Big Bang: Time

Discussion in 'Physics' started by socratus, Nov 12, 2015.

  1. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    Big Bang: Time
    Big Bang is seriously taken by cosmologists and according
    to current cosmological scenarios:
    a) In the past, maybe 50 or 100 billion years ago, the Universe
    as whole reached its maximum radius.
    b) It took another 50 or 100 billion years when the Universe
    as whole came to singular point.
    c) Today we see the Universe at age 13,7 billion years.
    Why do cosmologists say: “Before Big Bang there was no time”?
  2. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    cmartinez likes this.
  3. Glenn Holland


    Dec 26, 2014
    While we're on the subject of the Big Bang and the creation of the universe, I have a question.

    Images from the Hubble telescope show huge clouds of dust in which stars are supposedly forming. According to the theory, the bang created elementary particles that evolved into electrons, protons, neutrons, and very simple atoms like hydrogen.

    The hydrogen then accumulated to a density large enough to ignite thermonuclear fusion and create low mass stars. However, large mass stars could fuse helium into heavier elements and expel them in a super nova blast leaving a blob of dust clouds.

    So if all stars (of small, medium, and large mass) were initially formed from dust clouds, where did the initial dust come from in the first place? So it seems that complex matter may have existed before the bang occurred.
  4. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    If before BB was no space and was no time but was only MATTER . . . .
    . . . then . . . in which structure the MATTER was existing?
    In which structure the MATTER - Universe was formed ?
  5. R!f@@

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 2, 2009
    Human mind cannot understand certain things
  6. alfacliff

    Well-Known Member

    Dec 13, 2013
    the big bang theory is on cbs at 7:00 pm cst thursdays.
  7. Sparky49

    Active Member

    Jul 16, 2011
    Hi Glenn, the short answer is that those 'dust' clouds are actually clouds of hydrogen! Key thing to understand is that we are still living in the infancy of the universe (compared to its overall lifespan). These heavier elements are a tiny minority of what exists in the universe.

    A greater question to ask is what made stuff clump together in the first place? One might expect the distribution of particles in a brand new universe to be equally distributed - alas this would not allow anything to happen at all!

    I remember a good video on YouTube which demonstrates this. I will try to find it and upload it for you here.



    EDIT: It was easier to find than I had anticipated:
    cmartinez likes this.
  8. BR-549

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2013
    The universe is perfect. It’s man’s reasoning that has probability.

    We, or anything else could not exist if it weren’t perfect.

    We can not answer where mass came from. We can not answer why mass came.

    But we can discern what mass is, and why it acts the way it does.

    The reason mass comes together is charge. After this happens, charge becomes a neutral dipole.

    A neutral dipole generates gravity, which can attract neutral matter.

    The reason for unequal density is,

    1. Spin of Universe.

    2. Unequal size, energy and momentum between negative and positive charge.

    Negative and Positive charge is all there is.

    Which makes the universe perfect.
  9. Sparky49

    Active Member

    Jul 16, 2011
  10. Wendy


    Mar 24, 2008
    It ain't what folk know that gets them in trouble, it's what they know that ain't so.

    Mark Twain.
    shortbus likes this.
  11. Glenn Holland


    Dec 26, 2014
    Yes, the Hubble theory indicates the universe is expanding and visible matter (such as stars and galaxies) are moving away from each other.

    However, there may have been (and probably are) situations where matter congregated and moved together triggering an accretion process that created stars and planetary systems.

    The Big Bang involved the initial release of "elementary" particles (the exotic variety that compose electrons, protons, and neutrons) and unless you're versed in particle physics, that makes the process nearly impossible for lay persons to understand.

    In addition to releasing elementary particles, some theorize that the hyper-massive object at the center of the bang shattered and something equivalent to microscopic to black holes (or something similar to neutron stars) were scattered along with elementary particles. The intense gravity of these micro-objects could initiate an accretion process.

