Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Subduction Zone]

Intelligent life out there isn’t a given, more like unlikely

Why do you think that it is unlikely? I would say probably very very rare. But the universe is vast.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We do not know that. Perhaps the non-existent turning into existant can be taken as the beginning of the universe. I believe physical energy exists all the time, but sometimes in its non-existent phase (science has nothing on it). Only future generations may know the truth.

There is no non-existence, except in the relative sense.

 

[Jimmy]

Why do you think that it is unlikely? I would say probably very very rare. But the universe is vast.

I just know stuff. I’m not on this planet to not know things.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I just know stuff. I’m not on this planet to not know things.

Where did you come from?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just know stuff. I’m not on this planet to not know things.

That is called "belief". If rational thought is not behind it mere belief is highly unreliable.

 

[YoursTrue]

Neither. The *observable* universe was once much smaller, but that does not mean the whole universe was small.

And to say that it 'started from nothing' implies that there was a time when there was nothing. And that is not the case: whenever there was time, there was matter and energy. The point is that gravity tends to accentuate differences in mass and energy distribution.

hmm, you say that the "observable" universe was once much smaller (ok...it could have been because it is evidently expanding...) but that does not mean the whole universe was small. It doesn't? Or it does, since some say it exploded from a very small, tiny whatever...? So either it (the universe) started from nathing or it started from something involved in the "Big Bang."

 

[YoursTrue]

Why is it ridiculous? You put the burden of proof upon yourself again. And why couldn't they know about the singularity?

Look, sometimes when people watch a movie, some things strike one person as funny enough to laugh out loud while others do not. shrug. So?

 

[YoursTrue]

Neither. The *observable* universe was once much smaller, but that does not mean the whole universe was small.

And to say that it 'started from nothing' implies that there was a time when there was nothing. And that is not the case: whenever there was time, there was matter and energy. The point is that gravity tends to accentuate differences in mass and energy distribution.

Yes, gravity was not just 'there' as if it always was. If you think that, it's probably time we stopped conversing. Just to follow up with that, according to what I have been reading, no one really know what gravity is anyway. (Have a good one...)

 

[YoursTrue]

Can you listen politely? First off "explode" is a very poor term. The universe was very very small then. The universe, space itself, expanded. Very, very, very, . . . , very rapidly. Second, if it did do so from nothing it did not break any laws of physics. It is a possibility.

The UNIVERSE was very, very small way back whenever, you say? ?? Very very small? Are you kidding? I mean how small? According to some, "Here’s the theory: In the first 10^-43 seconds of its existence, the universe was very compact, less than a million billion billionth the size of a single atom." (National Geographic) Yes, I would say that's very, very small. (LOLol!) (Depending on who's looking, of course.) Very small.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The UNIVERSE was very, very small way back whenever, you say? ?? Very very small? Are you kidding? I mean how small? According to some, "Here’s the theory: In the first 10^-43 seconds of its existence, the universe was very compact, less than a million billion billionth the size of a single atom." (National Geographic) Yes, I would say that's very, very small. (LOLol!) (Depending on who's looking, of course.) Very small.

If you want specifics talk to @Polymath257 . He knows far more about this than I will ever know.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you want specifics talk to @Polymath257 . He knows far more about this than I will ever know.

Now I KNOW you're kidding. the specifics were given as possibility as less than a million billion billionth the size of a single atom. That's pretty small, I would say. Very, very small.

 

[YoursTrue]

Anyway, @Subduction Zone and some others, while this has been interesting and engaging, my main interest right now is not about the "Big Bang," but I think I want to discuss more about the fossils and soil.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now I KNOW you're kidding. the specifics were given as possibility as less than a million billion billionth the size of a single atom. That's pretty small, I would say. Very, very small.

You keep using non-scientific sources and expect them to be accurate. Why do you do that?

 

[Polymath257]

I am not qualified to say at this point, so I look forward to further TLT CMBR research.

