Jump to content
Science Forums

The What Was, Before The Big Bang


Recommended Posts

A simple observation that may lend some incite into the question at hand is how space clocks lose time. This is attributed to relativity. This has been demonstrated.

 

Although these space clocks lose time, they don't lose distance/size. In other words, even though they were time dilated and distance contracted, due to relativity, distance is reversible back to the final reference, but time change lingers. This is not exactly what is expected from an integrated space-time since space and time are not doing the same thing when the two references meet again. Potential in time is conserved but distance localizes. 

 

Say I took an hour glass full of sand, and we set up the experiment so time runs half as fast in the other reference. In my reference the hour glass is empty, while the other reference is now half full. Potential energy is conserved, due to time, but not because of size. 

Edited by HydrogenBond
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

xyz, try also to support your statements. Eg., the following are really strong statements and you do not support with anything:       Or     By just presenting statements like you did, you just lose a

xyz - Within the context of general relativity, space most certainly can expand and can be destroyed. Regarding the balloon analogy; most people misuse the analogy by thinking that its like a real bal

If you have all the answers, why did you bother asking the question?

Posted Images

A simple observation that may lend some incite into the question at hand is how space clocks lose time. This is attributed to relativity. This has been demonstrated.

 

Although these space clocks lose time, they don't lose distance/size. In other words, even though they were time dilated and distance contracted, due to relativity, distance is reversible back to the final reference, but time change lingers. This is not exactly what is expected from an integrated space-time since space and time are not doing the same thing when the two references meet again. Potential in time is conserved but distance localizes. 

 

Say I took an hour glass full of sand, and we set up the experiment so time runs half as fast in the other reference. In my reference the hour glass is empty, while the other reference is now half full. Potential energy is conserved, due to time, but not because of size. 

But if you simply consider that time is dependent to all observers and remember the facts that the space clocks are arbitrary time, you soon realise that a said time dilation is nothing more than a gravity force shift.

 

p.s your glass is never half full or half empty, it refills with air.

 

added - put an atomic clock on the moon, the frequency rate of the caesium atom will slow down, the moon ages the same. 

Edited by xyz
Link to post
Share on other sites

We are talking about before the big bang, which then arrives at the discussion of expansion of space and the said nothing outside of this expanding space, Expanding space physically has to space to expand into, discussion then drifts into logical science, and the logic is if you think there is nothing beyond expanding space, you are technically saying we are inside of a solid, which one is it?

Space is not expanding 'into' anything.

 

Metric expansion

...The metric expansion of space is the increase of the distance between two distant parts of the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself changes. This is different from other examples of expansions and explosions in that, as far as observations can ascertain, it is a property of the entirety of the universe rather than a phenomenon that can be contained and observed from the outside. ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

''Since the time of Hubble we have observed millions of galaxies with better equipment and verified his results. With the exception of a small handful of galaxies close to us, every galaxy is moving away from us.''

 

 

 

You observe galaxies moving away from our observation you do not observe space.

 
 
 
 

 

 
Edited by xyz
Link to post
Share on other sites

xyz - I never avoided the explanation. I simply choose not to repeat myself. I already described what it means for space to expand, i.e. all galaxies moving away from each other. There's more to it than that of course but I'm unable to cut and paste URLs making it very difficult for me to reference pages.

 

I said that we know that space is expanding because we observe all galaxies moving away from each other and there are galaxies whose cosmological redshift is so high that it can only mean that the galaxy is moving away from us at speeds greater than the speed of light. That can only happen if its space itself that is expanding. There are observations which imply all if this. You never looked them up so that's why you don't know about it. You assumed it was all wrong so you never looked for observational evidence that it is right. That evidence is listed here: http://en.wikipedia/wiki/Metric_expansion

 

Do a search on that page for the term "evidence."  Later this week I'm going to MIT to talk to a friend of mine, Alan Guth. He's one of the worlds leading cosmologists. He's helping me develop my companies website by giving talks in videos about common misconceptions in physics. I'll have him do one on this subject so that you'll have a solid answer from one of the leading scientists on the Big Bang theory. It'll be good for the physics community to have this because there's a large number of people who get it all wrong like you do.

 

Observation is nothing without theory. We have theory from general relativity and a great deal of experimental data which implies that GR is correct. GR when applied to the universe gives us a metric which implies that its space itself that is expanding.

 

When the administrators tell me how to do a cut and paste in this forum (since it's not working) I'll show you what evidence exists. Or you could do a search for it yourself. I don't see why you can't do a search for yourself though.

Edited by Pmb
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

xyz - I never avoided the explanation. I simply choose not to repeat myself. I already described what it means for space to expand, i.e. all galaxies moving away from each other. There's more to it than that of course but I'm unable to cut and paste URLs making it very difficult for me to reference pages.

 

I said that we know that space is expanding because we observe all galaxies moving away from each other and there are galaxies whose cosmological redshift is so high that it can only mean that the galaxy is moving away from us at speeds greater than the speed of light. 

All galaxies moving away from each other is not space expanding is it now, is science trying to say that they observe bigger gaps between masses?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

All galaxies moving away from each other is not space expanding is it now, is science trying to say that they observe bigger gaps between masses?

It is clear you did not read the links on metric expansion that I and Pmb referenced. (His link is broken but it's the same as I gave.)

