and cooled into its present state, and all the evidence we have backs this up.

"Nothing" doesn't figure into it.
So why are you telling us this? Did anyone here actually believe that? No...

Circle Jerk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2012, 01:58 PM
RE: Misconceptions about the Big Bang
(20-11-2012 01:21 PM)Diablo666 Wrote:  
(17-11-2012 01:03 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  There's a common misunderstanding people seem to have about the Big Bang event/theory: they seem to think that the theory implies that the universe came from nothingness.

This is not the case.

The Big Bang theory postulates the expansion of the universe from what's known as a singularity, that is a point of infinitely dense matter and energy, where our current understanding of physics breaks down (the equations spit out "Infinity", or "Undefined", or "Divide by Zero Error"). Singularities are found today inside of black holes; however the primordial singularity may or may not have been a black hole.


The Big Bang theory DOES NOT say anything about that singularity's properties (other than it containing all mass/energy in the universe and possibly rolled up dimensions), and DEFINITELY does not say anything about what came before the singularity. Nowhere in the Big Bang theory do you find the term "nothingness".

The Big Bang could have been a one-off event from nothingness. It could have been one of a billion, a trillion, a googolplex of universes being born all at once. It could have been born from the ashes of dying universe that collapsed in on itself, or it could have been a descendent of a black hole in another universe. The Big Bang could have been set off by a supernatural being called God, or all of our reality could be a simulation in another universe's computer, just some hyper-dimensional grad student's PhD thesis.

The Big Bang theory says nothing about any of this. All it says is that the universe started out near-infinitely small, and expanded and cooled into its present state, and all the evidence we have backs this up.

"Nothing" doesn't figure into it.
So why are you telling us this? Did anyone here actually believe that? No...

Circle Jerk


Actually a ton of people do, if you've ever listened to a single debate with an apologist... Ever... In your life...

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Phaedrus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: