Thought about the big bang!

[Hyde Parke]

Further this desire for 'eye-witness' interaction with 'everything' in the universe is useless from a science standpoint. (Well after a certain point. What is gained by observering the 40,000,001st Type Ia supernovae?) Physics is about understanding fundemental forces in the universe gravity, strong and weak nuclear, and electro-magnetic. These produce rules on how particles interact and how galaxies and solar systems form. They govern these actions everywhere.

The rules are the same all over.

We can grow to understand them.

We do not need to go everywhere to learn it.

whatever, if that is the case, why are we constantly building rockets and sending them into space, looking , building bigger telescopes to go further into outer space? explain that genius. It is because they understand, to get as complete an accurate picture possible, they need to do more than just "observe" from a telescopic point of view. And you and I both know, the odds of that happening in our life time, the next and the next x infiniti. you can only produce rules based on what information you have available, and it is and will always be limited. Tell yourself otherwise to deem yourself important, i dont care.

thats nice lil quote you patched together there at the end, to bad its false.

I have no problems with science, it has done alot for us technologically, it has also done alot that we could do with out. this whole creation thing, and trying to find the source is just a waste of time imo.

 

[Hyde Parke]

agree theres no way to know

with that said, whats the difference between science and religion

idk, one uses logic, the other uses faith, both operate from the mind. there is no difference in that aspect. but of course people will argue on an on from both sides.

 

[whar67]

whatever, if that is the case, why are we constantly building rockets and sending them into space, looking , building bigger telescopes to go further into outer space? explain that genius.

"Well after a certain point. What is gained by observering the 40,000,001st Type Ia supernovae?"

I would have assumed that a person with basic reading comprehension skills would have been able to derive my answer.

 

[Hyde Parke]

"Well after a certain point. What is gained by observering the 40,000,001st Type Ia supernovae?"

I would have assumed that a person with basic reading comprehension skills would have been able to derive my answer.

my comprehension is just fine, when you add little cliche type poems at the end, looks as though you are making two very different statements at the same time. Which is it? do we need to keep exploring outerspace, or do we have all we need here? obviously the rules are not the same everywhere, or else we would be able to exist anywhere we like.

 

[shootemwon]

threadstarter doesnt know basic astronomy stuff, difference between galaxies and universes, etc.

Damn, unequivocally sonned into oblivion by KTULU. How you feel about this threadstarter?

 

[konceptjones]

There was universe here before ours.

It expanded, just like ours is doing now.

At some point, the expansion stopped and it contracted at the same rate which it expanded at.

all matter and energy eventually collapsed to a single, one dimensional point, then violently exploded, creating the universe we currently inhabit.

the cycle will continue in a few billion years.

 

[TX_Made713]

There was universe here before ours.

It expanded, just like ours is doing now.

At some point, the expansion stopped and it contracted at the same rate which it expanded at.

all matter and energy eventually collapsed to a single, one dimensional point, then violently exploded, creating the universe we currently inhabit.

the cycle will continue in a few billion years.

and I suppose you've live through all this to tell the tale.

 

[konceptjones]

and I suppose you've live through all this to tell the tale.

it makes the most sense when looked at from a Newtonian physics point of view.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The universe is currently expanding, at some point, it will contract. This adheres to this very basic principal. If all matter and energy collapses onto itself, what's the most likely outcome? A violent explosion... Which we have described as "The Big Bang".

It makes logical sense.

 

[TX_Made713]

it makes the most sense when looked at from a Newtonian physics point of view.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The universe is currently expanding, at some point, it will contract. This adheres to this very basic principal. If all matter and energy collapses onto itself, what's the most likely outcome? A violent explosion... Which we have described as "The Big Bang".

It makes logical sense.

assuming the big crunch is the outcome of the end of the universe. but what if the end is the "Big freeze"? that puts a dent in that theory

 

[whar67]

my comprehension is just fine, when you add little cliche type poems at the end, looks as though you are making two very different statements at the same time. Which is it? do we need to keep exploring outerspace, or do we have all we need here? obviously the rules are not the same everywhere, or else we would be able to exist anywhere we like.

Rules are the same ... conditions vary.

We will learn quite alot about binary stars by observing our first binary star before quickly start to accumulate diminishing returns. We gain very little to no information by observing our 57th binary star system.

Rules of the universe are things like the behaviour of light or gravity. These are constant. While the conditions may vary such as light passing through our atmosphere or light travelling through a vacuum the rules that govern light remain the same. When it comes to these rules the typical non-relevatistic speed that most of the universe operates in become mundane and we only really learn new things when stuff goes really really fast (Large Hadron Collider) or are really really dense (Black Holes) or are really really small (quantum mechcanics).

We do not have to go everywhere to understand the universe but we look in these areas to gain our understanding.

 

[shootemwon]

There was universe here before ours.

It expanded, just like ours is doing now.

At some point, the expansion stopped and it contracted at the same rate which it expanded at.

all matter and energy eventually collapsed to a single, one dimensional point, then violently exploded, creating the universe we currently inhabit.

the cycle will continue in a few billion years.

It's God inhaling and exhaling, right?

 

[konceptjones]

assuming the big crunch is the outcome of the end of the universe. but what if the end is the "Big freeze"? that puts a dent in that theory

if our understanding of physics is correct, then there won't be a "big freeze", the universe will collapse and we will have been long gone by the time it happens.

 

[konceptjones]

It's God inhaling and exhaling, right?

[video=youtube;TQdIiEUFtqk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQdIiEUFtqk[/video]

riiiiiiiiiight...

 

[whar67]

There was universe here before ours.

It expanded, just like ours is doing now.

At some point, the expansion stopped and it contracted at the same rate which it expanded at.

all matter and energy eventually collapsed to a single, one dimensional point, then violently exploded, creating the universe we currently inhabit.

the cycle will continue in a few billion years.

The elegance of the idea makes it very appealing, unfortunately the continued acceleration of the universe seems to contradict it.

 

[TX_Made713]

if our understanding of physics is correct, then there won't be a "big freeze", the universe will collapse and we will have been long gone by the time it happens.

our understanding of physics is the reason these theories are possible. the big crunch is just one of many possible endings

 

[konceptjones]

The elegance of the idea makes it very appealing, unfortunately the continued acceleration of the universe seems to contradict it.

because we haven't yet reached the equilibrium point, the point where expansion stops and contraction begins.

Think of it in terms of a rubber band. You can stretch it only to a certain point, then it contracts with the same energy it took to stretch it.

(edit) The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

 

[whar67]

because we haven't yet reached the equilibrium point, the point where expansion stops and contraction begins.

Think of it in terms of a rubber band. You can stretch it only to a certain point, then it contracts with the same energy it took to stretch it.

(edit) The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

We are still accelerating. The fastest we could be going in the typical acceleration/deceleration model would be at the start of the process. The energy inparted by the big bang would be applied then gravity would operate to slow down thing down and pull it all back together. The problem is we are still receding faster and faster from other galaxies. If we were heading toward an eqilibrium point we should be braking or slowing down as we reach it.

 

[Hyde Parke]

Rules are the same ... conditions vary.

We will learn quite alot about binary stars by observing our first binary star before quickly start to accumulate diminishing returns. We gain very little to no information by observing our 57th binary star system.

Rules of the universe are things like the behaviour of light or gravity. These are constant. While the conditions may vary such as light passing through our atmosphere or light travelling through a vacuum the rules that govern light remain the same. When it comes to these rules the typical non-relevatistic speed that most of the universe operates in become mundane and we only really learn new things when stuff goes really really fast (Large Hadron Collider) or are really really dense (Black Holes) or are really really small (quantum mechcanics).

We do not have to go everywhere to understand the universe but we look in these areas to gain our understanding.

all of this sounds like a bubble, operating from the confinement of the mind. and really if something is already there, and we just

havent disovered it yet, does that truly make it new?

I contend, to get a complete and accurate picture, which is still limited, we would need to go everywhere, because as you stated

conditions vary, and that if the law is independent of the conditions, then the conditions are something else altogether which each have laws of their own...and that is this "more understanding" you speak of. We can understand more and more, but

we will not come upon the actual thing. the closest we can come is a generic re-creation, an imitation.

 

[konceptjones]

We are still accelerating. The fastest we could be going in the typical acceleration/deceleration model would be at the start of the process. The energy inparted by the big bang would be applied then gravity would operate to slow down thing down and pull it all back together. The problem is we are still receding faster and faster from other galaxies. If we were heading toward an eqilibrium point we should be braking or slowing down as we reach it.

which means we're not there yet. We'll never see it as it's simply too far off. I can stretch a rubberband quickly when I first start out, but as it begins to reach it's limit, I start to slow down until I can no longer stretch it. We're still at the point where the universe is expanding quickly, slowing down will likely take billions of years or more to reach, then billions more to reach the point of total collapse (all matter and energy down to a single point)

 

[whar67]

which means we're not there yet. We'll never see it as it's simply too far off. I can stretch a rubberband quickly when I first start out, but as it begins to reach it's limit, I start to slow down until I can no longer stretch it. We're still at the point where the universe is expanding quickly, slowing down will likely take billions of years or more to reach, then billions more to reach the point of total collapse (all matter and energy down to a single point)

Your analogy is exactly on point. The problem is that is not what the Big Bang offers as a force. In your analogy you exert force on the rubberband through the stretching process. That is what seems to be going on in the universe. A force (termed Dark Energy) seems to be exerting continued force on expanding space. However the Big Bang applies all its force at the start of the process like a gun shooting a bullet. It should therefore begin to slow down right away as soon as it leaves the muzzle as it were. The observation we can make from the universe though show we are still accelerating. If you continue to apply pressure to that rubberband in your analogy it will never contract. That is what seems to be going on. The desire of the rubberband to contract (gravity) is being overwhelmed by a force pulling the rubberband apart (dark energy).