 

We gave the link because it explains exactly what science says and it is your responsibility as a student and forum poster to go and read it. All of it. We can only properly quote small passages per forum rules and good form of not throwing up a wall of text. You, or anyone, cannot discount some science if you do not in fact know what that science is or how it is derived.

 

Now here it is again. Go read it, all of it, and if you then still have a question then quote a specific passage and ask it. Anything less is trolling.

 

Metric expansion of space

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is clear you did not read the links on metric expansion that I and Pmb referenced. (His link is broken but it's the same as I gave.)

 

We gave the link because it explains exactly what science says and it is your responsibility as a student and forum poster to go and read it. All of it. We can only properly quote small passages per forum rules and good form of not throwing up a wall of text. You, or anyone, cannot discount some science if you do not in fact know what that science is or how it is derived.

 

Now here it is again. Go read it, all of it, and if you then still have a question then quote a specific passage and ask it. Anything less is trolling.

 

Metric expansion of space

 

It is clear you did not read the links on metric expansion that I and Pmb referenced. (His link is broken but it's the same as I gave.)

 

We gave the link because it explains exactly what science says and it is your responsibility as a student and forum poster to go and read it. All of it. We can only properly quote small passages per forum rules and good form of not throwing up a wall of text. You, or anyone, cannot discount some science if you do not in fact know what that science is or how it is derived.

 

Now here it is again. Go read it, all of it, and if you then still have a question then quote a specific passage and ask it. Anything less is trolling.

 

Metric expansion of space

Thank you Turtle, I did not realise that it was a link sorry.  I will go read it and will return without a doubt to pick at it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I have read it again, I had read this before, my first point

 

''Due to the non-intuitive nature of the subject and what has been described by some as "careless" choices of wording, certain descriptions of the metric expansion of space and the misconceptions to which such descriptions can lead are an ongoing subject of discussion in the realm of pedagogy and communication of scientific concepts.''

 

again an expansion of space is mentioned , this is very misleading if you want the truth and a none biased opinion. It insinuates that space itself is growing like an inflating balloon, 

 

''To understand the metric expansion of the Universe,''

 

Again further down the page more misleading information, the universe is not expanding, The Universe is of space and mass, the mass is moving and space stays quite the same.  

 

 

Then it goes on to mention space time etc, and the curvature of space, there is nothing to curve of space, it has no physical body, now if you want to suggest the electromagnetic radiation swirls, I would certainly entertain  that thought. 

Everything seems to swirl from a maelstrom to a twister, it is apparent nature. 

Flat space-time really, time does not exist in space , time is dependent to all observers, while you observe a Keating experiment flying around the world, you are observing your own time pass by, it is dependent , you do not time a race car driving around a race track, you record your own time observing.

The fundamental errors in thinking are astounding, 

 

 

When an object is receding its light gets stretched (redshift)  no no no, when an object is receding it releases the radiation pressure of the source output. Taking force away from the ''spring''

when the spring is under no pressure, you can not see the spring, but when the spring is under maximum pressure you just see blue.

 

 

and thats about it from that page, 

Edited by xyz
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I have read it again, I had read this before, my first point

 

...The fundamental errors in thinking are astounding, 

...

The fundamental errors are yours. You are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

Dunning-Kruger effect @ Wiki

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. The bias was first experimentally observed by David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University in 1999. Dunning and Kruger attributed the bias to the metacognitive inability of the unskilled to evaluate their own ability level accurately. Their research also suggests that conversely, highly skilled individuals may underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks that are easy for them also are easy for others.[1]

 

Dunning and Kruger have postulated that the effect is the result of internal illusion in the unskilled, and external misperception in the skilled: "

...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fundamental errors are yours. You are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

Dunning-Kruger effect @ Wiki

Many have said this before, and I have read the link several times before, I do not believe I am even considering myself skilled in science, there is no illusion, I only ask questions about what I read  and question the logic involved if it does not make any relative sense. To suggest space is expanding is ludicrous, no one can observe space itself, no one can measure space without using points, hence xyz and Mr Einstein etc, Metric expansion is no more than measuring the distance between dots, are you suggesting otherwise and some miracle science that see's things that can not be seen such as space?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many have said this before, and I have read the link several times before, I do not believe I am even considering myself skilled in science, there is no illusion, I only ask questions about what I read  and question the logic involved if it does not make any relative sense. To suggest space is expanding is ludicrous, no one can observe space itself, no one can measure space without using points, hence xyz and Mr Einstein etc, Metric expansion is no more than measuring the distance between dots, are you suggesting otherwise and some miracle science that see's things that can not be seen such as space?

Again the problem is with you. You are overestimating your skill at logic. Moreover, the lower one's skill at some task, the more they overestimate their ability.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Again the problem is with you. You are overestimating your skill at logic. Moreover, the lower one's skill at some task, the more they overestimate their ability.

It is nothing of the sort's, reality is what is real and the truth, example- an object falls to the ground.  this is good solid science and not Theory.   When reading something if something stands out has absurd, I will question that something.  Mostly what I read of science things pop out as absurd and also impossible. 

Sometimes the obvious is the answer, example- what was before the big bang? well we know that before the big bang there must of been space, because without space, the big bang would have no space to happen in. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...