The big bang
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-12-2013, 04:09 AM
RE: The big bang
(17-12-2013 02:07 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(16-12-2013 01:38 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Now on the "surface" of that expanding balloon, a new balloon forms which itself undergoes inflation(that initial rapid expansion in a tiny fraction of a second) then after achieving a certain size continues to expand more slowly. This process goes on and on for eternity. Basically somewhere in the universe, there is always part of it undergoing inflation.....No matter how far back you go....there is always part of the universe big banging away. One advantage of such a model is it allows for entropy to eternally increase.

1) That's never been observed to happen anywhere in the observable universe so there's no compelling reason to believe that it ever has.

2) It would likely be a spectacularly bad idea. The initial Big Bang works pretty well because space and time are expanding into nothingness, so far as we know. Any subsequent "little bangs", for lack of a better term, would need to expand within the existing space-time. That's going to be a bit pesky. Making room for the new space-time is going to require extreme space-time curvatures, over-writing of old space-time by the new, mingling of the two space-time domains or something equally hideous. From what we know of cosmology this should be pretty easy to detect and pretty damned catastrophic. The energies released would be visible from the opposite side of the visible universe as some of our most distant neighbors (hopefully) were reduced to an expanding blast-wave of plasma and elementary particles several hundred million light-years in diameter.

Inflation theory has a lot of explanatory power which is why I think it is widely accepted in cosmological circles. You are right...inflation has never been observed.....but neither has abiogenesis. Do you believe abiogenesis happened? I'm just curious if you are consistent with your, "hasn't been observed and therefore there is no reason to believe" stance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 04:17 AM
RE: The big bang
(17-12-2013 08:43 PM)Jeffasaurus Wrote:  Regarding the issue of no time prior to the big bang, it concerns gravity. As gravity increases it slows down time. In fact, our satellites in geosynchronous orbits have to be recalibrated regularly to compensate for the lower gravity off planet. Within the massive density of a black hole, time slows down to a mere crawl. Compress the entire universe into a single point as it was prior to the Big Bang, and the gravity will be so intense that there would be no passage of time whatsoever.

That is why you frequently hear that nothing happened prior to the Big Bang. It's simply based on our concept of what time is.

When asked if God created the universe Stephen Hawking replied, "no, because he didn't have time."

Gravity is the result of a curvature in space time. Compress the universe into a point and their is no space-time to be curved....there is no gravity to slow time down to a standstill.

Further, the proposed force carrier of gravity is the graviton boson...which cannot exist when the universe is a point. Bosons need space to exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 08:05 AM
RE: The big bang
These concepts are really quite bizarre. If the universe was a single point, . . . what was "beyond it"? There had to be something to expand into, right?

As for "gravity affecting time", . . . it's another weird concept.

Say what you will, . . . topics in physics are both fascinating and mind boggling.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 08:54 AM
RE: The big bang
This is one of my favorite topics.

This is my currently favored model!

http://www.space.com/8293-universe-born-...heory.html

Onward, my faithful steed!
[Image: ezgif-save_zps4d93a674.gif?t=1395781443]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 09:06 AM
RE: The big bang
(18-12-2013 08:05 AM)DeavonReye Wrote:  As for "gravity affecting time", . . . it's another weird concept.

Gravity doesn't affect time an objects mass warps space/time.

Gravity is space pushing on an object and time slows down as you get closer to objects with high mass.

Onward, my faithful steed!
[Image: ezgif-save_zps4d93a674.gif?t=1395781443]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 10:12 AM
RE: The big bang
(18-12-2013 09:06 AM)Crulax Wrote:  
(18-12-2013 08:05 AM)DeavonReye Wrote:  As for "gravity affecting time", . . . it's another weird concept.

Gravity doesn't affect time an objects mass warps space/time.

Gravity is space pushing on an object and time slows down as you get closer to objects with high mass.

. . . . which is weird. I suppose that I wouldn't really be able to truly experience this phenomena myself, so I'll just understand the concept.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 10:56 AM
RE: The big bang
(18-12-2013 10:12 AM)DeavonReye Wrote:  
(18-12-2013 09:06 AM)Crulax Wrote:  Gravity doesn't affect time an objects mass warps space/time.

Gravity is space pushing on an object and time slows down as you get closer to objects with high mass.

. . . . which is weird. I suppose that I wouldn't really be able to truly experience this phenomena myself, so I'll just understand the concept.

You experience this "phenomena" everyday! Tongue (Unless you're some extradimensional being.) You're not are you?Unsure

Onward, my faithful steed!
[Image: ezgif-save_zps4d93a674.gif?t=1395781443]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 11:58 AM
RE: The big bang
(18-12-2013 10:56 AM)Crulax Wrote:  
(18-12-2013 10:12 AM)DeavonReye Wrote:  . . . . which is weird. I suppose that I wouldn't really be able to truly experience this phenomena myself, so I'll just understand the concept.

You experience this "phenomena" everyday! Tongue (Unless you're some extradimensional being.) You're not are you?Unsure

Well, . . . . . . . I don't THINK I am. Undecided

But for sake of argument, how do I experience it? I'm talking about high gravity slowing down time to a stop.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 12:31 PM
RE: The big bang
(18-12-2013 04:09 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(17-12-2013 02:07 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  1) That's never been observed to happen anywhere in the observable universe so there's no compelling reason to believe that it ever has.

2) It would likely be a spectacularly bad idea. The initial Big Bang works pretty well because space and time are expanding into nothingness, so far as we know. Any subsequent "little bangs", for lack of a better term, would need to expand within the existing space-time. That's going to be a bit pesky. Making room for the new space-time is going to require extreme space-time curvatures, over-writing of old space-time by the new, mingling of the two space-time domains or something equally hideous. From what we know of cosmology this should be pretty easy to detect and pretty damned catastrophic. The energies released would be visible from the opposite side of the visible universe as some of our most distant neighbors (hopefully) were reduced to an expanding blast-wave of plasma and elementary particles several hundred million light-years in diameter.

Inflation theory has a lot of explanatory power which is why I think it is widely accepted in cosmological circles. You are right...inflation has never been observed.....but neither has abiogenesis. Do you believe abiogenesis happened? I'm just curious if you are consistent with your, "hasn't been observed and therefore there is no reason to believe" stance.

Two small points Heywood:

1) What you're talking about is not the conventional model of cosmological inflation. As far as I can tell it's something you've cooked up on your own or read on some creationist site.

2) The effects of what you're talking about would be bloody obvious. A ball of incandescent plasma blazing across the night sky. Abiogenesis is a little harder to track. If you tell me that there's a horse in the closet and I look in the closet and there's no horse then yes, not observing the horse equates to no reason to believe. If you show me evidence that there's a novel form of microbe in some closet somewhere on Earth and I look in the nearest closet, find no microbe and decide not to believe then I'm being a bit of a twit. It all depends on how easy the evidence should be to come by.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 01:40 PM
RE: The big bang
(18-12-2013 12:31 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  1) What you're talking about is not the conventional model of cosmological inflation. As far as I can tell it's something you've cooked up on your own or read on some creationist site.

Why would a creationist espouse eternal inflation? That would be silly. Anyways the type of inflation I am describing is mainstream cosmology....at least for the last 20 years or more it has been. Here is a link that might help you get up to date.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: