The Big Bang proven wrong? (1 Viewer)

Jul 12, 2002
5,666
#23
++ [ originally posted by gray ] ++
What was there before those tiny particles?
You can not begin to describe when there is less than nothingness.

++ [ originally posted by gray ] ++
I don't really get that. How can there be a force of gravity when there's no objects significantly large enough to carry a force of gravity? Gravity has to come from objects with a large mass, and if there's a spread of the tiniest particles, i fail to see how these particles accumulated.
I would happen at rate so slow, that it would take trillions of years. When one hit another it crossed a threshold to attract the others.



++ [ originally posted by gray ] ++
Is this explosion how the universe began?

Hmm.. when I picture an explosion, I see a movie scene where there's a bomb inside a car. It explodes and... the car's not there anymore. I've always thought explosions caused destruction, not creation... but that's just me
Well, when an explosion, of the scale we are talking about goes off, it vaporizes much of what surround it, and the rest is blow away from the original point at high speed, so there is no matter destroyed, it's just scattered about.
 
OP
gray

gray

Senior Member
Moderator
Apr 22, 2003
30,260
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #24
    ++ [ originally posted by Rickenbacker ] ++

    You can not begin to describe when there is less than nothingness.
    But the question is, how did this 'less than nothingness' become something, and where did this 'less than nothingness' come from in the first place.

    ++ [ originally posted by Rickenbacker ] ++

    Well, when an explosion, of the scale we are talking about goes off, it vaporizes much of what surround it, and the rest is blow away from the original point at high speed, so there is no matter destroyed, it's just scattered about.
    If everything is blown away from the original point, would those 'less than nothing' particles not be blown away to an infinite distance at high speed, preventing the particles from joining and attracting others and creating planets?
     

    Gandalf

    Senior Member
    Jul 28, 2003
    2,038
    #25
    I just don't get it..

    how such a huge explosion happened..

    it is is called the BIG BANG theory.. so, what did bang in the first place..?
     

    mikhail

    Senior Member
    Jan 24, 2003
    9,576
    #26
    ++ [ originally posted by gray ] ++
    I don't really get that. How can there be a force of gravity when there's no objects significantly large enough to carry a force of gravity? Gravity has to come from objects with a large mass, and if there's a spread of the tiniest particles, i fail to see how these particles accumulated.
    You, sitting in Australia, are currently exerting a gravitational pull on me, and vice versa. Just because it's tiny doesn't mean it isn't there.

    We don't know what was before the big bang - at best we can speculate.
     

    Hydde

    Minimiliano Tristelli
    Mar 6, 2003
    38,710
    #27
    The creation ovf the universe....
    This is something that is a great enigma...

    About the big bang theory.,,, id ont believe that just a "big" explotion resulted in the universe that we know.. but maybe a lot of big bangs.... becaus i simply cant imagine a mass of that size (containing the mass of all the planets in th space) exploding.


    The universe is so big and so confusing and full of mysteriousness, that just thinking about it...make me feel that we humans now nothing bout it.......and maybe we will kill each other before we discover the secrets of the universe.
     
    OP
    gray

    gray

    Senior Member
    Moderator
    Apr 22, 2003
    30,260
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #28
    ++ [ originally posted by mikhail ] ++

    You, sitting in Australia, are currently exerting a gravitational pull on me, and vice versa. Just because it's tiny doesn't mean it isn't there.
    This conversation's already advanced beyond this point :p

    I replied to Ian's post, saying that if the big bang theory were true, these particles would be blown away from eachother at infinite velocity, and no amount of minute gravitational pull would possibly be able to bring them back together.

    ++ [ originally posted by mikhail ] ++
    We don't know what was before the big bang - at best we can speculate.
    Speculate as you may, the laws that scientists have put in place themselves contradict the theory that matter came from nowhere and exploded
     

    mikhail

    Senior Member
    Jan 24, 2003
    9,576
    #29
    ++ [ originally posted by gray ] ++
    I replied to Ian's post, saying that if the big bang theory were true, these particles would be blown away from eachother at infinite velocity, and no amount of minute gravitational pull would possibly be able to bring them back together.
    Except that gravity is an inverse square law, and we're talking about an infinately small point. Besides, we don't even know if the laws of physics as we know them apply to the big bang. We think that space and time were created at that point. If time doesn't exist before it happened, what the hell created it? Or what could possibly happen if time doesn't exist? It's all too complex and speculative to actually say that contradicitions actually prove anything (other than our limited understanding;)).

    Speculate as you may, the laws that scientists have put in place themselves contradict the theory that matter came from nowhere and exploded
    See above. :)
     
    OP
    gray

    gray

    Senior Member
    Moderator
    Apr 22, 2003
    30,260
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #30
    ++ [ originally posted by mikhail ] ++

    Besides, we don't even know if the laws of physics as we know them apply to the big bang.
    Oh come on, you can't get away that easily! :D

    ++ [ originally posted by mikhail ] ++

    We think that space and time were created at that point. If time doesn't exist before it happened, what the hell created it? Or what could possibly happen if time doesn't exist?
    Who's to say that time was created at that point? I guess it's a matter of whether time is a constant or not. Why did time only have to exist when matter began to exist?

    ++ [ originally posted by mikhail ] ++
    It's all too complex and speculative to actually say that contradicitions actually prove anything (other than our limited understanding;)).
    :undecide: You're still taking the easy way out :p

    Inconclusive
     
    Jul 12, 2002
    5,666
    #36
    ++ [ originally posted by gray ] ++
    But the question is, how did this 'less than nothingness' become something, and where did this 'less than nothingness' come from in the first place.



    If everything is blown away from the original point, would those 'less than nothing' particles not be blown away to an infinite distance at high speed, preventing the particles from joining and attracting others and creating planets?
    I think that you are misunderstanding a bit. As this explosion would occur, the matter contained in it would be blow away in chunks larger than the smallest particles, proabably in relatively large chunks quite bigger than all the matter contained in a solar system. It would probably on the order of the amount of matter in a galaxy cluster.
     

    tikus

    Junior Member
    Oct 31, 2003
    65
    #40
    have u heard bout cat's eye nebula?...
    in holy qoran..it called it as red rose...in ar-rahman..(right me if i'm wrong)..

    is it a coincidence?..
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)