a good thread ... a good read! thank you!

_my Computer_id_5302_
_my Computer_id_5303_
_my Computer_id_5304_
_my Computer_id_5306_

The india daily is like a weekly world news it just for entertainment.

I said it was a good read, the source is not relevant rather that I found the theory intriguing.

---

First off what is time? Time is a unit of length, time is the distance that it takes a single atom to travel a distance along with the energy needed to complete that movement.

Theory would suggest that the Big Bang just happened but given how atoms work the big bang would have taken eons to be, another question to ask then is where did all of the atoms that would have come together to create the big bang come from? These atoms most likely would have come from another phenom that sent the atoms expanding in all directions at faster then light speed velocities and when they came to a less dense area of space were slowed done to a hault causing these atoms to build upon each other until a single atom or group of atoms collided with the larger group of atoms that were inert but still cohesively bonded with another without creating a reaction.But when the active atoms collided with the inert atoms this may have caused the molecular structure of the inert atoms to change and create new atoms that when they came into contact with the active atoms created a tremendous release of energy that created a gravity field that then continued this process until the gravity field was no longer able to contain the energy meaning that the energy would then have expanded at faster then light speed velocities, until another dense area of space was happened upon, thus repeating the proceedure again and again....and again

---

First off what is time? Time is a unit of length, time is the distance that it takes a single atom to travel a distance along with the energy needed to complete that movement.

Theory would suggest that the Big Bang just happened but given how atoms work the big bang would have taken eons to be, another question to ask then is where did all of the atoms that would have come together to create the big bang come from? These atoms most likely would have come from another phenom that sent the atoms expanding in all directions at faster then light speed velocities and when they came to a less dense area of space were slowed done to a hault causing these atoms to build upon each other until a single atom or group of atoms collided with the larger group of atoms that were inert but still cohesively bonded with another without creating a reaction.But when the active atoms collided with the inert atoms this may have caused the molecular structure of the inert atoms to change and create new atoms that when they came into contact with the active atoms created a tremendous release of energy that created a gravity field that then continued this process until the gravity field was no longer able to contain the energy meaning that the energy would then have expanded at faster then light speed velocities, until another dense area of space was happened upon, thus repeating the proceedure again and again....and again

Hydrogen and helium were created as a result of the "Big Bang" a few hundred thousand years later when the plasma cooled enough to condense. All other elements were "cooked" in stars. You can find these nuclear equations in many books. Stars the size of our SUN can only produce elements as heavy as carbon. These elements are distributed throughout space by exploding stars at the end of their lifetimes.

---

Hydrogen and helium were created as a result of the "Big Bang" a few hundred thousand years later when the plasma cooled enough to condense. All other elements were "cooked" in stars. You can find these nuclear equations in many books. Stars the size of our SUN can only produce elements as heavy as carbon. These elements are distributed throughout space by exploding stars at the end of their lifetimes.

So you are saying, that helium and hydrogen did not exist before the big bang? I find that hard to believe as our Big Bang did not create other solar systems and so on.

---

"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible". Hebrews 11.3

Hydrogen and helium were created as a result of the "Big Bang" a few hundred thousand years later when the plasma cooled enough to condense. All other elements were "cooked" in stars. You can find these nuclear equations in many books. Stars the size of our SUN can only produce elements as heavy as carbon. These elements are distributed throughout space by exploding stars at the end of their lifetimes.

So you are saying, that helium and hydrogen did not exist before the big bang? I find that hard to believe as our Big Bang did not create other solar systems and so on.

Yes that's correct--nothing existed in our Universe before the Big Bang. There was no "before" since time itself like all our other dimensions were created at that instant. Some think that there could be other universes--I suppose that some of these --if they exist--could be older than ours by our notion of time.

---

Hydrogen and helium were created as a result of the "Big Bang" a few hundred thousand years later when the plasma cooled enough to condense. All other elements were "cooked" in stars. You can find these nuclear equations in many books. Stars the size of our SUN can only produce elements as heavy as carbon. These elements are distributed throughout space by exploding stars at the end of their lifetimes.

So you are saying, that helium and hydrogen did not exist before the big bang? I find that hard to believe as our Big Bang did not create other solar systems and so on.

Yes that's correct--nothing existed in our Universe before the Big Bang. There was no "before" since time itself like all our other dimensions were created at that instant. Some think that there could be other universes--I suppose that some of these --if they exist--could be older than ours by our notion of time.

That's impossible. Other galaxies are far more older and younger than us. Hubble has proven that...in fact there are thousands if not millions of galaxies with just as many stars and planets. It is Impossible for our "little" big bang (in comparison to the entire infinity of space, given that its supposed to never end) to have created all those galaxies, planets, stars, comets, asteroids, quasars, pulsars, etc etc etc...

See what I mean? our big bang is quite small when comparing it to all that. We are but a POOF in the entirety of space...believe it or not, we are not that significant to merit such an analogy that you gave.

---

"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible". Hebrews 11.3

The big bang is a concept by which we try to explain something we can't wrap our minds around. And I don't believe in the biggie banggie.

Let me evolve a couple thousand years more, and get back to you.

Note: By "me" I mean us. By "you" I mean it.

---

/Mav

We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean.
We are ready at last to set sail for the stars.
(Carl Sagan)

You might wish to see this....

======================

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=39024

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Hydrogen and helium were created as a result of the "Big Bang" a few hundred thousand years later when the plasma cooled enough to condense. All other elements were "cooked" in stars. You can find these nuclear equations in many books. Stars the size of our SUN can only produce elements as heavy as carbon. These elements are distributed throughout space by exploding stars at the end of their lifetimes.

So you are saying, that helium and hydrogen did not exist before the big bang? I find that hard to believe as our Big Bang did not create other solar systems and so on.

Yes that's correct--nothing existed in our Universe before the Big Bang. There was no "before" since time itself like all our other dimensions were created at that instant. Some think that there could be other universes--I suppose that some of these --if they exist--could be older than ours by our notion of time.

That's impossible. Other galaxies are far more older and younger than us. Hubble has proven that...in fact there are thousands if not millions of galaxies with just as many stars and planets. It is Impossible for our "little" big bang (in comparison to the entire infinity of space, given that its supposed to never end) to have created all those galaxies, planets, stars, comets, asteroids, quasars, pulsars, etc etc etc...

See what I mean? our big bang is quite small when comparing it to all that. We are but a POOF in the entirety of space...believe it or not, we are not that significant to merit such an analogy that you gave.

The big bang created our entire universe--not just our Galaxy. Since all galaxies (except those under the influence of the milky way's gravity) are rushing away from us it means that the Universe is expanding. It also means that in earlier times the universe was smaller. 13.8 Billion years ago it was smaller than the size of an atom. That's when the Big bang occurred; powered by the incredibly high temperature at that time. The residual heat can be calculated--it was found to be in extremely close agreement with theory --it is called the cosmic microwave background radiation --it corresponds to 2.7 degrees Kelvin. I used to ride my bicycle by the antenna used by the discoverers (Penzius and Wilson of Bell laboratories) each day in Holmdel, New Jersey

There is not a lot of disagreement with this theory --some think that parrallel membranes in higher dimensions collided and this energy created a Big Bounce that powered the expansion in our four dimensional space time.

The big bang is a concept by which we try to explain something we can't wrap our minds around. And I don't believe in the biggie banggie.

Let me evolve a couple thousand years more, and get back to you.

Note: By "me" I mean us. By "you" I mean it.

Diego, for me, I can wrap my mind around it (the Big Bang). At least one other person here on this thread can also do this, or at least it seems. In post #558443, William Rothamel said: "The big bang created our entire universe--not just our Galaxy. Since all galaxies (except those under the influence of the milky way's gravity) are rushing away from us it means that the Universe is expanding. It also means that in earlier times the universe was smaller. 13.8 Billion years ago it was smaller than the size of an atom. That's when the Big bang occurred; powered by the incredibly high temperature at that time. The residual heat can be calculated--it was found to be in extremely close agreement with theory --it is called the cosmic microwave background radiation --it corresponds to 2.7 degrees Kelvin. I used to ride my bicycle by the antenna used by the discoverers (Penzius and Wilson of Bell laboratories) each day in Holmdel, New Jersey

There is not a lot of disagreement with this theory --some think that parrallel membranes in higher dimensions collided and this energy created a Big Bounce that powered the expansion in our four dimensional space time."

It just seems to be a very good model of the universe, if I am saying that correctly. I realize that I don't have the expertise to argue congently with you. But do you really reject it totally? Or is it that you feel there will be posited in the future a better or a complete replacement of the "biggie bangie?"

---

It is no good to try to stop knowledge from going forward. Ignorance is never better than knowledge. --- Enrico Fermi ---

Why do we think that this is the one and only universe? What if they are created in two, a matter universe and a duplicate anti-matter universe? Or in clusters with some similar qualities? And what about our only four dimension, since we know you can have many more dimensions, so universes are out there with dimensions very different from ours?

So the thought of getting signals from ET, well, maybe I have a universe, a baby-universe, in my left little finger nail? And we assume we will see signals from our universe with the dimensions we know of, but what about if the universes overlap and/or intertwine each other, so we might snap up signals from a totally different universe?

Personal I don't think we have a universe, I think we have multiverses and we live in one of them. Or perhaps we don't, maybe we have similar lives in all of them, just as quantum physics tell us we have multiple possibilities before the waves collapse and harden and we become particles?

Oooooh, I feel dizzy!

I just reread your post. I am liking what you are saying!! It makes me dizzy too, but I like that too, ha ha.

---

It is no good to try to stop knowledge from going forward. Ignorance is never better than knowledge. --- Enrico Fermi ---

From what I remember from reading Hawking's book, A Brief History of Time, many years ago was that he suggested that the net sum of the universe is zero.

NOTHING = (+SOMETHING) + (-SOMETHING)

Matter-Energy is the +SOMETHING and gravity is the -SOMETHING, counterbalancing the something, trying to return it back to nothing.

I envisioned that the big bang was like someone dropping a rock in the center of a still pond. It causes all the waves that are either pluses or minuses to the water level, but there is still the same amount of water in the pond as there was before the rock.

Or like sound from a plucked string: It is only a series of pressure increases and decreases, but the net pressure change is zero, and the string goes nowhere. Yet, we have the capability of creating all kinds of beautiful music.

The question is, who threw the rock? Or maybe I am just nuts.

---

The question is, who threw the rock? Or maybe I am just nuts.

With this crowd, that would all depend on who you think threw the rock... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

The question is, who threw the rock? Or maybe I am just nuts.

Maybe the latter!
There was no pond, there was no rock, there was no space and no time. It just happened. It is only here because we think we exist to observe it. Anything more than that is religion and belief, and that invents its own proof!

There is nothing outside of the universe. We are at the edge of the Universe - the furthest point from the point of creation, and all we see around us is space and history.

Think of an expanding sphere in four dimensions. We are at the centre, but in every direction we look back in time to what was a smaller universe. If we can look far enough, every point on the surface of that sphere goes to a point source, the origin of the big bang. We are at the centre but also the furthest away.
The universe is like an inverted 4d sphere - a bubble of space-time which doesn't have an outside because there is no outside!

Now tell me I'm not nuts too! :-)

Hydrogen and helium were created as a result of the "Big Bang" a few hundred thousand years later when the plasma cooled enough to condense. All other elements were "cooked" in stars. You can find these nuclear equations in many books. Stars the size of our SUN can only produce elements as heavy as carbon. These elements are distributed throughout space by exploding stars at the end of their lifetimes.

So you are saying, that helium and hydrogen did not exist before the big bang? I find that hard to believe as our Big Bang did not create other solar systems and so on.

Yes that's correct--nothing existed in our Universe before the Big Bang. There was no "before" since time itself like all our other dimensions were created at that instant. Some think that there could be other universes--I suppose that some of these --if they exist--could be older than ours by our notion of time.

I believe you are misusing the word "created." The unraveling of a compactified dimension does not imply that the dimention is "created." Yes, it was useless while it was compactified, but it still existed, all wound up in its tight little ball.

The best scientific view of the evidence is that there is a process in operation which creates "universes" out of some larger existence of some type or another. We don't know much about it because we have no way to look at it. We can only model things using math and then try to figure out what the later implications are if the early model worked in some particular way and then try to see if those implications hold true in what we can observe around us.

It is misleading where you say "nothing existed in our Universe before the Big Bang." One way of looking at it is that the universe itself did not exist; no space and no time. But that does not equate to an assertion that "nothing" existed. There was, in fact, "something" that existed "before" the existence of our universe "began." That "something" most likely involved compactified dimensions which "unwound" or otherwise "expanded" into existence at the time of the "Big Bang," producing (at least in part) the inflationary epoch.

