The Big Bang Theory
Organizer:
- Organized by
-
-
a few thoughts and questions for the Big Bang
-
a few thoughts and questions for the Big Bang
It seems difficult to imagine that everything we’ve seen our whole lives, let
alone the whole world and entire universe, was once concentrated into a
tiny pinpoint. How could we know this phenomenon ever existed, since
obviously no one could have been around to observe?Also, why the size of a pinpoint? Why couldn’t it have been the size of a marble,
a house, the earth, or even a galaxy? Actually, the pinpoint has been said to have
had both “infinite density” and “zero size”, two descriptions of quantification which
seem quite logically inconsistent. How could something which is of “infinite density”
possibly have “zero size”? How could these possibly even exist separately, with
only one concept at a time? Or even way more impossible, each at the same time?The Big Bang Theory was originally derived from Lemaitre. His view of how the
universe could have started was quite different from what eventually evolved into
the Big Bang as we know it today.What I’ve read from more recent sources elsewhere often isn’t as accurate as what is
found in various older books. The original hypothesis Lemaitre had thought of was that
the universe started out as the primeval atom or cosmic egg, which would split or divide
itself, similar to how the amoeba multiplies, until various celestial objects, stars, planets,
and such, were created to eventually harbor various kinds of life-forms.When first hearing about this, Einstein didn’t think much of the idea, even though
he had been known to say that the universe is either expanding or contracting.
However, he pictured these terms in a much different way when he had first thought
about them. He theorized this since he pictured that a “static” universe and all the
physical objects it contains, would inevitably collapse into each other from the effect
of their own gravity. He had the idea of a sort of “anti-gravity” that “pushes” outward
from various celestial objects at a distance, to prevent the universe from collapsing.
He called this the Cosmological Constant.At that time, Einstein and literally everyone else in the world didn’t have any idea of
a colossal explosion or a literal “beginning” of the universe, from the initial singularity,
which sent mass and energy rushing out in all directions.It wasn’t until Hubble’s Law, with viewing the universe from outer space, and seeing
how everything appeared to “rush apart” from everything else, that the Big Bang,
as we know it today, originated. Since the time that the Red Shift and the Cosmic
Microwave Radiation were observed, though possibly interpreted mistakenly, that
the Big Bang has been the most highly accepted cosmological theory for decades.
Actually, even Einstein eventually accepted it, and of course, considered his idea
of the Cosmological Constant, as he later famously stated, his “greatest blunder”.The “updated” version of the Big Bang had immediate problems and inconsistencies
of which to account. For instance, according to the Big Bang, there was once a “time”
when mass and energy, and even time and space, didn’t exist. Such a state seems
completely impossible to even conceive of.There was supposedly nothing at all that previously existed “before”. That there literally
wasn’t a “before” at all. The way the theory goes is that suddenly the tiny pinpoint, much
smaller than an atom, appeared from “out of nowhere”, to immediately explode and create
the expanding universe. What could have caused the pinpoint to suddenly appear? and
what caused it to explode?If there was a beginning to the universe, and that the “initial singularity” did appear from
out of nothing, how much time was there between the spontaneous appearance and the
spontaneous explosion? Was the amount of time quicker than a microsecond? Maybe
a year? Or did the pinpoint stay there dormant for countless millennia? Or what if
the explosion occurred within a universe that already existed? -
4 Replies
-
>That there literally wasn’t a “before” at all.
According to official propaganda (wikipedia) :
“…increasingly concentrated cosmos preceded by a singularity in which space and time lose meaning”
The problem for these guys then is to explain how time magically became ‘meaningful’. We are not dealing with physics here, but with pseudo-philosophical charlatans discussing the ‘meaning’ of…things.
These guys claim that something happened 6000 years ago. Sorry, they pushed the date of creation back somewhat. Now they claim it happened 13,700 million years ago. We can then go back in time for a long while, until we reach a point in time when…time stops. You can’t ask what happened before because…there’s no time, which can only mean “time is stopped”. And if time is stopped, nothing can happen, including their ‘big bang’.
-
Einstein said: the Universe is either expanding or the opposite. However, he forgot the possibility that It can both expand and contract in different regions.
-
Hi John-Erik.
How exactly to defne “universe” though? There’s quite a few ways, and some of them don’t seem too comprehensible. Did you possibly mean that the aether either expands or contracts within different areas?
As a casual aside, doesn’t that seem sorta funny how the word “either” follows the word “aether” in that last sentence? Anyway, I’m possibly mistaken with that thought. How would you personally define the “universe”?
-
I have a question though. Does anyone at all these days believe in a “fixed” and completely “stationary” ether? Wasn’t that the type of ether that Michelson and Morley originally thought they were trying to find the relative motions of the earth through?
-