Skip to comments.
The universe before it began
Seed Magazine ^
| 5/22/06
| Maggie Wittlin
Posted on 05/24/2006 3:59:24 PM PDT by LibWhacker
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 121-126 next last
To: Luke Skyfreeper
I thought we already decided our universe is destined to expand forever; in which case such a universe is not that similar to ours.
I'm not sure that there's a consensus on that. I think it depends on the amount of "black matter" in the universe - if there is enough, then eventually, the universe will cease to expand and eventually retract into intself because of gravity. If there isn't enough matter for gravitation to do this, then the universe will keep expanding. At least this was the way I remembered it...
To: Kenny Bunkport
You mean, created "again".
62
posted on
05/24/2006 5:46:03 PM PDT
by
onedoug
To: Redcloak
"Since the "current" universe seems to be flying apart and showing no signs of an eventual contraction, what prevented the "prior" iteration from doing the same thing?"
Who knows? Perhaps it's the case that it only appears to be expanding and that time may, in fact, be running in reverse at the present moment.
You got me. :)
63
posted on
05/24/2006 5:46:08 PM PDT
by
Reactionary
(The Barking of the Native Moonbat is the Sound of Moral Nitwittery)
To: LibWhacker
I guess this solves it.
Karma is a deadly business indeed.
64
posted on
05/24/2006 5:48:01 PM PDT
by
Reactionary
(The Barking of the Native Moonbat is the Sound of Moral Nitwittery)
To: razoroccam; Allan
Yes.
Please read #45, Allan. I know you find Physics boring, but a comment from the Mathematicians would be appreciated. (8)
To: Hodar
So, as the distribution of elements that 'ought' to appear from the 'original' big bang -aka the Singularity- didn't appear, the theory goes that there was a Bang, a contraction and then another Bang, and another contraction and then another Bang (I believe the guess is 5 Bangs to get to where we are today). The density of material at the instant the "big bang" is such that no elements are possible. The universe, post bang, starts as a sea of energy. Initial expansion allows cooling and the formation of subatomic particles. As things continue to cool, neutrons, electrons and then finally elemental hydrogen forms. There is no mechanism to carry over anything from the previous expansion/contraction cycle. Time starts at zero with the bang and there is no significance to time before T=0
The elements from hydrogen to iron are formed in the first generation of hydrogen burning stars. The remainder of the elements are forged by later generations of stars going nova. All the elements present in this universe can be accounted for by thermonuclear processes post big bang.
The expansion/contraction of the universe could have been beating like a cosmic clock for uncountable cycles. Or this could be the first "tick" for all we know. Because nothing can pass through the singularity, not matter, not energy, not information. Time truly starts over each expansion.
You may think of it as the ultimate "Mulligan".
Regards,
GtG
66
posted on
05/24/2006 5:54:14 PM PDT
by
Gandalf_The_Gray
(I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
To: Sterlis
Like you say: Limiting it to ONE additional universe makes no sense. Mathematics can be an endless string....WE interfere with it by putting our own mind limitations to it.
67
posted on
05/24/2006 5:59:30 PM PDT
by
Sacajaweau
(God Bless Our Troops!!)
To: SauronOfMordor
I'm not absolutely sure but I think the Black hole theory has been revised.
68
posted on
05/24/2006 6:00:44 PM PDT
by
Sacajaweau
(God Bless Our Troops!!)
To: Doe Eyes
What is the technical explanation for God's creation of the Universe?He spoke and it was. That's how powerful his word is.
69
posted on
05/24/2006 6:14:02 PM PDT
by
Kenny Bunkport
(As the Democrat Party becomes more evil, the GOP becomes more stupid. What's a voter to do?)
To: onedoug
According to this theory, yes. But, since we can't look back beyond the signularity of the Big Bang, this is just another piece of fancy speculation pranching around as "science."
70
posted on
05/24/2006 6:15:00 PM PDT
by
Kenny Bunkport
(As the Democrat Party becomes more evil, the GOP becomes more stupid. What's a voter to do?)
To: Gordongekko909
Hence the word "theory."This is no more a theory than my grapefruitcentrism is a theory. Both are hypotheses and neither can be falsified but mine has the advantage of keeping time/space jumpers from falling ill to scurvy.
71
posted on
05/24/2006 6:26:07 PM PDT
by
jwalsh07
To: Hodar
The heavier elements are formed in the crucible of stars and supernovae.
To: Stone Mountain
I think it depends on the amount of "black matter" in the universe - if there is enough, then eventually, the universe will cease to expand and eventually retract into intself because of gravity. If there isn't enough matter for gravitation to do this, then the universe will keep expanding. At least this was the way I remembered it... You are right but there three possible results.
1) not enough matter and the universe keeps expanding without bound
2) too much matter and the universe eventually stops expanding and begins to contract into the "big crunch"
and (kind of like the three bears)
3) just the right amount of matter so that the expansion slows at an ever decreasing rate that approaches (but never reaches) zero. This results in a non-cyclic universe with a finite, bound volume.
Observational data seems to indicate that the rate of expansion is slowing, which eliminates number one. My personal favorite is number three because it seems to me to be the sort of thing G_d might do. Put in just the right amount of mass to blow a permanent bubble of space time.
Regards,
GtG
73
posted on
05/24/2006 6:36:29 PM PDT
by
Gandalf_The_Gray
(I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
To: PatrickHenry
Now we know where the dirt came from...
74
posted on
05/24/2006 6:42:03 PM PDT
by
Junior
(Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
To: Gandalf_The_Gray
PS I have long suspected that G_d is a young child playing in a sand box, several dimensions up the road from here. The reason we haven't seen him around lately is his parents have called him in from play time for supper, and then off to bed.
Our universe is the sand castle he build to while away a sunny afternoon.
Regards,
GtG
75
posted on
05/24/2006 6:48:10 PM PDT
by
Gandalf_The_Gray
(I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
To: Publius6961
... WTF did THAT universe come from... ? It's big bangs all the way down.
76
posted on
05/24/2006 6:48:47 PM PDT
by
TChad
To: Junior
Thanks. But it's probably too late to deploy the ping list.
77
posted on
05/24/2006 6:51:44 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: Publius6961
Just postulate another universe and hope nobody notices?......................
Well put, Publius6961!
To: LibWhacker; Petronski; cyborg
But not in black holes?Black holes are out of sight...
79
posted on
05/24/2006 7:11:26 PM PDT
by
null and void
(Islam wasn't hijacked on 9/11. It was exposed.)
To: BipolarBob
My question for the creationists (and I'm a believer in Genesis as allegory):
If God is eternal, and the universe is 6000 years old (or 16 billion years old, or whatever), . . . . .
. . . what was God doing for the eternity before that?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 121-126 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson