Thread: pulsating universe

Originally Posted by Xei

That's very wrong... please read about those subjects on Wikipedia or somewhere.

The Big Bang was the expansion of the universe from an infinitely small point. This happened about 14 billion years ago. We know it happened because we look in the sky and can detect that galaxies are all flying away from us.

The Big Crunch is what would happen if gravity is enough to slow these galaxies down and bring them back together.

The Big Bounce theory is that there is an infinite series of Crunches and Bangs.

first of all, i havent got super telescopic eyes, i cant see that the galaxies are flying away from us. and the way that i described the big bang was mixed up between something i read, and something which someone told me, but what i read is still not quite what you have said there.

and here is a link for big crunch :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch


and i think you are right about the big bounce, i didnt read into it enough, i rushed it.

as for your description of the big bang and the big crunch, i think you are getting mixed up with string theory. (dont ask me too much about it because i only know i few things, and they are probably things i miss heard)

first of all, i havent got super telescopic eyes, i cant see that the galaxies are flying away from us.

That's why we use telescopes. Most galaxies are blue shifted. Look that up on Wikipedia.

and the way that i described the big bang was mixed up between something i read, and something which someone told me, but what i read is still not quite what you have said there.

Then what you read was wrong.

as for your description of the big bang and the big crunch, i think you are getting mixed up with string theory. (dont ask me too much about it because i only know i few things, and they are probably things i miss heard)

String theory has nothing to do with anything I said.

Google for Big Bang and Big Crunch or just look on Wikipedia for goodness sakes; what I said is correct.

did you not look at info i gave you?

and when i said its different from what i read, i meant ive never heard about the flying away galaxies mentioned

the big crunch is the physical taking away of some of the universe, not making everything closer together, and the big bang is the opposite.

No the big crunch is the opposite of the bang. The universe collapsing etc. It's all on the link you posted. Imagine the big bang as a balloon being blown up, and then the big crunch as the balloon being emptied. It's just that the balloon starts and ends as infinitely small.

did you not look at info i gave you?

It confirms what I said; you should read it yourself.

Big crunches do not subtract from the amount of mass or energy in the universe, and big bangs do not make any; they're just compressions and expansions. The sum of the amount of energy and mass in the universe is always the same; you cannot destroy or create these things.

ok i didnt read it fully, but how come it said that the universe will come to an end or something along those lines, surely that means something has to be destroyed.

although you must be right, i must have missed out something vital, because yes, i totally forgot about the fact that nothing can be created or destroyed.

im just utterly confused.

Welcome to the universe. The stuff won't be destroyed. Just infinitely small. That's what a singularity is. An infinitely small and thus infinitely dense speck of matter, for example what happens in black holes. There is just the difference that the time-space fabric was also infinitely small before the big bang.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isY_u--uvqg

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Welcome to the universe. The stuff won't be destroyed. Just infinitely small. That's what a singularity is. An infinitely small and thus infinitely dense speck of matter, for example what happens in black holes. There is just the difference that the time-space fabric was also infinitely small before the big bang.

ok i understand now, infact i had completely misunderstood what i read, well it was a long time ago, i was quite young, but i understand what it meant now.

I think it would be completely ignorant to think our universe is the first and only one to exist. That would be like back in the day when everyone thought the earth was the centre of the universe. Way too conceited of a thought.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

I think it would be completely ignorant to think our universe is the first and only one to exist. That would be like back in the day when everyone thought the earth was the centre of the universe. Way too conceited of a thought.

do people think it was the first one? i think there has been an infinate amount of universes before use, and will be infinate amount after aswell, it doesnt make sense if there was just nothing, infact, it would be less than nothing, god every time i think of this i get shivers down my spine thinking about what less than nothing is, i mean, even outside our univverse, there is still dark matter, but even that being gone, just everything being gone, woh, does anyone else feel this way?