    Another theory is the explosion had an acoustical behavior with pressure waves that compressed the particles into dense ring-shaped zones.
  12. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012

    Perhaps the most drastic consequence of Einstein's description
    of gravity in terms of curved spacetime geometry in the framework
    of his GRT is the possibility that space and time
    may exhibit "holes" or "edges": spacetime singularities.
    Over the edge
    Unfortunately it is not so easy to give a precise meaning
    to what this means. In other physical theories,
    singularities are defined as some kind of "pathological behavior" . . . .
    My opinion.
    GRT – when the masses curved surrounded spacetime into local sphere
    then this sphere (star, planet) has its own gravity-time and gravity-space
    and surrounded spacetime (zero infinite vacuum) looks as “holes” - no time,
    no space . . . singularities. . . . many - many singularities . . . an infinite
    space of singularities . . . and . . . .zero infinite zero-vacuum has
    infinite “emptiness” that is equal to infinite density (of so-called singularity)
  13. Glenn Holland


    Dec 26, 2014
    Einstein's mathematical models are theoretically esoteric and a more practical discussion is necessary. The gravitational capture of electromagnetic waves -IE- black holes can be described using ordinary physics.

    For example, the threshold of a black hole is defined as the distance when the gravitational potential energy of matter (mgh) is equal to the energy of the rest mass (e = mcSquared) of that matter.
  14. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    A black hole has a temperature within a few
    millionths of a degree above absolute zero: T=0K.
    / Oxford. Dictionary./
    A stellar black hole of one solar mass has a Hawking
    temperature of about 100 nanokelvins. This is far less
    than the 2.7 K temperature of the cosmic microwave background.
    Previous Picture of the Day articles about black holes suggested that
    the terminology used to describe “gravitational point sources”
    is highly speculative: space/time, singularities, and infinite density
    are abstract concepts, precluding a realistic investigation into
    the nature of the Universe.
    / Oct 12, 2011. Black hole theory contradicts itself. By Stephen Smith
  15. BR-549

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2013
    In all the modern theories and explanations, the term mass(M) is used. I can’t understand why so many are willing to accept an un-defined term. That really takes faith.

    Mass does not cause weight. The force of the G field does that. An electric field can give a particle much more “weight” than gravity can. Weight is just acceleration.

    All bits of matter have charge, a magnetic field, AM(spin or rpm) and mass. What the hell is the mass?

    The mass is inertia. Ok, what’s that. Science will tell you inertia is the property of resistance to any change in movement.

    AND, that is all they will tell you. They can not explain why inertia exist(other than a property of mass)or how it opposes a change in movement.

    The helical rotation of charge, stores it’s AM(energy), equally in rotating electric and magnetic fields.

    Because these fields rotate perpendicular to each other in dimension(but not time), and because distance(and angle between dimension), and time rate do not change, and because the electric and magnetic must balance on each rotation......................only certain radii of AM will balance the charge. This is the cause of the so called “quantum” effect.

    In reality......the quantum effect is caused by pure electro-mechanical action. Both positive and negative charge have the same fundamental rpm(frequency). The allowable radii are the same also. This is why, even though electron diameters are 3 to 5 hundred times larger than proton diameters, the frequencies are related and the fields can mix and bond and share energy.

    Inertia is the rotating charge reacting to an external field distortion. It is the charge re-balancing itself.
    Trying to re-establish un-distorted fields.

    If the inertia can not balance itself by deflecting the interfering field, or if the inertia can not physically displace(particle movement) to clear the distortion, the charge particle will bounce(vibrate), in a constant effort to restore balanced fields. Inertia is the driving force of dipole action.

    Dipole action is the cause of gravity. This is why inertia mass is related to gravitational mass. The difference between negative charge inertia and the positive charge inertia is huge, almost 2000 times. This means the negative charge will have the most distortion and will be doing most of the movement to re-balance. The proton is the master.

    This means that the negative field component of the dipole field, physically moves, while the positive field component(relatively) does not. This is the cause of attraction between neutral dipoles. An asymmetrical dipole field attracts other asymmetrical fields. No net charge needed. Gravity.

    Dipole action has loss. If you assemble a isolated, cold dipole, take it to the edge of the universe, wait awhile, re-measure.....the inertia and the gravity of the dipole will have decreased. If you do the same to a particle, and will see no change in inertia. Particle inertia is lossless.

