Big Bang????

Fred Hoyle was being a smartalec when he made up the phrase "Big Bang". He originally didn't believe it and was making fun.

Reverse time travel has never been shown to exist and there are serious reasons why it is most likely impossible.

Hi TVP45,

Does this bring us back to the Oozalum Bird, as discussed in a previous thread.

Or is it too early in the thread to start this insanity!!!!!

Insanity is never out of order. It's the only thing I can count on in an otherwise chaotic life.

TVP45...................I AM GOING INTO ORBIT.......................WHO KNOWS WHAT OR WHOM WE WILL FIND

Hi guest, there may infact be a sound associated with the "Big Bang". LIGO, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory. Here's the link, http://videos.howstuffworks.com/national-science-foundation/820-einsteins-messengers-video.htm At this site is a 20 minute video explaining why there is sound in space and how we are looking into listenimg to it.

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.

As far as time travel, way beyond the stretches of my mind.

Casey

It depends on how you define sound. If you defind sound as audio frequencies then there definitely sound in space even if there is no one there to hear it.

A related question is: if a man makes a statement and there is no woman around to hear him, is he still automaticly wrong?

Hi Skelley,

Recalling information and experiments that were carried out in high school:-

1. Normal sound waves that travel at the speed of sound require a medium for the sound to be transmitted, e.g. solid, liquid or gas. They cannot be transmitted through a vacuum.

2. Radio and electromagnetic waves can travel through a vacuum.

As I said, that is the way I recall it, because re #1, the sound causes molecules to vibrate and it is that vibration of, say air molecules, that reaches our eardrums that causes us to hear that sound.

I think most models of the 'big bang' propose that the universe in it's early stages was absolutely packed solid with quarks and even more exotic particles. Sound propagation doesn't require molecules or even atoms, only the presence of particles that can jostle against each other to transmit physical vibration. The sound level in this early universe would have been beyond deafening, it would have been instantly fatal, and the speed of sound was probably at or even beyond light speed. My understanding is that it was so packed with 'stuff' that it was actually the electromagnetic waves that could not propagate. I'm sure an astrophysicist could improve on my amateur version of the story.

Hi all,

It's not really a question of the "big bang"

The question is much larger than that. (for me)
It's one of being "IN" that intrigues me most.

That is, one is in the room, in the house, in the country,
on the planet, and so on.. until... one is "in the universe."

So; when is one "outside"? Where is the boundary?
i.e the end? (It's not the bang - where is the edge!)

How can there be a boundary, to the total universe?
Is it: I exist so I am? (without end) That is:

IF one could be "outside" then one would be.. where?

i.e is there NO outside; - because one is "somewhere"
- which is itself within yet a further away boundary of..?

I have considerable trouble resolving this. For example one
could say a black hole is the reverse of being somewhere;
being outside, or beyond, "normal"; but even this hole is
Somewhere! A Somewhere encompassed by......what?

So, my question is: where is the outside?
I don't see the question as where or what is the Big Bang;
rather, where is the edge, the "out"? Death perhaps?

Any ideas please? I just feel the key could be important.
Or perhaps I'm just chasing my tail.

jt.

Free web page on http://www.mfnb.at

Hi jt,

"Any ideas please? I just feel the key could be important.
Or perhaps I'm just chasing my tail."

The answer is right here.

-John

We can chase all these theories, that are in the "subjunctive mood."

How about something that is simple, or is it so simple that one could not possibly believe that our universe did not occur in this manner?

I refer to the opening verse of the bible, Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

WHEN, we do not know.

HOW, we do not know.

WHY worry, we are here, but for a short stay, and in recent times it is indicative that our stay may become shorter and shorter.

I think it is more prudent to ask how we can extend our stay on our "spaceship" earth than where it came from.

I think "we" need to know these things.

Yes, ignorance is bliss; and we should be thankful,
and accepting; but that's not our nature.

From making an axe, to going to the moon, we
always need to know more. The rest is history...

From the back of my mind (if any) I "feel" the answer
to the "edge" or the "outside" of the universe can hold
an important key for us all. (only needs a break through.)
Just another way of finding the answer.

I don't accept easy dismisal of the subject. It niggles and
niggles; like trying to find a door in a dark very large room;
but a shadowy answer is there. (if only I had brains to see it.)

I'm working on it. (on and off, time allowing.)
See you in the next millenium!

jt.

jt, look at the website molecular expressions:images from the microscope, you will probably find it very interesting.............especially on the "leafy" side of things.

Here jt, read this one.

Sir Isaac Newton's work represents some of the greatest contributions to science ever made by an individual. Most notably, Newton derived the Law of Universal Gravitation, invented the branch of mathematics called Calculus, and performed experiments investigating the nature of light and color. He also was scholar of the Bible and devoted much time to its study.

Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton's home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can image, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences.

A scientist friend of Newton's came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship.

"Oh My! What an exquisite thing this is!" Newton's friend exclaimed. "Who made it?"

Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody."

Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said, "Oh? Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this?"

Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone, "Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has."

"You must think I am a fool!" the visitor retorted heatedly, "Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is."

Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?

Hi Mobi, that's a good story.

I am a believer. (not in the mumbo-jumbo) just
the probable existence of a "designer"

jt.

I think that jt's original question about the meaning of 'IN' is important, not in a metaphysical sense, but as a question of our inability to understand what it is like to be inside a massive explosion. We have no way to visualize this phenomenon. Those of us who have tried are all dead. People who think about the 'big bang' will picture it as a 'Star Wars' explosion, an expanding ball of light and debris viewed from a distance in 'space'. Our ability to form mental models is in almost all cases limited by the nature of our brains, which are primarily devoted to processing visual information. We have evolved to use vision to find food, avoid enemies, find mates, locate our friends and families, etc.

It seems that great advances in science have occurred when great minds have been able to translate their exotic findings into simple pictures which we can all understand. Einstein's thought experiments about moving trains is a perfect example. Nobody has yet drawn the picture of the big bang in a way that has any meaning to our visual brain. Solving the question of how to draw the 'inside' of an event which we could never see or survive is the crux of this.

Thank you for the support johnfotl - you say it far
clearer than me. To understand; we need to know.

As you say, I am just trying to see it all ("space") from
a different perspective, for hopefully new answers.

I don't believe in the "big bang" (only as a "picture")
This description of creation (to me) is relatively "petty"
in that it completely evades the concept of some thing
which is already existing! i.e, being created.. "in"... what?

Even if we could imaging an unbelievably large "space"
(enclosing these big bang "creations") it, itself, will need
a containment "in".... what? etc. etc. etc. etc.

Therefore, I think a very different way of seeing the total,
space (all) the universes, is needed to explain it.
From a new explanation hopefully we can understand it.

jt

I really must keep taking the pills....

You're assuming that there was space present immediately before the Big Bang. What if the Big Bang actually created space as we know it, as well as time? Ask some of the people involved in "nuke explosions in space" if there is any sound generated, and see what they say. Is the creation of sound the same as the propagation of sound waves?

Hi CardioO7

...assuming that there was space present immediately before the Big Bang.
What if the Big Bang actually created space as we know it ...

Yes, the bang may have created a (our) space - as we know it;
my query is, but in what was it created? I don't see the
the bang starting the total (not our) universe, from "nothing."
(Even you say: ...there was space present immediately before...)

Therefore, what ever the bang was created in, existed, and had
boundries... to where? which was "contained in"... what?

You gave me a clue with your statement Cardio07 - but I need
to think about it some more to put it into words.
Keep up the good work!

jt.

There may be things we can not know. There is much speculation about whether or not the big bang was a singular event, or whether there are other expanding universes out there. I have heard this referred to as a 'foam' of universes. But remember that we can't even see all of our universe with our best telescopes. It's not because our telescopes aren't good enough. There are parts of our universe that are so far away the the light that would tell us of their existence hasn't had enough time to get to us. By the time it does the universe will be still bigger, with more distant reaches that are forever beyond our view. If other universes exist beyond that, we will never have any information about them.

Unless some other universe springs into existence in our neighborhood, with laws of physics similar to ours, we will probably never have any actual information about another universe. Unfortunately if that occurred we would be very dead very soon.

If there is an answer to your question, it will lie in your mastery of mathematics, not philosophy. For better or worse mathematics is far ahead of science. I would guess that the only hope for you finding an answer is for the mathematics of space and time and energy and creation to become solid enough to make testable predictions, that can be tested with achievable instrumentation. I don't think this is very likely. Beautiful work is being done in 'brane theory, string theory, n-dimensional theory, etc., but none of it has yet produced a testable hypothesis.

As I said earlier, we are finite beings living within our limitations. We were built to find food, avoid enemies, find mates, etc. Our brains are configured to process visual information. It is impossible for us to understand things we cannot imagine, and our imagination is limited by the visual oriented organ we use. Nobody has figured out how to draw the picture you are looking for yet. Good luck

Hi johnfotl,

You said "It is impossible for us to understand things we cannot imagine, and our imagination is limited by the visual oriented organ we use."

Might I add to your comment by stating that we cannot even visualize, or imagine, the 5^th dimension.

-John

Yes. In my experience most people have trouble with three dimensions. People who can think in four are extremely rare. Five - not!

There are people who cannot feel pain. Try explaining pain to them. You can convince them that it exists but you can never make them even imagine how it feels.

Diminisions. For years M theorists were convinced there are 10 diminisions. Problem was, all the math didn't fit. The red headed stepchild of physics insisted there are 11 diminisions. He was ridiculed. Today virtually all theoretical physicists agree with him.

For a recent history of the big bang read Simon Singh's "The Big Bang". (not to be confused with a sex manual of the same title.) For a real treat, attend one of his presentations. He is just about the best and most entertaining speaker I have ever heard/seen.

http://www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Universe-Simon-Singh/dp/0007162200