 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / December 2006"instant" of the Big-Bang
I'm reading the text "Principles of Physical Cosmology," Peebles, Princeton University Press (1993). On page 6 Peebles writes --------------------------------------------------------- If there is an instant, at a "big bang," when our universe started expanding, it is not in the cosmology as now accepted, because no one has thought of a way to adduce objective physical evidence that such an event really happened. --------------------------------------------------------- Does anyone agree with this either in part or in whole? Best regards Pete > I'm reading the text "Principles of Physical Cosmology," Peebles, Princeton > University Press (1993). On page 6 Peebles writes [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Does anyone agree with this either in part or in whole? It seems essentially correct, but it doesn't fully express our ignorance. Since God Only knows what physical laws work at singularities, God Only knows what evidence to look for. Barry | > I'm reading the text "Principles of Physical Cosmology," Peebles, Princeton | > University Press (1993). On page 6 Peebles writes [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] | Since God Only knows what physical laws work at singularities, God Only | knows what evidence to look for. Do you believe in virgin born babies, fuckhead? > I'm reading the text "Principles of Physical Cosmology," Peebles, Princeton > University Press (1993). On page 6 Peebles writes [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Pete xxein: Strange. The first sentence on page 7 seems to be his own refutation. But he continues on to mention how difficult it is to extrapolate back in time. I would find it interesting to discuss how an eternal homogeny, expressed as physical law, changes through time. Maybe that is why I like the term 'adiabatic'. But I think your posted issue will remain unresolved for the next 25-50 years (boxers or briefs, paper or plastic). Or at least until we get a little brave and make a radical change in mindset. I did that innocent little thing back in 1985. Never had to look back with any regret whatsoever. Btw, how do you rate comcast to dsl? I was thinking about eliminating phone service entirely, either just before I go broke or at the time my phone equipment goes kaput. I guess the main issue for me is reliability (get-up time) after a regional disaster like a hurricane. For my twice-a-day use of a phone, cellular is fine. Tia. >> I'm reading the text "Principles of Physical Cosmology," Peebles, >> Princeton [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Btw, how do you rate comcast to dsl? I had them several months apart so they're hard to compare as such but comcast does seem faster. > I was thinking about eliminating > phone service entirely, either just before I go broke or at the time my > phone equipment goes kaput. I guess the main issue for me is > reliability (get-up time) after a regional disaster like a hurricane. > For my twice-a-day use of a phone, cellular is fine. Tia. What about a web phone? Pete | >> I'm reading the text "Principles of Physical Cosmology," Peebles, | >> Princeton [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] | | I had them several months apart So easily diverted. What a fuckhead. > >> I'm reading the text "Principles of Physical Cosmology," Peebles, > >> Princeton [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Pete xxein: I'm stuck on the 'kiss' principle. I'm also stuck with the hunch that the phone company has a much better resurrection time than either cell or cable. I think I'm just plain $tuck. Thanks for your input. | > I'm reading the text "Principles of Physical Cosmology," Peebles, Princeton | > University Press (1993). On page 6 Peebles writes [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] | little thing back in 1985. Never had to look back with any regret | whatsoever. You? Think? HAHAHAHA!! > | > I'm reading the text "Principles of Physical Cosmology," Peebles, Princeton > | > University Press (1993). On page 6 Peebles writes [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > You? Think? > HAHAHAHA!! xxein: Yes, and I am mostly done for the next 25 years. I'm waiting for everyone else to catch up. I would suggest you try to keep up to the present, at least. | > | > I'm reading the text "Principles of Physical Cosmology," Peebles, Princeton | > | > University Press (1993). On page 6 Peebles writes [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] | for everyone else to catch up. I would suggest you try to keep up to | the present, at least. No way, Jose. I go back and check where the blunders originated. "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." - Galileo Galilei. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF > | > | > I'm reading the text "Principles of Physical Cosmology," Peebles, Princeton > | > | > University Press (1993). On page 6 Peebles writes [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF xxein: Ah! But there is no origin to blunder. All we have is that some theories may work simpler (locally) and some seem to be more comprehensive than others (globally). You have put your efforts into the former (local) with no way to achieve or even comprehend the latter (global). You think that because you count three eggs in a basket, that is all there is. Where did the eggs come from? How did they get into the basket? Where did the basket come from? Is it all a trick like an animated GIF or does it really exist? Would you think that a living chicken egg is of a higher evolution than a basket made of dead plant fiber? You might be wrong and I'll let you think about that for a while. But it could be the other way around. I'll let you ponder THAT also. The answer is not as clear-cut as it might appear. Words and math have no affect on the physic. Our comprehension cannot alter it. We either get it completely right (a very basic impossibility) or come as close as our intelligence allows. Our end product (theory) will always be wrong even if new discovery can be assimilated --- usually like forcing a square peg into a round hole. Sometimes we even have to give up on a previously workable theory because it cannot extend to new discovery. Your theory (or its parts) have been discarded a century ago. But science has been known to tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Don't take too much joy in that statement. You work(?) is still not, in any way, nearly comprehensive enough to merit consideration, although it is easy for anyone to enter a group like this and declare a physic (in your case, a very small part) over and over again, hoping the propaganda replaces a reality or truth yet to be realized. You are a one-trick pony without a trick for mental ages of 15 yrs. and above. So, at least, try to trick us with something else that comes from beyond your short-sighted clipboard. We really don't mind answering your questions if you would learn to study the merits of the answers. But you do not. You insist that you are the one Galileo out of a thousand? Well? He was replaced by Newton who was replaced by Einstein. And still no adequate theory. Baby and bathwater is still almost the same mud with us, but we are getting better at differentiating the two. There is no blunder. There is only better and more comprehensive understanding. You wouldn't say to an ant that he blundered by not recognising Cygnus X-3 would you? There is no blundering except for you not to recognise what you DO see and add it into some kind of comprehension instead of ignoring it to safeguard a belief. | > | > | > I'm reading the text "Principles of Physical Cosmology," Peebles, Princeton | > | > | > University Press (1993). On page 6 Peebles writes [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] | some theories may work simpler (locally) and some seem to be more | comprehensive than others (globally). Ah! But there is no theory to "work". All you (not we) have is some bullshit. *I* am not "we", I do not share your crap. You are like football supporter, hollering from the grandstand wihout being a player. A bullshitter, "we". | You have put your efforts into the former (local) with no way to | achieve or even comprehend the latter (global). You don't comprehend mathematics, Mr. We. | You think that because | you count three eggs in a basket, that is all there is. If I can detect them to count, yes. | Where did the | eggs come from? What eggs? You have no eggs, Mr. We. | How did they get into the basket? You have no basket, Mr. We. | Where did the basket come from? From your imagination, Mr. We. I see no basket. | Is it all a trick like an animated GIF or does it | really exist? It doesn't exist, Mr. We. | Would you think that a living chicken egg is of a higher evolution than | a basket made of dead plant fiber? What the f.ck does your imaginary basket of eggs have to do with you being a football supporter, Mr. Ranting We? You might be wrong and I'll let you | think about that for a while. But it could be the other way around. | I'll let you ponder THAT also. The answer is not as clear-cut as it | might appear. I'm not pondering your imagination, Mr. Ranting We. | Words and math have no affect on the physic. Correct. Words and math describe, thet do not create. They can create fiction, though, as you just did with your basket of eggs. I do not have a basket of eggs, Mr. Ranting We. | Our comprehension cannot | alter it. Correct, one cannot create a basket of eggs, Mr Our We. | We either get it completely right (a very basic | impossibility) or come as close as our intelligence allows. But you got it completely wrong, Mr. Our We. Obviously that is as far as *your* intelligence allows. I'm not part of your hive mind, Mr. Drone Bee We. Our end | product (theory) will always be wrong even if new discovery can be | assimilated --- usually like forcing a square peg into a round hole. Yes, Mr. We, and your theory is wrong. | Sometimes