I wrote this on my own blog about the size of the universe:

Anybody who pays much attention to science knows that the universe is big. But I’ve found that very few people, even very few scientists, have any idea of just how big the universe is. So, I’m going to attempt to explain what the inflationary theory of cosmology says about the size of our universe.

If you study cosmology at all, you will probably understand that visible light travels at a fixed speed, so the distance that light travels in a year is a fixed distance we call “one light year.” The visible universe is defined as that part of the universe which mankind can see by using telescopes. Whether you use the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) or a more-exotic instrument like the Cosmic Background Radiation Explorer (COBE), the distance you can see from the Earth is limited because of the way the universe was formed about 13.5 billion years ago.

Because of the fixed speed of light, when we look further and further away from the Earth, we are simultaneously looking further and further back in time. When we get to looking about 13.5 billion years away from the Earth, we can’t see any further away because at about 13.5 billion years ago the universe went from being opaque (light could not travel through it) to transparent (light could suddenly go, and keep going, until it finally arrives at our telescopes). What we see out there about 13.5 billion light years away is the Cosmic Background Radiation, which is the residue of the so-called “Big Bang” explosion that formed our universe. Since it is not possible to look “earlier” in time, it is also not possible to look “further” away in distance, because the two factors are directly related to each other.

So, we can imagine that the visible universe is a ping-pong ball, and the Earth is at the center. In that case, the radius of the ping-pong ball would be about 13.5 billion light years, meaning that the ping-pong ball is about 27 billion light years across. Some versions of inflation theory say that the universe is something roughly like “at least” the size of 10,000 such ping-pong balls. Others speculate that the “minimum size” of the universe is more like a few dozen such ping-pong balls. Any of these ideas are bigger than most of us can imagine. It also boggles the mind because we know what Einstein said about the speed of light being the fastest speed it is possible to obtain within our universe.

Inflation theory resolves this paradox by supposing that the very fabric of space and time expanded (called the metric expansion of space) in such a way that things moved apart without actually moving physically. Of course, it could be the case that they were moving physically too, at the same time, but the inflationary motion was by far the greatest part of how things moved apart. So, things that were very close together just an instant or two after the “Big Bang” happened could end up so far apart that they will never be able to contact each other again during the entire life of our universe because even traveling at the speed of light could not bring them together again before they are exterminated by the ending of the universe (glossing over the question of just how the universe will eventually meet its fate; this is true no matter what the case is for the particular fate of the universe).

Frankly, there are a lot of questions about inflationary theory with respect to the formation of our universe. And there is no good way to observe parts of the universe that are outside of our own little “ping-pong ball”-sized portion of the universe. We have nothing but some scribbled mathematical formulas to assert what the actual size of our universe is. But we have even less reason than that to disbelieve the current “best guess” as to that true size. Even the alternative theories of how the universe was formed, such as string theory, still must postulate some mechanism that would make a very-huge universe of the above size or larger. This is true because what we are able to observe is inconsistent with any other model of the size of the universe.

The key is that inflation does not happen because things "move apart." Instead, inflation happens because the metrical framework of space itself (meaning the dimensions that comprise our space/time continuum) move apart extremely rapidly. The best view of why and how they do that comes from string theory which asserts that these dimensions of space/time were "compactified" in some way and they they "unrolled" in some way to fling apart to incomprehensibly distant lengths little bits of energy which were previously nearly adjacent to each other because they were all rolled up in the tiny little thing which produced the "Big Bang."

Something like that anyway; and most definitely not "nothing."

For the first time, I am looking differently at the immensity of the universe and the increasing speed and distance that all the galaxies are moving away from each other.

This new pespective has come to me after reading the last few posts here. Thanks to all of you. Let's see if I can explain my "jump" to a new plateau, a moment of clarity, as it were.

Since we are dealing with "looking out as far as we can see," we do so as light reaches us. So the further out that I "see," the farther "back" (out) in time I go. But time and distance work against each other. So I can theorize a telescope that can see back to the instant of the big bang. Therefore, the universe is very small and very large at the same time. Yes? (My version of the theory of relativity)

So I do grasp the idea that we are at the same time on the edge of this expanding universe and in the very middle. Both "places" are not, in my finite "view," mutually exclusive. So I maybe nuts too!!!

