Into the Night
Verified User
Obviously, it doesn't, since each of us posts in a different style.
YOU, on the other hand, post exactly like your other Sock accounts.
You cannot project YOUR problem on anybody else, Sock.
The greatest success story in physics
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Obviously, it doesn't, since each of us posts in a different style.
YOU, on the other hand, post exactly like your other Sock accounts.
You cannot project YOUR problem on anybody else, Sock.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
It would seem that you have taken it upon yourself to speak for all scientists. Ask me how I know you're a leftist.
How does the "Big Bang" somehow not conform to the definition of "explosion"?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Too funny! At least you acknowledge your perception problem.
Scientific Illiteracy Hall of Fame
"Electromagnetism in general is mediated by photons. This is a quantum phenomenon" (source: University of Illinois Physics Department)
Higgs boson: "The existence of this mass-giving field was confirmed in 2012, when the Higgs boson particle was discovered at CERN." (source: European Center for Nuclear Research - CERN)
"Electromagnetism in general is mediated by photons. This is a quantum phenomenon" (source: University of Illinois Physics Department)
Higgs boson: "The existence of this mass-giving field was confirmed in 2012, when the Higgs boson particle was discovered at CERN." (source: European Center for Nuclear Research - CERN)
I don't think the author's intent was to show the topological expression of the Big Bang, but to show it's evolution along an axis of time.
As far as I know, there was no 'center' to Big Bang, because what we call the Big Bang happened after an inflationary phase, and it occurred everywhere all at once. There is no single point in space that everything is rushing away from. Empty space itself expands, without any preferential orientation to a 'center'.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
That would argue the big bang theory is wrong then.
BidenPresident
Verified User
No "bang."
"Big Bang" was the derogatory name used by the theory's opponents, not by it's proponents.
Now we are stuck with the name.
But there was no explosion at one point in space that everything rushes away from. The Big Bang isn't even the origin point of the universe. It's the point at which the primordial hot, dense universe started expanding everywhere and all at once.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
The explanation defies both physics and thermodynamics.
BidenPresident
Verified User
How does it defy physics? I never heard a physicist claim that.
BidenPresident
Verified User
Ironically, the term was coined by Fred Hoyle (figure 1) in 1949 to characterize the kind of theory he much disliked and fought until the end of his life. Although it is widely agreed that Big Bang is a misnomer because it inevitably conveys the image of an explosion, the term has long ago become a staple part of cosmologists' vocabulary. More than a thousand scientific articles have been written with “big bang” in their title. As Hoyle said in an interview in 1995: “Words are like harpoons. Once they go in, they are very hard to pull out” (Horgan 1995).
https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/54/2/2.28/302975
https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/54/2/2.28/302975
No, the scientific consensus is that the primordial universe started out in a low entropy state, and evolved consistent with second law of thermodynamics, and that the expansion that began from a hot, dense primordial universe happened everywhere and all at once, so there is no preferred spatial orientation with respect to a static central point.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
The random movement of 'stuff' due to random energy doesn't happen. Imagine it this way, is what Cypress is claiming: There is a pool table with say, three sets of pool balls on it all sitting on pool table. All of a sudden, they fly off in all directions randomly and in no uniform manner, nor from a single point. They start in random positions over the table, some near others, some alone.
That defies physics. A body at rest remains at rest unless acted on. A body in motion remains in motion unless acted on. What Cypress wants you to accept is that at some point, all of these pool balls suddenly get acted on by some force and go randomly into motion.
The big bang theory has it that they're all stacked in a bunch tightly and something acts on the whole bunch from a single point causing them to go into motion. What I asked was if the resulting motion was unidirectional or omnidirectional.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Then the center of that should be identifiable and the universe would expand omnidirectionally.
How do we know? We didn't know there were other galaxies until 1923. Nothing comes in one. I see the big bang as a recuring event. Don't close the book on science, it isn't done yet.
Of course this kind of physics is hard to grasp. The human brain did not evolve to intuitively perceive this kind of physical phenomena.
The expansion is not based the particles, matter, and galaxies themselves moving away from each other.
It's the space in between the matter that is expanding. Empty space has a latent vacuum energy that causes cosmological expansion. Matter is just along for the ride.
That's how cosmological expansion can happen everywhere and all at once. Because the expansion is associated with space itself. Not from an explosion at a central point.
.
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
A vacuum is nothing it's the lack of stuff present. Nothing can't push anything. Vacuums are filled. They pull stuff in. By definition a vacuum cannot have energy associated with it since there is nothing there. Matter could have had energy imparted on it causing motion and it will continue to move in the direction that energy pushed it so long as it doesn't interact with anything else while moving. Collisions between matter can elastic or inelastic, but either way the matter will be affected in some manner, either a change in velocity or in direction, or both.
I suspect we simply don't know enough to know what we need to really answer that question at the moment.
"Where the center of the universe? There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualised as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell."
University of California Riverside Department of Physics
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html
Into the Night
Verified User
The English language.
A galaxy is not a universe.
Galaxies are made of stars.
The Theory of the Big Bang is not science. It is a religion, usually fundamentalist in nature.
Fred Hoyle was convinced the universe was static, and he thought cosmic expansion was preposterous. 'Big Bang ' was the term he used to deride the cosmic expansion hypothesis, and we became stuck with that term