we even have to give up on a previously workable theory | because it cannot extend to new discovery. Give it up, then, it doesn't work. <shrug> | Your theory (or its parts) | have been discarded a century ago. *I* do not have a theory, Mr. We. I rely entirely on the theories of others. We (Sir Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Nicholas Copernicus), *we* are players on the field, and *we* oppose *your* team. *We* have fewer cheerleaders, but *we* are still the victors, Mr. We, and *our* theories remain valid and are in everyday use, unlike your team's fictitious theories. | But science has been known to tend | to throw out the baby with the bathwater. *I* nurture the baby, Mr. We. *You* are not a scientist. Go make an omelette with your imaginary eggs. I guarantee it will be an imaginary charred mess in the frying pan. Don't take too much joy in | that statement. You work(?) is still not, in any way, nearly | comprehensive enough to merit consideration, although it is easy for | anyone to enter a group like this and declare a physic (in your case, a | very small part) over and over again, hoping the propaganda replaces a | reality or truth yet to be realized. Then f.ck off, Mr. We with your head up your arse. | You are a one-trick pony without a trick for mental ages of 15 yrs. and | above. Then f.ck off, Mr. We with your head up your arse. | So, at least, try to trick us with something else that comes | from beyond your short-sighted clipboard. Then f.ck off, Mr. We with your head up your arse. We really don't mind | answering your questions if you would learn to study the merits of the | answers. Then f.ck off, Mr. We with your head up your arse. But you do not. You insist that you are the one Galileo out | of a thousand? Then f.ck off, Mr. We with your head up your arse. Well? He was replaced by Newton Wild imagination, Mr. We with your head up your arse. Nobody replaced Galileo. | who was replaced by | Einstein. No he wasn't, Einstein was fuckwit like you, Mr. We with your head up your arse football supporter. | And still no adequate theory. Baby and bathwater is still | almost the same mud with us, but we are getting better at | differentiating the two. | | There is no blunder. There is only better and more comprehensive | understanding. Then f.ck off, Mr. We with your head up your arse. | You wouldn't say to an ant that he blundered by not | recognising Cygnus X-3 would you? I'm telling Mr. Ant We he wouldn't recognise a blunder because he has his head up his arse. | There is no blundering except for | you not to recognise what you DO see and add it into some kind of | comprehension instead of ignoring it to safeguard a belief. It's your belief, Mr. Ant We. Now f.ck off. xxein: Case closed. | xxein: Case closed. No answers, Mr. We? Chickened out, Mr. We? f.cked, Mr. We? | > <xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:1167074048.682263.33730@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com... | > | [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] | some theories may work simpler (locally) and some seem to be more | comprehensive than others (globally). Ah! But there is no theory to "work". All you (not we) have is some bullshit. *I* am not "we", I do not share your crap. You are like football supporter, hollering from the grandstand wihout being a player. A bullshitter, "we". | You have put your efforts into the former (local) with no way to | achieve or even comprehend the latter (global). You don't comprehend mathematics, Mr. We. | You think that because | you count three eggs in a basket, that is all there is. If I can detect them to count, yes. | Where did the | eggs come from? What eggs? You have no eggs, Mr. We. | How did they get into the basket? You have no basket, Mr. We. | Where did the basket come from? From your imagination, Mr. We. I see no basket. | Is it all a trick like an animated GIF or does it | really exist? It doesn't exist, Mr. We. | Would you think that a living chicken egg is of a higher evolution than | a basket made of dead plant fiber? What the f.ck does your imaginary basket of eggs have to do with you being a football supporter, Mr. Ranting We? You might be wrong and I'll let you | think about that for a while. But it could be the other way around. | I'll let you ponder THAT also. The answer is not as clear-cut as it | might appear. I'm not pondering your imagination, Mr. Ranting We. | Words and math have no affect on the physic. Correct. Words and math describe, thet do not create. They can create fiction, though, as you just did with your basket of eggs. I do not have a basket of eggs, Mr. Ranting We. | Our comprehension cannot | alter it. Correct, one cannot create a basket of eggs, Mr Our We. | We either get it completely right (a very basic | impossibility) or come as close as our intelligence allows. But you got it completely wrong, Mr. Our We. Obviously that is as far as *your* intelligence allows. I'm not part of your hive mind, Mr. Drone Bee We. Our end | product (theory) will always be wrong even if new discovery can be | assimilated --- usually like forcing a square peg into a round hole. Yes, Mr. We, and your theory is wrong. | Sometimes we even have to give up on a previously workable theory | because it cannot extend to new discovery. Give it up, then, it doesn't work. <shrug> | Your theory (or its parts) | have been discarded a century ago. *I* do not have a theory, Mr. We. I rely entirely on the theories of others. We (Sir Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Nicholas Copernicus), *we* are players on the field, and *we* oppose *your* team. *We* have fewer cheerleaders, but *we* are still the victors, Mr. We, and *our* theories remain valid and are in everyday use, unlike your team's fictitious theories. | But science has been known to tend | to throw out the baby with the bathwater. *I* nurture the baby, Mr. We. *You* are not a scientist. Go make an omelette with your imaginary eggs. I guarantee it will be an imaginary charred mess in the frying pan. Don't take too much joy in | that statement. You work(?) is still not, in any way, nearly | comprehensive enough to merit consideration, although it is easy for | anyone to enter a group like this and declare a physic (in your case, a | very small part) over and over again, hoping the propaganda replaces a | reality or truth yet to be realized. Then f.ck off, Mr. We with your head up your arse. | You are a one-trick pony without a trick for mental ages of 15 yrs. and | above. Then f.ck off, Mr. We with your head up your arse. | So, at least, try to trick us with something else that comes | from beyond your short-sighted clipboard. Then f.ck off, Mr. We with your head up your arse. We really don't mind | answering your questions if you would learn to study the merits of the | answers. Then f.ck off, Mr. We with your head up your arse. But you do not. You insist that you are the one Galileo out | of a thousand? Then f.ck off, Mr. We with your head up your arse. Well? He was replaced by Newton Wild imagination, Mr. We with your head up your arse. Nobody replaced Galileo. | who was replaced by | Einstein. No he wasn't, Einstein was fuckwit like you, Mr. We with your head up your arse football supporter. | And still no adequate theory. Baby and bathwater is still | almost the same mud with us, but we are getting better at | differentiating the two. | | There is no blunder. There is only better and more comprehensive | understanding. Then f.ck off, Mr. We with your head up your arse. | You wouldn't say to an ant that he blundered by not | recognising Cygnus X-3 would you? I'm telling Mr. Ant We he wouldn't recognise a blunder because he has his head up his arse. | There is no blundering except for | you not to recognise what you DO see and add it into some kind of | comprehension instead of ignoring it to safeguard a belief. It's your belief, Mr. Ant We. Now f.ck off. > Then f.ck off, Mr. We with your head up your arse. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > It's your belief, Mr. Ant We. > Now f.ck off. xxein: Hmmm. Is THAT how you get inspiration for YOUR physics? <xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:1167359858.649975.118160@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... | xxein: Case closed. No answers, Mr. We? Chickened out, Mr. We? f.cked, Mr. We? | > <xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:1167074048.682263.33730@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com... | > | [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] | some theories may work simpler (locally) and some seem to be more | comprehensive than others (globally). Ah! But there is no theory to "work". All you (not we) have is some bullshit. *I* am not "we", I do not share your crap. You are like football supporter, hollering from the grandstand wihout being a player. A bullshitter, "we". | You have put your efforts into the former (local) with no way to | achieve or even comprehend the latter (global). You don't comprehend mathematics, Mr. We. | You think that because | you count three eggs in a basket, that is all there is. If I can detect them to count, yes. | Where did the | eggs come from? What eggs? You have no eggs, Mr. We. | How did they get into the basket? You have no basket, Mr. We. | Where did the basket come from? From your imagination, Mr. We. I see no basket. | Is it all a trick like an animated GIF or does it | really exist? It doesn't exist, Mr. We. | Would you think that a living chicken egg is of a higher evolution than | a basket made of dead plant fiber? What the f.ck does your imaginary basket of eggs have to do with you being a football supporter, Mr. Ranting We? You might be wrong and I'll let you | think about that for a while. But it could be the other way around. | I'll let you ponder THAT also. The answer is not as clear-cut as it | might appear. I'm not pondering your imagination, Mr. Ranting We. | Words and math have no affect on the physic. Correct. Words and math