[russianteen]

post comments! If I'm wrong about something tell me!

[ConservativeMan55]

Big Bang? MOAB Bump!!!!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/977054/posts

[RadioAstronomer]

Here is a good site you may wish to read. Your take on the Big Bang is not correct.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

[At _War_With_Liberals]

You cannot be 13. Are you?

[Bogey78O]

Well the singularity is kind of a simplified explanation. Many people are pushing toward the "no beginning" idea. Bascially with relativity as an item aproaches light-speed time appears to slow down. So if you were to wind back the clock you'd never get to the starting point because as each object fled at extrordinary speed it distorted time.

Of course I'm tired and I probably butchered that explanation.

There's also the hypothesis that matter doesn't exist quite as we know it and the universe is mearly the result of something outside of normal space-time.

[blam]

Welcome to Free Republic, kid.

[templar]

I'm going into my freshman year in high school in a few days and i don't think my opinion will be popular with most of my peers and teachers.

Opinions are never popular with teachers. For many reasons.

As for the Big Bang? Observational time is too short to support any theory. Could be the expansion phase of bang, bang, bang where the universe pulses eternally inward and outward. Or the 'expanding' universe could just be an observational anomaly. Or we could just be a single atom in a grain of sand that just got smashed with a hammer by a very (very) big kid playing with his dad's tools.

What works is real. Whether you are navigating one of our starships between stars, or galaxies, or trying to locate a specific star with a telescope, or flying between planets in the solar system, you need a model of the universe that allows you to use its' particular mathematics to accomplish your feat successfully. Choose the model (theory) that suits your purpose and go with it (BTW, the flat earth model works quite well for navigating an automobile between cities. No theory is obsolete, they just get forgotten as a theory).

[Consort]

The Big Bang is just an interim theory until a better one comes along. It doesn't matter, anyway. The start of the universe was a one-time event — and we missed it. It's time to get over it.

[Mr. Mojo]

Ping

[D-fendr]

Consider Fractured Symmetry.

[Young Werther]

Read Issac Asimov's "The Last Question."

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

Hi :)
When I consider the "big Bang" I have to wonder where the "condensed matter' which banged, came from. I beleive in the big bang, only it has not happened yet. Just throwing in my 2 cents worth.

[swilhelm73]

Well, my degree is in astrophysics, so I'll give you a few comments here;

For an explosion to happen, one or more forces have to act upon another group of forces.

The Big Bang was not an explosion, instead it marked the beginning of the expansion of the universe. This may be a subtle, though important distinction. To explode there must be something to explode into.

So, as the universe has expanded, things get farther from each other, and to a casual observer from any spot in the universe, on the largest scale it would appear as if there was an explosion centered on where they are observing from.

Think of the universe as a piece of raisin bread. You put it in the oven and the dough starts to expand. The distance between each raisin increases because the dough between them has expanded. In this analogy, the dough is the fabric of space and the raisins are galaxies (well actually groups of galaxies).

In all seriousness, there has been a movement to rename the Big Bang theory because it causes just this confusion.

if all matter wasn't incinerated from the start

Well, it was actually, or at least pretty darn close. The 'matter' extent pre-Big Bang we have no idea about. The stuff shortly after was extremely exotic, and can only be recreated in particle accelerators now, if at all.

As time went on most of the particles settled into matter and anti-matter hydrogen atoms which obliterated each other until only the tiniest fraction of atoms remained, with matter oh so slightly more common then anti-matter and hence virtually none of the latter still exists.

While the Big Bang theory isn't perfect, it does fit what we have observed fairly well. It is also accepted by most everyone in the field by they conservative or liberal, theist or atheist. Big Bang theory is not some politically correct concoction.

If you really are interested, I'd suggest you ask your freshman science teacher, or your local librarian, for more you can read about on your own.

[boris]

You are wrong about everything.

However you may be forgiven because all teenagers believe they know everything.

There are so many errors and misapprehensions in your brief 'rant' that it is difficult to know where to begin. As Wolfgang Pauli used to say, "it is not even wrong," i.e., it does not even merit being called 'wrong'.

For example:

"One thing that I have thought about is if there was a big bang from one central point, if all matter wasn't incinerated from the start, it would all fly in a different direction from a single starting point. All chunks created by the explosion, however big or small, would go outward in its own way a nothing would come into contact with anything else. This would make galaxies or any clusters of spacial objects impossible to prove."

There was NO matter at the start; only radiation. So 'incinerated' is pretty apt. So, by the way, is "LET THERE BE LIGHT!" Steven Weinberg's book, The First Three Minutes describes a universe made of nothing but radiation--but with densities much greater than granite. No matter could exist. It took thousands of years (millions?) for things to cool sufficiently that atoms could form.

Another error: there was no explosion from a point. The explosion is still going on! Space began expanding.

It is clear that the Universe rapidly reached thermal equilibrium (go take a thermodynamics class) and this has caused problems because there was not time for regions distant from one another to communicate at the light-speed limit. However, a concept called 'inflation' solved that problem; it is possible for spacetime to expand faster than light! This has the effect of nicely homogenizing the early universe, leading to the smooth (but not too smooth) early universe we observe in this epoch.

Do us a favor: get thru college and Astronomy 101 before you give us your take on the nature of It All.

If you want, Radio Astronomer and/or I can give you a reading list.

--Boris

[Phyto Chems]

I believe in the "Big-Bang-Theory", God spoke "IT" into existence, BANG it happened. . end of story

Sorry to pop your 'big' ideas... LOL

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP - Comment in the morning

[John Valentine]

You can't understand relatavistic physics with newtonian concepts. Your thinking on this subject is seriously naive.

We only call it a "bang" from our present perspective. In reality there was no bang. There was no explosion. There was nothing to observe and no observer. Even if there had been an observer, a God, if you like, even to him it would not have seemed a bang or an expolsion, only a coming into being.

Do some serious reading before you mouth off in class. That's my "old man's" suggestion.

[RadioAstronomer]

Did you go look at the link I provided?