What I dont get is what happened before that. So there was this mass that contained everything for an infinite amount of time then suddenly, something caused it explode. Thats the part I cant grasp, the spontaneous beginning with no external stimuli.
Can someone fill in the scientific part Im not grasping?
What's south of the south pole? You have to have time for there to be a "before".
Think of it as more of a kind of edge than a beginning.
quote:
Pvednes had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
Absolutely nothing.
If anything could be said to have caused the big bag, it's blind luck.
Also, keep in mind that, like evolution, the big bang "theory" is only a theory in the strictest scientific sense of the word - it can, for intents and purposes pertaining to everyday life, be taken as fact.
If the big bang theory needed to be proven in a court of law, for example, it's existance could easily be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The big bang was not an explosion from a single point of space, it was the complete appearance of all space in the universe at a single point in time, t=0.
By which, there can't be anything before it, nor is there anything outside it. It's an edge of space and time. Pvednes fucked around with this message on 09-09-2006 at 11:51 AM.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Pvednesing:
By which, there can't be anything before it
Except the demons of chaos, of course.
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Optimus Prime:
Except the demons of chaos, of course.
He is awake.
Dave fucked around with this message on 09-09-2006 at 01:04 PM.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Dave wrote:
http://exploitsofnothing.ytmnd.com/
See I knew you were going to post something dumb when I saw that you had replied but despite that I watched all of that nonsense anway
Yes, there is an infinetely small chance that the conditions were just right for life to evolve. But even small chances can happen. Example, my friend was playing POGs with his friends and managed to hit the stack of POGs, flip about half of them over, and have them land back upon the stack in the same order they were in, just flipped over. In short, just because Minute chance != impossible, does not mean that God = Y || God = y.
quote:
Anakhaing:
Boy, that movie had absolutely no bias at all!
I wouldn't call it "biased", but it is fantastically ignorant.
For example, saying facetiously that the galaxies could float around without bumping into each other "just by chance" is out and out hilariously ignorant of the mechanisms by which galaxies actually do move, IE gravity. Furthermore, galaxies DID bump into each other and continue to do so to this day, as seen here.
The entire flash and every point in it is nothing more than an elaborate and sarcastic way of restating the watchmaker fallacy. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 09-09-2006 at 01:57 PM.
quote:
Verily, Kegwen doth proclaim:
See I knew you were going to post something dumb when I saw that you had replied but despite that I watched all of that nonsense anway
I stopped the when it went to say birds evolved from fish 
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Dave had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
http://exploitsofnothing.ytmnd.com/
Wtf is this shit? Fish lead directly to birds?
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about (_|_):
There's also the fact that, if one actually does the math properly, life is probably quite common in the universe.
Hello Drake Equation
quote:
We were all impressed when Peter wrote:
I stopped the when it went to say birds evolved from fish
Wouldn't everything have evolved from fish?
quote:
nem-xing:
Wouldn't everything have evolved from fish?
Not "fish", but diatom-like aquatic cellular masses.
quote:
Pvednes obviously shouldn't have said:
Absolutely nothing.What's south of the south pole? You have to have time for there to be a "before".
Think of it as more of a kind of edge than a beginning.
I believe the way you phrased it is that the south pole would be the end point of south (though I can interpret it two other ways). The problem is, if I interpret it that way, the question is phrased in a way that pretty much means how close are you to point x? Another way of looking at this is a (Euclidean) ray instead of a line.
With my untrained mind, I see time as a line (not a ray). The big bang would be a point on that line. From that point on to the left, I see the singularity. From that point to the right, for the next thirteen billion years or so, I see the universe as it exists today.
This untrained mind has issues with this. See, my mind can picture pattern, something that is circular, and something that is stagnant.
The pattern thought lends itself more to Steady State theory, which my untrained mind can grasp. This really wouldnt be considered the big bang (I hear this was disproved anyhow).