---

It is no good to try to stop knowledge from going forward. Ignorance is never better than knowledge. --- Enrico Fermi ---

Saw a show on the Discovery Channel the other evening and they said that it is now pretty certain(?) that our known Universe was created when two other Universes collided and created ours. There are 11 dimensions, no I don't know them all, and string theory and all the other theories are now being proven using this new proof(?). Everything seems to be coming together since they added an 11th dimension to the whole equation. Some people have been saying their were 11 all along, some INSISTED(string theory people) there were only 10. Well when the string theory people only had 10 dimensions they had 5 major string theories that covered everything. Some sat down and said lets prove the 11 dimension people wrong. When they added the 11th dimension to the string theory, they ended up combining all 5 major string theories into one simple solution! Thru all this they came up with multiple Universes and the new proof of the Big Bang. You can't make something from nothing and you can't end up with more than you started with. It all had to be there somewhere and this now proves(?) how.

---

Saw a show on the Discovery Channel the other evening and they said that it is now pretty certain(?) that our known Universe was created when two other Universes collided and created ours. There are 11 dimensions, no I don't know them all, and string theory and all the other theories are now being proven using this new proof(?). Everything seems to be coming together since they added an 11th dimension to the whole equation. Some people have been saying their were 11 all along, some INSISTED(string theory people) there were only 10. Well when the string theory people only had 10 dimensions they had 5 major string theories that covered everything. Some sat down and said lets prove the 11 dimension people wrong. When they added the 11th dimension to the string theory, they ended up combining all 5 major string theories into one simple solution! Thru all this they came up with multiple Universes and the new proof of the Big Bang. You can't make something from nothing and you can't end up with more than you started with. It all had to be there somewhere and this now proves(?) how.

It sounds like the "collision" they were talking about was between "branes" (a derivitive from the word "membrane," which is used for purposes of analogy). Those are not "universes" by any means.

Most importantly, nothing can conceivably be "pretty certain" about this area of research until some "AHA!" paper is published that unifies gravity into the overall scheme of things and thereby also unifies general relativity with quantum mechanics. If that had actually happened, I'm sure there would have been articles in the ordinary news media. So, whoever said "pretty certain" was in fact just lobbying for their favoriate (but as yet unproven) approach to a solution; not an actual solution.

The thing about 10 or 11 dimensions seems to be almost a repeat of the thing many decades ago between Einstein's four dimensional Theory of Relativity and the Kaluza-Klein take off on that which used 5 dimensions. The 5 dimensional version incorporated Maxwell's equations and thereby offered explanations for electromatic propagation. Kaluza-Klein has long been recognized as an early version of what evolved into string theory.

But most of us struggle solving quadratic equations (in two dimensions). It is impossible for most people to even imagine how difficult it is to solve problems in 11 dimensions. This is something Brian Greene pointed out in his book The Elegant Universe (which I highly recommend, even though it is somewhat out of date now from a technical perspective).

So far as I know, they are all still searching for that elusive Theory of Everything (ToE), which will explain "it all" in terms that at least an Einstein would understand. Now, how to get it so that ordinary folks can understand it too? That is the question.....

Saw a show on the Discovery Channel the other evening and they said that it is now pretty certain(?) that our known Universe was created when two other Universes collided and created ours. There are 11 dimensions, no I don't know them all, and string theory and all the other theories are now being proven using this new proof(?). Everything seems to be coming together since they added an 11th dimension to the whole equation. Some people have been saying their were 11 all along, some INSISTED(string theory people) there were only 10. Well when the string theory people only had 10 dimensions they had 5 major string theories that covered everything. Some sat down and said lets prove the 11 dimension people wrong. When they added the 11th dimension to the string theory, they ended up combining all 5 major string theories into one simple solution! Thru all this they came up with multiple Universes and the new proof of the Big Bang. You can't make something from nothing and you can't end up with more than you started with. It all had to be there somewhere and this now proves(?) how.

It sounds like the "collision" they were talking about was between "branes" (a derivitive from the word "membrane," which is used for purposes of analogy). Those are not "universes" by any means...

Yes they did mention "branes" and did not use the word Universe too often.

---