I was actually thinking about that yesterday. People say space is nothing, yet it must be something because it occupies area. You can measure it in volumes. If space were truly nothing, you wouldn't beable to measure it. If you stuck your finger out in space, it would still exist - but if you were to stick your finger into absolute nothingness, you'd probably lose your finger because a finger couldn't exist in nothingness. If it could it wouldn't be nothing.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

I was actually thinking about that yesterday. People say space is nothing, yet it must be something because it occupies area. You can measure it in volumes. If space were truly nothing, you wouldn't beable to measure it. If you stuck your finger out in space, it would still exist - but if you were to stick your finger into absolute nothingness, you'd probably lose your finger because a finger couldn't exist in nothingness. If it could it wouldn't be nothing.

yea, but space isnt nothing, although its a vaccum, its still matter, and as i said earlier it think, even outside our universe, and inbetween others there is still dark matter (i only know its there, dont know anything about it)

Dark matter isn't outside of our universe (nobody knows what's outside of our universe). People who know what they are talking about don't say vacuum is nothing. Vacuum is nothing in the sense that there is no matter present in a certain space. Nobody ever said it was non-existence.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Dark matter isn't outside of our universe (nobody knows what's outside of our universe). People who know what they are talking about don't say vacuum is nothing. Vacuum is nothing in the sense that there is no matter present in a certain space. Nobody ever said it was non-existence.

could you please tell me what dark matter is, ive always wanted to know.

Well I'm no scientist. From what I understand is that according to the calculations there should be a lot more matter in the universe. This matter that's missing is called dark matter. We can't see it so it doesn't react with EM radiation. The only way to detect it is from their gravitational effects.

Here is a pic from the Hubble.

Originally Posted by slash112

could you please tell me what dark matter is, ive always wanted to know.

Dark matter = so called vacuum = the aether = 99.9% of everything in existence.

If the universe was an ocean, the aether would be the water. And everything else would be the waves.

This wave-aether-theory explains everything, and the mechanics behind everything. But for some reason, most people rather stick to a theory that can't even explain gravity next to a three word explanation of "bending of space-time". People rather stick to believing there is such a ridiclous thing as "vacuum", and people rather stick to believing in the wave-particle duality, a paradox that can easily be solved by realizing that there are no particles, just standing waves. There is no matter, just condensed energy. e=mc². Amazing isn't it. How rusted beliefs beat common sense... but hey, at one time everyone believed the earth was flat! Guess you can't expect too much at the same time

If it explains everything, then you must have some sort of mathematical equations to show it scientifically. I don't understand how you can talk like that about things you most likely don't even understand. Unless you're a physicist (if you are I'm sorry).

I mean look at every religious person on the globe. It's common sense that the world created the universe in 7 days etc. I like it how you say the same. Oh well... Common sense beats science every day.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

If it explains everything, then you must have some sort of mathematical equations to show it scientifically. I don't understand how you can talk like that about things you most likely don't even understand. Unless you're a physicist (if you are I'm sorry).

Of course I have: http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

What makes you think I don't understand? I've studied physics, but what does it matter if the theory I'm proposing here is completely different?! Everyone can understand. You don't need to know anything about physics at all, because this is a new theory. It's like you're saying I need to be a christian in order to understand the Koran...

Originally Posted by Bonsay

I mean look at every religious person on the globe. It's common sense that the world created the universe in 7 days etc. I like it how you say the same. Oh well... Common sense beats science every day.

The earth is created in 7 days = common sense? Maybe in America such a thing is possible. Here in Europe there has never been an argument about creationism and evolution. Because nobody ever took the 7 day creation litterally. In America, both sides take it litterally. One side claims the Bible is full of bullshit because the earth couldn't have been created in 7 days, the other side claims the Bible is the exact word of God down to the very letter. Both sides don't seem to get it.

I said that because many just verbalize their ideas without any regard to the scientific method. It's wrong to have prejudice though, I'm sorry.
I wanted to say that common sense is relative and that it shouldn't be used when trying to portray a point. There is just about everything which is common sense for somebody.

Yeah indeed good point, everything could be common sense.

Chayba don't pretend to understand astrophysics; you don't.

Dark matter and dark energy are a conceptual kind of matter which do not interact with electromagnetism (so are not easily observed). They are a mathematical necessity to explain the anomalous rotational speeds of galaxies and other phenomena, as they would provide extra gravitational force. There's about 74% dark energy and 22% dark matter in the universe.

The aether has been completely disproved. The Michelson-Morely experiment did this over 100 years ago. Einstein's theories of relativity were then developed in order to be consistent with a lack of aether; there are only relative positions in space. There is no immobile aether in which everything has an absolute position.

Originally Posted by Xei

There's about 74% dark energy and 22% dark matter in the universe.

oh i thought it was the other way round