I read what was on the link you supplied. It simply doesn't work in the way claimed. First of all, any interaction with IGM is going to show he spectrum of the IGM material. And that *is* taken into account in cosmology. In fact, determining the amount of IGM is a key aspect of cosmology and interpreting a lot of visual data,

Second, interaction with IGM isn't going to produce a uniform frequency shift. We know how hydrogen interacts with light and it isn't in the way necessary to produce a *red shift* as opposed to a reddening (which is simply an increase of red end light). Dust and IGM produces a reddening, not a red shift.

Next, the CMBR cannot be explained by interaction of light with IGM. It is way too uniform and matches the Planck distribution too well (to within 1 in 100,000). So the 'explanation' given by tired light simply doens't fit the detailed data we have about it (it might have before some of our probes gave detailed data, but not now).

Sorry, but there is a reason tired light isn't taken seriously by astrophysicists. And it isn't a religious devotion to BB cosmology. It is that tired light, to the extent it makes any predictions at all, makes predictions that are contradicted by the actual data,

 

[Polymath257]

Do I detect a belief in the electric universe? Some of his arguments seem to be the same.

No, it is a different version of pseudo-science that has a following.

 

[Polymath257]

I am not qualified to say at this point, so I look forward to further TLT CMBR research.

Precisely. As my signature says, the opinions of 10,000 people who aren't qualified is irrelevant.

 

[Polymath257]

hmm, you say that the "observable" universe was once much smaller (ok...it could have been because it is evidently expanding...) but that does not mean the whole universe was small. It doesn't? Or it does, since some say it exploded from a very small, tiny whatever...? So either it (the universe) started from nathing or it started from something involved in the "Big Bang."

Four points:

1. From the time of nucleosynthesis, we are looking at an expansion factor of at most a billion. So, yes, while smaller it is hardly small on a human scale.

2. An inflationary time period may have produced a similar factor, but the data on this is sketchy and it should be considered to be speculation (although supported by a lot of actual, testable physics).

3. When you say 'started from nothing', exactly what do you mean? Once again, there was not point in time when there was 'nothing'. This is for the obvious reason that time is *something*. but, in more detail, there was no point in time when there was no matter, energy, or natural laws. And no, natural laws don't require a 'law maker': how can a 'law maker' make anything without natural laws?

4. The Big Bang is a description of the expansion *after* things got started. While there is some speculation about *how* things got started, there isn't data to allow for distinguishing the different hypotheses.

 

[Polymath257]

Now I KNOW you're kidding. the specifics were given as possibility as less than a million billion billionth the size of a single atom. That's pretty small, I would say. Very, very small.

Exactly when did I ever say anything like this? You can't point to a time, because I never have.

An expansion factor of a billion still puts the observable universe at 13 lightyears in radius.

Another factor of a billion would put the observable universe as thousands of miles in radius. At this point, we are in the realm of speculation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly when did I ever say anything like this? You can't point to a time, because I never have.

An expansion factor of a billion still puts the observable universe at 13 lightyears in radius.

Another factor of a billion would put the observable universe as thousands of miles in radius. At this point, we are in the realm of speculation.

I have seen a definition of the singularity, not as when everything came to a point, but at the concentration of energy and mass that would make none of our current known "Natural Laws" break down. Or as you said, after that it would be speculation.

 

[Polymath257]

The UNIVERSE was very, very small way back whenever, you say? ?? Very very small? Are you kidding? I mean how small? According to some, "Here’s the theory: In the first 10^-43 seconds of its existence, the universe was very compact, less than a million billion billionth the size of a single atom." (National Geographic) Yes, I would say that's very, very small. (LOLol!) (Depending on who's looking, of course.) Very small.

That time would put us into the time of quantum gravity. So anything would be speculation.

Most versions of quantum gravity have some sort of "bounce" before such densities are produced, so I would strongly doubt this.