The circular idea yields two answers. The first would be that the universe is constantly being created and destroyed. This is the big crunch theory, which I also believe is disproved. The second is a pattern that starts at one point, and keeps on reacting until it reaches its original state. The problem with this is that it yields the same end result as stagnation its impossible to change without external stimuli. The big bang would never happen at all with the second idea circular idea.
Stagnation is just that it was always there, it will always be there. Nothing changes. This , of course, would negate the idea of the big bang because hey there would be nothing to cause it.
What I get from you is that I should look at time as a ray instead of a line. Is what you are saying that time essentially stopped right before the big bang? Does this mean that time is slowly speeding up, in a matter of speaking (so is entropy linked to time)? Something about time being based off of relative speed to everything else, so if everything is in the same place, time doesnt exist (just a guess from the information given)?
Note: I apologize in advance for trying to make sense of things with my limited knowledge thats why Im making this thread. To find out the answer! diadem fucked around with this message on 09-09-2006 at 08:15 PM.
quote:
ACES! Another post by Delphi Aegis:
He's saying that there was no universe in which there was a dimension of time before the big bang.
wow. from what my slow brain is taking in, it sounds like the big bang is closer to (the idea behind) creationisim than I thought. a beginning. just no "why?"
edit: Which sucks, becuase i liked the time just stopping and slowly increasing idea (like if you keep on moving haflway towards a goal)... close enough to solid state to feel ok about. diadem fucked around with this message on 09-09-2006 at 08:32 PM.
quote:
This one time, at diadem camp:
wow. from what my slow brain is taking in, it sounds like the big bang is closer to (the idea behind) creationisim than I thought. a beginning. just no "why?"edit: Which sucks, becuase i liked the time just stopping and slowly increasing idea (like if you keep on moving haflway towards a goal)... close enough to solid state to feel ok about.
The thing that I don't get about the Big Bang, and I think what Diadem's got in mind as well (Though I could be mistaken) is the law of conservation of matter, or rather, matter and energy can neither be created from nothing nor destroyed to nothing. There's gotta be SOMETHING there in the first place for everything to act off of.
Admittedly, the fact that we can't tell what was before the big bang goes in its favor, but still. Confuses the hell out of me from a scientific standpoint.
What's worse, I can't even begin to follow my own thinking here to explain it in the first place. 
Science makes my head hurt...
Also, Diadem, the current cosmological model seems to indicate that the matter of the universe is actually accelerating away from the other. There will most likely be no Big Crunch; the universe will expand until it accelerates all matter so quickly that it will overcome all nuclear binding forces and rip all matter the universe apart.
Well, that, or heat death is the ultimate fate of the universe. There's still, of course, vigorous debate about the matter.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Naimah had this to say about Knight Rider:
I'm still not entirely clear on how gravity won't eventually overcome whatever energy matter has and cause it all to collapse to a single point eventually.
Without the presence of dark matter, there isn't enough gravity to sufficiently stop the expansion of matter and put it back into one big crunch.
quote:
Delphi Aegis had this to say about dark elf butts:
Without the presence of dark matter, there isn't enough gravity to sufficiently stop the expansion of matter and put it back into one big crunch.
I couldn't read that without picturing Gaius Baltar saying it.
quote:
Delphi Aegis wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
Without the presence of dark matter, there isn't enough gravity to sufficiently stop the expansion of matter and put it back into one big crunch.
But unless there was some gravitational quanta wouldn't there always be some graviatational force? It seems that while it may take an unbelievably lng time eventually it would stop the expansion.
There has to be some part of the physics that I am missing.
God truly is on Baltar's side.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Naimah said:
But unless there was some gravitational quanta wouldn't there always be some graviatational force? It seems that while it may take an unbelievably lng time eventually it would stop the expansion.There has to be some part of the physics that I am missing.
Inertia.
*kisses a fake Six*
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Robocop:
See, I always understood it that gravity was not limited by spatial constraints - it could act over great, even infinite distances, so that even if the universe consisted of only a single atom it would eventually all suck back together.
I'm pretty sure this is still considered to be correct.
quote:
Check out the big brain on Naimah!
But unless there was some gravitational quanta wouldn't there always be some graviatational force? It seems that while it may take an unbelievably lng time eventually it would stop the expansion.There has to be some part of the physics that I am missing.
I vaguely remember reading a while ago about the concept of some kind of "anti-gravity", which purported to explain why the Universe would continue to expand. Apparently its power increased over a longer distance. I can't seem to find any information on this online, so I suspect it was bullshit, or impossible to prove in any case.
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
Also, Diadem, the current cosmological model seems to indicate that the matter of the universe is actually accelerating away from the other. There will most likely be no Big Crunch; the universe will expand until it accelerates all matter so quickly that it will overcome all nuclear binding forces and rip all matter the universe apart.
We don't know the shape of the universe. For all we know it may be accelerating away from everything only to eventually smash into itself later. 
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent diadem said:
wow. from what my slow brain is taking in, it sounds like the big bang is closer to (the idea behind) creationisim than I thought. a beginning. just no "why?"edit: Which sucks, becuase i liked the time just stopping and slowly increasing idea (like if you keep on moving haflway towards a goal)... close enough to solid state to feel ok about.
You're still thinking of the Big Bang from an apparent outside looking in. That's incorrect. You're also still thinking of time as absolute, instead of relative. That's also incorrect.
Try reading up on some general relativity, that will help a lot.
quote:
diadem wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
What I get from you is that I should look at time as a ray instead of a line. Is what you are saying that time essentially stopped right before the big bang? Does this mean that time is slowly speeding up, in a matter of speaking (so is entropy linked to time)? Something about time being based off of relative speed to everything else, so if everything is in the same place, time doesnt exist (just a guess from the information given)?Note: I apologize in advance for trying to make sense of things with my limited knowledge thats why Im making this thread. To find out the answer!
What I'm saying is that time is a part of the universe, just like space. The universe contains all time, as well as all space. If you think of it this way, the big bang, where all of space is a singularity contained in a single instant of time, t=0 where t is greater than or equal to 0, is an edge to the universe. Or at least, a limit.
It's hard to explain if you've still got the Newtonian common-sense brain bug thing happening. Pvednes fucked around with this message on 09-10-2006 at 12:06 AM.
Also that energy that is causing the universe accelerate apart is known as dark energy, i'm pretty sure it's because they had nothing better to name it. Similar to dark matter. Sabratiz fucked around with this message on 09-10-2006 at 01:50 AM.
I mean, no matter what happens between now and then, everything will eventually just stop and go blah 
quote:
Leding:
Heat death has to be the most incredibly depressing theory to the eventual end of the universe.I mean, no matter what happens between now and then, everything will eventually just stop and go blah
Keep in mind that it's so unfathomably far away as to be totally irrelevant to us as human beings.
*panic*
Simple fact (As already stated), there is no t < 0; we can only do current state physics back to Planck time, t= 10^-42 s. Time space, and pretty much everything came at the emergence of spacetime, which Einstein described well, but you need all the constants he had originally dropped.
What you are asking is also more of a religious question seeing as no science can answer "why" questions. What was before the universe, nothing that matters to any of us.
Universe will acclerate away, as it stands, we'll lose sight of non-neighborhood galaxies in a few 100 trillion years. Mainly from the redshift of light moving the emitted light to extreme red where the wavelength is larger than our solar system. we may also see the heat death, but not confirmable as of yet from the microwave background radiation. Furthermore, our local neighborhood of galaxies will not disappear from our sight, because the combined mass-gravity of the local group far exceeds the stretch of the universe as a whole, and remember, it's space and time that stretch, so the paricles within will increase in size so that the mass remains in the same space.
The explanations are still lacking, and the full explanation is too complex to be typed out here, what you need is an undergraduate level astrophysics and cosmology courses to understand the question better.
