Author Topic: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space  (Read 6944 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Inactive_1

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 2242
  • Darwins +10/-2
  • Gender: Male
The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« on: November 17, 2008, 08:35:31 AM »
Explanation of the Big Bang -

I think the thing that trips up most people when they think about the Big Bang, is thinking about it in terms of an explosion, like a supernova or a nuclear bomb. This leads to some typical inaccurate assumptions.

    * Since the Big Bang, the universe has expanded from a central point.
    * The universe must be expanding into something, what?
    * There was a time BEFORE the Big Bang.

These assumptions come from thinking about the Big Bang as a typical explosion, one originating from a single point and spewing matter out concentrically from there.

That’s not what the Big Bang was.

The Big Bang was not an explosion of matter into space, rather it was an explosion of space ITSELF, and since space and time are interconnected, we really have to say it was an explosion of space AND time, or space-time.

So, the Big Bang wasn’t an explosion of stuff like atoms or molecules, it was an explosion of a place and instance, it was the creation of when and where.

Before the Big Bang there was simply nothing, there was no ‘where’ nor was there a ‘when’. It doesn’t even make sense to say ‘before the Big Bang’.




Read more ...

Article

Offline Freezykow

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 679
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • "For the love of money is the root of all evil"
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #1 on: November 24, 2008, 05:18:20 PM »
Explanation of the Big Bang -

I think the thing that trips up most people when they think about the Big Bang, is thinking about it in terms of an explosion, like a supernova or a nuclear bomb. This leads to some typical inaccurate assumptions.

    * Since the Big Bang, the universe has expanded from a central point.
    * The universe must be expanding into something, what?
    * There was a time BEFORE the Big Bang.

These assumptions come from thinking about the Big Bang as a typical explosion, one originating from a single point and spewing matter out concentrically from there.

That's not what the Big Bang was.

The Big Bang was not an explosion of matter into space, rather it was an explosion of space ITSELF, and since space and time are interconnected, we really have to say it was an explosion of space AND time, or space-time.

So, the Big Bang wasn’t an explosion of stuff like atoms or molecules, it was an explosion of a place and instance, it was the creation of when and where.

Before the Big Bang there was simply nothing, there was no ‘where’ nor was there a ‘when’. It doesn’t even make sense to say ‘before the Big Bang’.




Read more ...

Article

People from Science Fiction Conventions have theories that make more sense than this.
When the power of love, overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. – Jimi Hendrix

Offline bahramthered

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3140
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #2 on: November 24, 2008, 06:01:34 PM »
Just because you can't or won't understand dosn't mean it dosn't make sense.

Offline Freezykow

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 679
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • "For the love of money is the root of all evil"
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #3 on: November 24, 2008, 09:50:36 PM »
Just because you can't or won't understand dosn't mean it dosn't make sense.

I'll understand the Big Bang theory when you understand how to spell doesn't or how to use a spell check.
When the power of love, overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. – Jimi Hendrix

Offline bahramthered

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3140
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #4 on: November 25, 2008, 07:26:25 AM »
Witty comeback. Make fun of my spelling. Wow. Really hit the point.

Lets see. Doesn't and faith really bug you when I misspell them and miss the spell check. Any other? Going hit a physics book now?

*Spell check used just for you*

Offline Cycle4Fun

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1371
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #5 on: November 25, 2008, 09:19:07 AM »
People from Science Fiction Conventions have theories that make more sense than this.

I would actually have to agree with you here.  Back in the day, the universe was pretty small and simple.  It's also hard to sell a book when the concepts in that book are way over the average person's head.

However, your failure to research the evidence, understand the simple underlying concepts , and reproduce the math does not make it an error.  All of the evidence we have regarding the universe supports the Big Expansion.  Even the tiny amount of matter (as opposed to anti-matter) and its distribution in the universe supports quantum fluctuations in the very early universe.

Quantum mechanics and general relativity take several months of solid scholarship to begin to understand at the basic level.  The reason these concepts are not intuitive is because we don't live at relativistic speeds or see at the atomic/subatomic level.
How do you define soul?
"A baseless assertion by simple-minded, superstitious individuals"
   -Starstuff

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #6 on: November 25, 2008, 12:15:46 PM »
People from Science Fiction Conventions have theories that make more sense than this.

1. Please, use appropriate terms, especially in the Science section. Science Fiction doesn't have "theories". It has highly speculative fiction.
2. The Universe isn't obliged to 'make sense' to us, if you mean it in the sense of being intuitively 'obvious'. It matters not one whit if it's intuitive if that's how things actually happened. Big Bang cosmology is backed up by reliable evidence (e.g. redshift of distant galaxies, WMAP data).
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline JackWhitehead1

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Time's owned every thought I've known.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #7 on: November 25, 2008, 02:42:08 PM »
With the big bang being theoretical, I am pretty sure there are several other valid scientific theories which rebuke this concept.

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #8 on: November 25, 2008, 02:43:15 PM »
Stephen Hawking mathematically proved Big Bang, assuming general relativity.  1971.  Thirty-seven years ago.

Offline hideousmonster

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #9 on: November 25, 2008, 03:06:17 PM »
I'm not convinced. I understand the evidence we use to back up the big bang theory, but it's not sufficient for me to consider it proof. I think we could easily be over-looking another better explanation of why the observable universe appears as it does. I'm skeptical that we posess enough understanding of the nature or even sufficient technology to deduce the history of our universe even to the accuracy that the Big Bang theorists suggest. I do like the theory. I just doubt that it's nearly as accurate as popular science would have us believe.
If a tree fell in a forest, and the people around to hear it were not scientists conducting a controlled audio experiment... did it make a sound?

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #10 on: November 25, 2008, 03:10:02 PM »
I'm not convinced. I understand the evidence we use to back up the big bang theory, but it's not sufficient for me to consider it proof. I think we could easily be over-looking another better explanation of why the observable universe appears as it does. I'm skeptical that we posess enough understanding of the nature or even sufficient technology to deduce the history of our universe even to the accuracy that the Big Bang theorists suggest. I do like the theory. I just doubt that it's nearly as accurate as popular science would have us believe.

Mathematical proofs aren't supposed to be "convincing", hideousmonster.  They are either flawed or they aren't.  Please present the line in Hawking's proof that you think is wrong.  Or haven't you read that either?  Why do you think yourself qualified to hold opinions on things you haven't read or examined, hideousmonster?
« Last Edit: November 25, 2008, 03:12:53 PM by Davedave »

Offline nihilanth

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1317
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • That's right. A red X. yaaay.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #11 on: November 25, 2008, 03:13:30 PM »
Explanation of the Big Bang -

I think the thing that trips up most people when they think about the Big Bang, is thinking about it in terms of an explosion, like a supernova or a nuclear bomb. This leads to some typical inaccurate assumptions.

    * Since the Big Bang, the universe has expanded from a central point.
    * The universe must be expanding into something, what?
    * There was a time BEFORE the Big Bang.

These assumptions come from thinking about the Big Bang as a typical explosion, one originating from a single point and spewing matter out concentrically from there.

That’s not what the Big Bang was.

The Big Bang was not an explosion of matter into space, rather it was an explosion of space ITSELF, and since space and time are interconnected, we really have to say it was an explosion of space AND time, or space-time.

So, the Big Bang wasn’t an explosion of stuff like atoms or molecules, it was an explosion of a place and instance, it was the creation of when and where.

Before the Big Bang there was simply nothing, there was no ‘where’ nor was there a ‘when’. It doesn’t even make sense to say ‘before the Big Bang’.




Read more ...

Article

I have been trying to say this for a while on many threads. It was the creation of this universe, time, space, matter and energy.

Something cannot come from nothing so where did it come from?
You can't prove it either way so you have to make a choice.

Offline JackWhitehead1

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Time's owned every thought I've known.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #12 on: November 25, 2008, 03:13:42 PM »
Stephen Hawking mathematically proved Big Bang, assuming general relativity.  1971.  Thirty-seven years ago.

The "concept" I referred to as being an "outside" of space, not the actual big bang.
Obviously that sounds illogical but I mean "outside" as in an area defined as separate from our universe.

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #13 on: November 25, 2008, 03:15:42 PM »
I have been trying to say this for a while on many threads. It was the creation of this universe, time, space, matter and energy.

Something cannot come from nothing so where did it come from?

The solution to your paradox has also been explained to you repeatedly, in many threads, nihilanth.  Something may be able to come from nothing.  Also, Big Bang is NOT about the creation of matter and energy.  It's about the creation of space-time.  Since you've never created space-time, nor have you observed the creation of space-time, you're hardly in any position to declare what is and is not possible with regard to its creation, are you?

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #14 on: November 25, 2008, 03:17:58 PM »
The "concept" I referred to as being an "outside" of space, not the actual big bang.
Obviously that sounds illogical but I mean "outside" as in an area defined as separate from our universe.

I was only partially responding to what you posted, Jack, and the part that was yours that I was aiming at was the "Big Bang is theoretical" part.  If General Relativity is true, then Big Bang is mathematically proven.

Offline nihilanth

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1317
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • That's right. A red X. yaaay.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #15 on: November 25, 2008, 03:20:55 PM »
Stephen Hawking mathematically proved Big Bang, assuming general relativity.  1971.  Thirty-seven years ago.

The "concept" I referred to as being an "outside" of space, not the actual big bang.
Obviously that sounds illogical but I mean "outside" as in an area defined as separate from our universe.

Hawking said "We can now determine that the universe spontaneously formed from nothng."

How can something form from nothing?

« Last Edit: November 25, 2008, 03:25:22 PM by nihilanth »
You can't prove it either way so you have to make a choice.

Offline JackWhitehead1

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Time's owned every thought I've known.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #16 on: November 25, 2008, 03:25:39 PM »
The "concept" I referred to as being an "outside" of space, not the actual big bang.
Obviously that sounds illogical but I mean "outside" as in an area defined as separate from our universe.

I was only partially responding to what you posted, Jack, and the part that was yours that I was aiming at was the "Big Bang is theoretical" part.  If General Relativity is true, then Big Bang is mathematically proven.

Of course, but the Big Bang remains undefined nevertheless.
Defining the Big Bang as the expansion of something into nothing is the area that is undefined (but not theoretical, thank you for pointing that out).

Obviously it's very much impossible to define something we know so little of, but with that in mind, I have never read Stephen Hawkin's proof before, assuming you have, how precise can it possibly be and can we tell?

Also, is there a particular book on his proof? I'm actually very much interested in this :)

Offline JackWhitehead1

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Time's owned every thought I've known.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #17 on: November 25, 2008, 03:27:40 PM »
Stephen Hawking mathematically proved Big Bang, assuming general relativity.  1971.  Thirty-seven years ago.

The "concept" I referred to as being an "outside" of space, not the actual big bang.
Obviously that sounds illogical but I mean "outside" as in an area defined as separate from our universe.

Hawking said "We can now determine that the universe spontaneously formed from nothng."

How can something form from nothing?



Is this a question directed at me?
Assuming it isn't rhetorical, I honestly don't know, and neither does anybody.
But just because we cannot explain something, does not mean it isn't true.
Surely you of all people must be an advocate of such a statement; being a God-believer.

Offline nihilanth

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1317
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • That's right. A red X. yaaay.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #18 on: November 25, 2008, 03:56:47 PM »
Stephen Hawking mathematically proved Big Bang, assuming general relativity.  1971.  Thirty-seven years ago.

The "concept" I referred to as being an "outside" of space, not the actual big bang.
Obviously that sounds illogical but I mean "outside" as in an area defined as separate from our universe.

Hawking said "We can now determine that the universe spontaneously formed from nothng."

How can something form from nothing?



Is this a question directed at me?
Assuming it isn't rhetorical, I honestly don't know, and neither does anybody.
But just because we cannot explain something, does not mean it isn't true.
Surely you of all people must be an advocate of such a statement; being a God-believer.


Something had to make the big bang happen. So what was it? It is impossible for it to be nothing.

We do not know. What if I say God, and I am correct even if we scientifically do not know. What then?

