Whic Came First: "big Bang" Or "spacetime"

jsaldea12

18th July 2009 - 07:42 AM

Whic came first: "Big Bang" or "spacetime of Dr. Einstein".

Which came first: “Big Bang” or “spacetime of Dr. Einstein”. It appears that at the time “Big Bang” exploded, expanded, it was met by cold, re-cold outer space that was almost absolute zero Kelvin, and outer space even now maintains such temperature. Big Bang, before it exploded, was originally a proton size, a coin size, etc. no matter what its exact size, Big Bang was an object that consisted of matter and energy that exploded, expanded, but space is different from matter and energy. What could have expanded, even up to now, from Big Bang, is matter and energy. Evidences of Big Bang are physical matter and energy, re- (a) the undeniable “cosmic microwave background radiation” that “smoke” remnants of Big Bang pertains to matter and energy and. (

the equally strong evidential detected red=shifting of all galaxies, accelerating to recesses of outer space, repeat, accelerating to recesses of outer space as if outer space was already there to receive the galaxies. Then there is the Bible which states that “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”. Heavens, which encompasses all of space, but not matter, implicating that outer space came into being ahead of matter and divisible energy. It appears that space, re-spacetime of Dr. Einstein, or expanded into “cosmological constant”, was made/created into being before Big Bang. Further, cosmological constant, the greatest mistake of Dr. Einstein, appears all occupying now, vibrating outer space that is not perfectly void..

jsaldea12
Chairman – Capiz Scientists & Inventors Society

7.18.09

Frothy

18th July 2009 - 08:11 AM

yes you ask an extremely important and valid question that dazzles scientists all over the world. I have been involved in a study research group in my university and we are currently working on resolving the issue.

I will post some updates of my research soon, as right now its very discreet.

jsaldea12

18th July 2009 - 11:22 AM

I thought i was all alone in the middle of sahara desert. It is a comfort to have a companion.

Regards.

jsaldea12

7.18.09

uaafanblog

20th July 2009 - 03:35 AM

QUOTE (jsaldea12+Jul 18 2009, 11:22 AM)

jsaldea12

7.18.09

Isn't it enough for you that the little section to the left contains your name and that there is a date/time stamp already associated with your post?

We already knew you were jsaldea12 and that the date was July 19th, 2009.

Do you know the word "redundant"?

uaafanblog
7/19/2009 19:37:04 Alaska Standard Time

Latrosicarius

20th July 2009 - 02:36 PM

It is 100% guaranteed Frothy is a sock puppet.

Horta

21st July 2009 - 04:26 AM

Which came first"Big Bang" or Time-Space? I would have to say "Big Bang" because according to Stephen Hawking, The "Big Bang" accrued then about a second after the "Big Bang" Time-Space, or Einstein's Grid formed. The universe was as small as a singularity before the "Big Bang". As far as what caused the "Big Bang", that is just now being looked at. Physicists are doing the math and trying to answer that tough question which as of right now has no answer. Then there is the issue of what is out side of our Time-Space continuum. According to String Theorists it is made up of shards of strings with no where or no when because there is no time or no space. Of course this is only at the theoretical stage since we are a long ways from lab testing this one. But it is still very interesting.

Harry Costas

22nd July 2009 - 11:52 AM

G'day

How can matter be created from nothing?

jsaldea12

23rd July 2009 - 07:54 AM

I respect Dr. Hawking but remember he changed his mind about black hole after twenty years. What he said about accrual after Big Bang, that space, is his conviction as no one really knows. What I say, too, is only my conviction.

Evidence now is just pointing something like this: Cold outer space, of averaging close to absolute K, is winning over hot Big Bang. Cold cannot be created by super-heat Big Bang.. Cold originated from somewhere out there, in separate outer space.

.The Genesis, of highest intuition/revelation to man, states that “God created first the heavens and the earth. Thus, space came into being first, then matter,… heavens which encompasses all outer space..

Big Bang had been conceived as “proton-size”, the exact size we will never know but that proton-size is matter-energy, not space..

How can matter be created from nothing? There will always come a point on which we will arrive at knowing nothing. At this point, we become aware there is highest intelligent Being, called, God beyond our mind. Hope Dr. Hawking is not an atheist anymore.

Jsaldea12

7.23.09

lzurha

28th July 2009 - 08:22 AM

space/time i think came first for existance to exist in a space the space it self has to exist atleast thats what i think the space that the big bang accured in had to be space/time befor the spark right?

but it can be argued i guess thats just me i always thot that even the space witch something resided in had come in to existance first

something had to make the canvas that the paint went on

lzurha

28th July 2009 - 08:33 AM

QUOTE (Harry Costas+Jul 22 2009, 11:52 AM)

G'day

How can matter be created from nothing?

i wan to know to =)

tlocity

28th July 2009 - 09:54 AM

It is quite clear from the only record we have that the frame existed before the Big Bang. The frame is the multidimensional structure of the Firmament. God placed in the Firmament all of creation. That is recorded in the Bible. There is no other evidence at this time.

flyingbuttressman

28th July 2009 - 11:34 AM

QUOTE (tlocity+Jul 28 2009, 04:54 AM)

HAHAHHAHHhahhahahhhahhahahhhahaa

AlexG

28th July 2009 - 03:59 PM

QUOTE (tlocity+Jul 28 2009, 04:54 AM)

Since the Bable was made up 13 billion years after the BB, I fail to see how it is in any way a record of anything.

Quantum_Conundrum

8th August 2009 - 06:29 PM

QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 28 2009, 10:59 AM)

Since the Bable was made up 13 billion years after the BB, I fail to see how it is in any way a record of anything.

1) Apparant age, calculated age, and real age are all very different things.

Scientists cannot even explain the physics of how a Galaxy can possibly form and not either tear itself appart or automatically collapse to a black hole. So then, given the fact that the currently somewhat known and somewhat understood laws of physics cannot explain "local" phenomena even on the galactic scale, how then can you trust triangulation, spectrometry, or other measurements for objects and events outside our galaxy?

Until you actually know and prove what dark matter and dark energy are (that is, whatever the undiscovered substances and energies are which the theorists call by these names), and show the formulae by which they obey in interacting with conventional matter and energy, then you CANNOT date objects beyond our galaxy, and indeed, cannot even really date objects inside the galaxy.

Why? Because the dates YOU are relying on are based on the assumption that gravity and electromagnetic energies are the only forces acting over cosmic distances. However, it has already been know for decades that this is not the case.

However, since you do not know how Dark Energy or Dark Matter influence space-time over long distances, you cannot actually know for sure how far away nor how old a given object actually is.

You are looking at an object that is an unknown distance away and then ignoring the unknown variables of dark energy and dark matter as though they have never been postulated, and then estimating a stars distance, mass, composition, etc. based on triangulation, red shift, or spectrometry. None of which are reliable since the unknown variables haven't been properly described.

2) You are making a fallacy by assuming that "coincidence equals relationship" i.e. "questionable cause/common cause fallacy"

Even if we did understand what Dark Matter and Dark Energy are, and how they work, believing you can run the laws of physics backwards indefinitely is a fallacy. Just because a formula gives you a result does not mean that the event ever actually occured, as any system with an origin does not have an indefinite past. Thus, one cannot prove that the "big bang" ever happened, nor that it is in any way an "origin" of the universe, as the origins of the universe could likely be much more recent.

I could take a clock and set the date and time to "Noon, 50 trillion B.C.," indeed, one could envision that hands of a clock spinning in reverse until they reach the position corresponding to that date and time, analogous to you running physics backwards until a singularity is reached, but that doesn't mean such a date or time or event ever actually existed.

uaafanblog

8th August 2009 - 10:33 PM

QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 8 2009, 06:29 PM)

Scientists cannot even explain the physics of how a Galaxy can possibly form and not either tear itself appart or automatically collapse to a black hole.

Inertial forces balance Gravitational forces ... they are two sides of the same coin.

Quantum_Conundrum

9th August 2009 - 02:39 AM

QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 8 2009, 05:33 PM)

Inertial forces balance Gravitational forces ... they are two sides of the same coin.

The problem is, they don't explain the observed phenomena!

There isn't the right amount of mass in the right places to explain the formation of Spiral Galaxies and why their arms form the way they are.

Simply adding more mass to the system, or over/under-estimating the mass of the galaxy's core does not solve the problem.

SirShanson

14th August 2009 - 12:12 PM

QUOTE (Harry Costas+Jul 22 2009, 12:52 PM)

G'day

How can matter be created from nothing?

One way is to borrow energy from the future to create a particle of matter and antimatter which annihilate one another to repay the "energy debt" this happens all the time and is observable in empty regions of space. So long as the energy is payed in a time frame short enough, which is determined by Heisenburg's uncertainty principle then this is acceptable in the realm of quantum physics.

Another way is a heck load more complicated and I can't remember enough to explain it fully (its a lot of maths I struggle to fully comprehend and I can't remember the evidence at the moment either) but it is plausable that at the time before or just after the big bang time and space where parallel, this leads to all kinds of freaky occurings not least that matter is not really created out of nothing. Nobody says it was.

SirS

(I'll check through my papers at home later and dig up the information on the time and space curve thing then revise this)

dakfe09

18th August 2009 - 11:40 AM

i know when i read a lot of bull.
Is anything posted int this thread worth noting?

is the OP's question even valid?

O_o

22nd August 2009 - 08:58 AM

I think it's wrong, to say that there is any real "deep" philosophical ideas behind this, it is merely a result of the opinion that the only requirements on a physical theory is that it should be able to predict the outcome of so experiments, whether or not that theory has anything to do with a seen "reality" is irrelevant.
This is why we (or at least I) think that the debate over various intepretations etc is more or less irrelevant, unless of course someone can come up with an experiment that can test which interpretation is correct.

Drive The Nail

30th August 2009 - 02:47 AM

The Big Bang theory suits the average person well because of its structure. We feel as though anything that exists must have a beginning and an end. There are so many problems with the Big Bang theory and since the theory itself is quite outlandish it is best to simplify the questions about it.
Space-time may be a better model as its boundaries are not as finite as Big Bang and are probably closer to the truth.

The theory that matter cannot be created nor destroyed either contradicts The Big Bang or supports a multiple dimension explanation (where an equal and opposite universe co-exists in parallel with ours).

Disregarding 'matter' and simply just using a description of space (as in volume), it begs the question "what contained this white ball of energy that eventuated into the Big Bang?", a container, inside a container, inside a container ... we will always ask, where the first container is.
I believe a finite description of the universe, such as the Big Bang is far too simple to describe it and also that a finite model such as it will never work.

You may agree that a dimension of space itself is volume. Matter and energy occupies a volume and is contained within it.

Another element of space we can use as a definite constant is 'progression' - or time. The accepted belief is that we always proceed "forward" (for lack of a better word).
Any date and time we use is simply a reference point within an infinite scale, I see no reason for space to not be the same in this model.

For this, my vote is for space time ... infinite time, infinite space - everything we measure is merely a point of reference on an infinite scale.

Its a simple way of putting things but there really isn't any need to get silly. If we start time traveling - it will really expose a missing dimension in this model...if it's possible, of course.

H2O

9th September 2009 - 02:58 PM

If the big bang was the start of it all (as the theory goes), space/time began with the big bang.

rpenner

11th September 2009 - 02:44 AM

That's why current theory refers to the big bang as a space-like singularity. Because current theory is no longer capable of giving you meaningful descriptions of the universe when extend back in time that far or further.

At this point, I lack the imagination to tell you how to test a theory which claims to describe the universe before the big bang with regard to fingerprints it left on the primordial universe, and the success of the standard model and general relativity largely summarizes all physics experiments to a high degree of accuracy with the exception of dark energy and the possibly non-baryonic dark matter.

But a question without an application is nearly meaningless.

uaafanblog

11th September 2009 - 06:40 AM

QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 9 2009, 02:39 AM)

I don't claim nor do I believe that any balance between inertia and gravity has any bearing of the large scale structure of the universe. I'd tend to think they're more both influential on the local scale. Physics ought to be looking more to electricity for answers to the structure of the universe. I envision some sort of interconnected electrostatic interactive mesh which increases it's density in the presence of mass perhaps creating feedback with gravity/inertia resulting in the overall structure we see. I think that one day we'll learn how to manipulate this "mesh" and then it's George Jetson, Joan his wife, their daughter Judy, their boy Elroy ... time.

O_o

11th September 2009 - 09:40 AM

Today the big bang theory is on pretty firm ground about what happened a small fraction of a second after it happened. The origin of the big bang is still an open question.

jsaldea12

5th October 2009 - 12:40 PM

According to Carl Sagan, there are as many stars in the observable universe than there are sands and deserts in the planet earth. And there are some 100 billion galaxies. NASA Hubble even improved the figures: there some 130 billion galaxies and some 500,000 billion, billion stars, not to mention the planets. If you come to think of it, all the universe in a proton sized Big Bang.

Jsaldea12
10.5.09

Sylwester Kornowski

5th October 2009 - 03:55 PM

I am member of this FORUM.

The law of conservation of energy leads to conclusion that spacetime is eternal. The assumption that in some phenomena this law is not obligatory is a childish game. Someone can assume that before a big bang there was a singularity of spacetime with frozen energy observed today. Then appear following questions:
1.
What is difference between mass and energy of the singularity?
2.
What are phenomena causing release of the mass and energy from the state of singularity?
3.
Why expanding spacetime is curved but still FLAT?
4.
Why decreasing density of the expanding spacetime does not change values of the physical constants?

In my opinion, we never find answers to these questions because assumption that there was singularity is at least idiotic. Ultimate theory will show that spacetime is eternal and infinite. Ultimate theory will show that our Universe was before big bang and after big bang ONLY SMALL RIPPLE ON THE EINSTEIN SPACETIME. Ultimate theory will show that the exit of the early Universe from the state of black hole (black hole curve spacetime but spacetime is still FLAT – it is not a mistake!) was due to the possible PHASE TRANSITION of the object before big bang composed of the constituents of the Einstein spacetime. Then, there appeared the dark energy i.e. the a little denser Einstein spacetime – it leads to the ‘antigravity’. It is the reason why we cannot solve the problem associated with origin of the dark energy.

Geoff Mollusc

5th October 2009 - 04:40 PM

QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Oct 5 2009, 03:55 PM)

In my opinion

Who asked for your opinion? - you're merely the epitome of a categorically psychotic deluded fraud with a most proven twaddle theory (exceeding magnitude 10 on the absurdity scale).

See Alphanumeric for details.

Sylwester Kornowski

6th October 2009 - 09:37 AM

Geoff Mollusc, your ‘post’ suggests that you know the absolute truths. You have not scientific arguments, for example some observational facts, to point where I am not right. Your ‘discussion’ is on the gutter level.

You do not see that also AlphaNumeric is unable to point where my theory is inconsistent with experimental data and observational facts. Whereas I pointed how we can verify my theory. I pointed where the theories describing the strong and weak interactions will be inconsistent with new experiments for very high energies.

For you these scientific arguments are not important. On this FORUM are a few people who think similarly as you. But for science it is not important.

Geoff Mollusc

8th October 2009 - 08:13 PM

QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Oct 6 2009, 09:37 AM)

You have not scientific arguments, for example some observational facts, to point where I am not right. Your ‘discussion’ is on the gutter level.

Slywanker: 01-Nov-2006:

"from my theory results how we may build engine based on the COLD FUSION WITH HOT ELECTRONS. But the EU and USA are not interested! Maybe the competitors will be? I give them time for reflection."

.... you're not right - IN THE HEAD!

rpenner

8th October 2009 - 11:33 PM

QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Oct 5 2009, 03:55 PM)

I am member of this FORUM.

This is not to be construed as an endorsement or warranty of fitness for any purpose.

Famously, Walter Wagner used his membership in organizations which simply require him to pay fees as if it was an endorsement of his expert status. The membership of this forum is somewhat less of an achievement. At least Wagner was able to secure certain funds towards his goals. (Trial scheduled for November 17, I believe.)

Now, being moderator of this forum has to be regarded as an actual (limited and revocable) endorsement by management. So when I say that SK is not a poster of high reputation in the area of physics, that is the personal opinion of someone who at the moment has the endorsement of management to decide what actions should be taken to shape the content this forum.

Guest

9th October 2009 - 04:08 PM

Geoff Mollusc, I know that I wrote following very important words:
"….from my theory results how we may build engine based on the COLD FUSION WITH HOT ELECTRONS"
I still claim that it is possible (i.e. sufficiently low speed of nucleons and high speed of electrons) but it is not good time to discuss the technical problems on this FORUM. It means that nucleons have low relativistic energy i.e. low temperature. Fusion of such nucleons we call COLD. But I wrote that it is difficult to calculate efficiency of such processes. The rest was the provocation.

Maybe I will return to this problem when new experimental data (the LHC experiments) will show that my predictions are correct - you can read it in the thread titled 'running constants'.

Thank you that you read my all posts but you are still arrogant.
I know that over time you will change your attitude to my theory. You need time.

Sylwester Kornowski

9th October 2009 - 04:16 PM

Above appeared following my post as unregistered.

Geoff Mollusc, I know that I wrote following very important words:
"….from my theory results how we may build engine based on the COLD FUSION WITH HOT ELECTRONS"
I still claim that it is possible (i.e. sufficiently low speed of nucleons and high speed of electrons) but it is not good time to discuss the technical problems on this FORUM. It means that nucleons have low relativistic energy i.e. low temperature. Fusion of such nucleons we call COLD. But I wrote that it is difficult to calculate efficiency of such processes. The rest was the provocation.

Maybe I will return to this problem when new experimental data (the LHC experiments) will show that my predictions are correct - you can read it in the thread titled 'running constants'.

Thank you that you read my all posts but you are still arrogant.
I know that over time you will change your attitude to my theory. You need time.

Sylwester Kornowski

9th October 2009 - 04:31 PM

QUOTE (rpenner+Oct 8 2009, 11:33 PM)

.....So when I say that SK is not a poster of high reputation....

You should prove it.

BTW, was there amnesty for your companion? There were erased the warnings.
Is it a high reputation? Is it conformable with this FORUM rules? Can you treat all the same?

MjolnirPants

9th October 2009 - 05:55 PM

QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Oct 9 2009, 11:31 AM)

You should prove it.

BTW, was there amnesty for your companion? There were erased the warnings.
Is it a high reputation? Is it conformable with this FORUM rules? Can you treat all the same?

It was proven long before he ever stated that. Check your feedback page, dumbass.

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.