describe, thet do not create. They can create fiction, though, as you just did with your basket of eggs. I do not have a basket of eggs, Mr. Ranting We. | Our comprehension cannot | alter it. Correct, one cannot create a basket of eggs, Mr Our We. | We either get it completely right (a very basic | impossibility) or come as close as our intelligence allows. But you got it completely wrong, Mr. Our We. Obviously that is as far as *your* intelligence allows. I'm not part of your hive mind, Mr. Drone Bee We. Our end | product (theory) will always be wrong even if new discovery can be | assimilated --- usually like forcing a square peg into a round hole. Yes, Mr. We, and your theory is wrong. | Sometimes we even have to give up on a previously workable theory | because it cannot extend to new discovery. Give it up, then, it doesn't work. <shrug> | Your theory (or its parts) | have been discarded a century ago. *I* do not have a theory, Mr. We. I rely entirely on the theories of others. We (Sir Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Nicholas Copernicus), *we* are players on the field, and *we* oppose *your* team. *We* have fewer cheerleaders, but *we* are still the victors, Mr. We, and *our* theories remain valid and are in everyday use, unlike your team's fictitious theories. | But science has been known to tend | to throw out the baby with the bathwater. *I* nurture the baby, Mr. We. *You* are not a scientist. Go make an omelette with your imaginary eggs. I guarantee it will be an imaginary charred mess in the frying pan. Don't take too much joy in | that statement. You work(?) is still not, in any way, nearly | comprehensive enough to merit consideration, although it is easy for | anyone to enter a group like this and declare a physic (in your case, a | very small part) over and over again, hoping the propaganda replaces a | reality or truth yet to be realized. Then f.ck off, Mr. We with your head up your arse. | You are a one-trick pony without a trick for mental ages of 15 yrs. and | above. Then f.ck off, Mr. We with your head up your arse. | So, at least, try to trick us with something else that comes | from beyond your short-sighted clipboard. Then f.ck off, Mr. We with your head up your arse. We really don't mind | answering your questions if you would learn to study the merits of the | answers. Then f.ck off, Mr. We with your head up your arse. But you do not. You insist that you are the one Galileo out | of a thousand? Then f.ck off, Mr. We with your head up your arse. Well? He was replaced by Newton Wild imagination, Mr. We with your head up your arse. Nobody replaced Galileo. | who was replaced by | Einstein. No he wasn't, Einstein was fuckwit like you, Mr. We with your head up your arse football supporter. | And still no adequate theory. Baby and bathwater is still | almost the same mud with us, but we are getting better at | differentiating the two. | | There is no blunder. There is only better and more comprehensive | understanding. Then f.ck off, Mr. We with your head up your arse. | You wouldn't say to an ant that he blundered by not | recognising Cygnus X-3 would you? I'm telling Mr. Ant We he wouldn't recognise a blunder because he has his head up his arse. | There is no blundering except for | you not to recognise what you DO see and add it into some kind of | comprehension instead of ignoring it to safeguard a belief. It's your belief, Mr. Ant We. Now f.ck off. > I'm reading the text "Principles of Physical Cosmology," Peebles, Princeton > University Press (1993). On page 6 Peebles writes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > really happened. > --------------------------------------------------------- PMB > Does anyone agree with this either in part or in whole? In "whole". The BB is a "theory", and reeks of religiousity, when it's proponents regard it as fact, instead of an extrapolated model. The assumption that the Cosmic Red Shift (CRS) has a Doppler origin is a tenuous assumption, IOW's BB is a conjecture. I find the CRS is a gravitational induced effect along the lines of the "tired light" theories and balances the bottom line. Regards Ken > In "whole". The BB is a "theory", and reeks of religiousity, > when it's proponents regard it as fact, instead of an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > line. Regards > Ken Tired light theories are pretty much discredited for a variety of reasons.  SignatureFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > In "whole". The BB is a "theory", and reeks of religiousity, > > when it's proponents regard it as fact, instead of an [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Tired light theories are pretty much discredited for a variety of reasons. LOL, you've been reading the back of cereal boxes, can you explain the quantization of the CRS? Ken > For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to > persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. > Carl Sagan I agree with Carl. > I'm reading the text "Principles of Physical Cosmology," Peebles, > Princeton University Press (1993). On page 6 Peebles writes [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Does anyone agree with this either in part or in whole? Well, since it is the birth of space-time, speaking of an instant when it happened seems a bit meaningless. However, according to inflation, it started out as a quantum field (the false vacuum) that experienced a fluctuation that became the big bang. But using adjectives like 'became' etc would seem fraught with danger, since they imply time, which this was the birth of. IMHO, one can only describe such things mathematically. I remember John Baez once posting some stuff about theories where it started out as one dimension that gradually developed into 4 (or perhaps more - with some being compactified) - so even speaking of an instant when time began may be false. I suppose the development would be described by some parameter that when it reaches some value corresponds to time but until that value we can't speak of time even existing - notice the use of when - see what I mean by you really need mathematics? Thanks Bill > Best regards > > Pete >> I'm reading the text "Principles of Physical Cosmology," Peebles, >> Princeton University Press (1993). On page 6 Peebles writes [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Well, since it is the birth of space-time, speaking of an instant when it > happened seems a bit meaningless. Since we don't know what happends before a short time before the big bang then we have no basis for saying that it was the birth of spacetime. In fact, as I recall, the Pre-Big Bang theory holds that spacetime always existed. But I'm rusty on that theory so it'd be wise to double check this. > However, according to inflation, it started out as a quantum field (the > false vacuum) that experienced a fluctuation that became the big bang. > But using adjectives like 'became' etc would seem fraught with danger, > since they imply time, which this was the birth of. IMHO, one can only > describe such things mathematically. In flation does not bring us back to t = 0 > I remember John Baez once posting some stuff about theories where it > started out as one dimension that gradually developed into 4 (or perhaps [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > until that value we can't speak of time even existing - notice the use of > when - see what I mean by you really need mathematics? Best regards Pete | I'm reading the text "Principles of Physical Cosmology," Peebles, Princeton | University Press (1993). On page 6 Peebles writes [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | | Does anyone agree with this either in part or in whole? Do you believe in virgin born babies, fuckhead? > I'm reading the text "Principles of Physical Cosmology," Peebles, Princeton > University Press (1993). On page 6 Peebles writes [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Does anyone agree with this either in part or in whole? I think that almost any cosmologist would agree with all of that. The big bang is a singularity in the theory (general relativity), but that's seen as a weakness of the theory, not as a sign that there are singularities in the real world. "Big bang cosmology" is about the evolution of the universe over the last 13 billion years, not just in the neighborhood of the big bang. It's very well confirmed over most of that time, but not confirmed or even believed for the very earliest times (the first fraction of a second, but I'm not sure exactly what fraction). -- Ben > > I'm reading the text "Principles of Physical Cosmology," Peebles, Princeton > > University Press (1993). On page 6 Peebles writes [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > -- Ben For my part I believe that the fatal flaw in using GR as the means to extrapolate back to the "BB" is that you must assume that all spacetime (as well as all matter ) always existed and that it just "inflated" . The recent evidence indicates that the Universe is expanding at a greater rate than it did in the past. So, is space expanding or is new space being created ? If it is being created then there was once "less" space and G would be less which implies something other than a singularity at the birth. If space is expanding then the universe arose from something that looks more like a cross between a singularity and a black hole. But in any sense neither. I believe that GR is fine in a local sense but something else is needed to explain conditions at the birth of the universe.However, it seems to me that an observer could make a few observations had one been present. I would say that he would see no space, no dimensions, no temperature, no pressure or density. His only observation might be that the Universe is a Solid. Of course this is only a mind game because now you need to explain where Space came from. Does any of this make sense to anyone else or am I just confused? Regards to you all, Brad |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.