Maybe we have the answer and people here will not accept it.

Untill the question is answered, i will always believe in God.
You can't prove it either way so you have to make a choice.

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #19 on: November 25, 2008, 04:09:48 PM »
Hawking said "We can now determine that the universe spontaneously formed from nothng."

How can something form from nothing?

Maybe that's just how "something"s are formed.

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #20 on: November 25, 2008, 04:12:29 PM »
Also, is there a particular book on his proof? I'm actually very much interested in this :)

Actually, my understanding is that he entered his proof into a contest and, believe it or not, it only won second place.

Offline JackWhitehead1

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Time's owned every thought I've known.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #21 on: November 25, 2008, 05:28:23 PM »
He mathematically proven the origin of everything, and got second place for it?
What on earth could have beaten that?!

As for nihilanth, although yours is a logical conclusion, you forget that you remain adamant that God has always existed, which is even more questionable.

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #22 on: November 25, 2008, 05:46:51 PM »
Something had to make the big bang happen. So what was it? It is impossible for it to be nothing.

Why is it impossible for it to be nothing?  Can you prove that statement or do you just repeat it to look stupid?

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #23 on: November 25, 2008, 05:48:24 PM »
He mathematically proven the origin of everything, and got second place for it?
What on earth could have beaten that?!

Yes, well, the history of scientific advancement has certainly been quirky, and on that count, this is no significant deviation.  I believe he wrote about it in one of his for-public-consumption books, as I'm hardly capable of digesting his technical works.

Offline hideousmonster

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #24 on: November 25, 2008, 06:38:39 PM »
I'm not convinced. I understand the evidence we use to back up the big bang theory, but it's not sufficient for me to consider it proof. I think we could easily be over-looking another better explanation of why the observable universe appears as it does. I'm skeptical that we posess enough understanding of the nature or even sufficient technology to deduce the history of our universe even to the accuracy that the Big Bang theorists suggest. I do like the theory. I just doubt that it's nearly as accurate as popular science would have us believe.

Mathematical proofs aren't supposed to be "convincing", hideousmonster.  They are either flawed or they aren't.  Please present the line in Hawking's proof that you think is wrong.  Or haven't you read that either?  Why do you think yourself qualified to hold opinions on things you haven't read or examined, hideousmonster?

I said I understand the evidence. I don't consider it convincing. What qualifications does one need to hold an opinion?
If a tree fell in a forest, and the people around to hear it were not scientists conducting a controlled audio experiment... did it make a sound?

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #25 on: November 25, 2008, 06:42:03 PM »
Well, unfortunately, you have only demonstrated that you THINK you know the evidence.  You haven't shown that you actually do.  Can you cite the part of Hawking's proof you feel you can disprove and provide that disproof?  Mathematics isn't a field where opinion matters much.  Either you can prove something or you can't, either you can disprove his proof, or you can't.  If you understand the proof, then please provide the flaw you have identified.

Offline hideousmonster

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #26 on: November 25, 2008, 07:01:05 PM »
Well, unfortunately, you have only demonstrated that you THINK you know the evidence.  You haven't shown that you actually do.  Can you cite the part of Hawking's proof you feel you can disprove and provide that disproof?  Mathematics isn't a field where opinion matters much.  Either you can prove something or you can't, either you can disprove his proof, or you can't.  If you understand the proof, then please provide the flaw you have identified.

I don't need to find a flaw. I simply need to doubt the accuracy of our mathematics as a means of measuring and calculating the nature of the real universe. And ultimately proof is observer-dependent. It's a word that means "sufficent evidence to convince me." In math, that may not be the case, but again, I'm not convinced that our math is as in concert with actual physics as we would like to believe.
If a tree fell in a forest, and the people around to hear it were not scientists conducting a controlled audio experiment... did it make a sound?

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #27 on: November 25, 2008, 07:03:11 PM »
So, do you think 1+1=3?  How deep is the rabbit hole of mathematical propaganda?

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6856
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #28 on: November 25, 2008, 07:06:19 PM »
Allow me to translate.

Hideous monster is full of shit.
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.