    If you bring the dipole back into area of mass, it will revive and come up to snuff like the other dipoles in the area. All dipoles loose energy and must be topped off. This topping off comes from other dipoles and particles. This means the gravitational constant depends on dipole density.

    But the most energy lost to the universe is from EM emission. I would bet that even in the center of the sun, a small portion of each emission gets out.

    There is one more loss. Under conditions which are more common than realized today, the inertia of a proton can capture an electron, by pulling an electron over it, and lining up in the same plane. This is a rotational resonance, not a dipole resonance. In this case, the inertia imbalance causes the electron to wobble around the proton. Its out of round a little bit.

    This loss is governed by the same equations and pole movement(in a different plane) as the dipole loss.

    The loss rate of both movements are proportional on the gravitational constant.

    But a neutron can not suffer as much loss and still stay together on it’s own. It will wobble apart(decay) in fairly short time. A dipole can last for eons. A neutron in the right nucleus can last for eons too(it gets topped off properly). Other nucleus configurations can give unique decay rates to neutrons. But still effected by g.

    The universe is the volume of space that charge and matter reside. It’s not all of space beyond that.

    The matter in that volume is spreading and expanding slowly now. This is because gravity is decaying at a slow rate at this time.

    But in the past when density was high, and gravity was extreme, this decay rate was many magnitudes higher. This rapid loss in the force of gravity, allowed the universe to relax and expand. The also means the universe has a center. And a surefire way to identify old stars. An extreme red shift. An extreme red shift indicates age, not acceleration. Age redshifts are many magnitudes larger than acceleration(normal) redshifts.

    Right now, all stars and other orbits are slowly expanding everywhere. At least for objects that had equilibrium.

    This also means our dating methods(decay rate) have to be re-calibrated. After re-calibration, is seems the universe is a little under 1 billion years old. And if you use the same proportion, earth is not very old.
    3 to 4 hundred million years at best. Probably less.

    Inertia is two perpendicular, balanced field rotations. Gravity is two perpendicular, balanced dipole(neutral field) rotations.

    Inertia is 39 magnitudes greater than gravity.

    The spin of the earth is rotation on the earth’s axis. Earth’s first rotation(not spin, but rotation. Rotation has an external origin.), is that of a stripe on a hula hoop. This rotation is perpendicular to the rotation around the sun(hoop).

    This motion is what unifies charge and gravity.

    It fits real good.
  16. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    @BR- 549. . . . Phraseology . . . . . .
    a) mass of Neutron = 1.6749286*10-27 kg,
    Proton = 1.6726231*10-27 kg,
    Electron = 9.1093897*10-31 kg.
    Therefore your statement:
    “This is why, even though electron diameters are 3 to 5 hundred
    times larger than proton diameters, the frequencies are related
    and the fields can mix and bond and share energy.” is wrong.
    Electron has a minimal size and mass in the nature (exclude a quantum of light)

    b) you use word “inertia” many times.
    My opinion about “inertia”
    Newton wrote:
    * For the basic problem of philosophy seems to be to discover
    the forces of nature from the phenomena of motions
    and then to demonstrate the other phenomena from these forces*
    But Newtonian conception of *inertia* says nothing about the
    forces of inertia.
    For the movement we must pay energy-money.
    There isn't inertia without force / energy.
    Your car wouldn't move even one inch without force /energy.
    There's no such thing as 'a free lunch' for Inertia.
    The idea of forces for * Inertia* was solved by Einstein.
    In 1905 Einstein wrote paper:
    “ Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?”
    As he realized the answer was:
    “ Yes, the inertia depends on its energy E= Mc^2.”
    How can E=Mc^2 be responsible for inertial movement of quantum particle?
    Nobody explains the details of such possibility of inertia movement.
    Someone wrote:
    “An old professor of mine used to say
    that anyone who can answer that question
    what inertia is, would win a Nobel Prize. “
  17. BR-549

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2013

    I generally agree with your mass numbers. But modern science and most people don’t understand particle size. There are mainly two reasons for this. This first is equating size with weight in our scale.

    When we compare two different sizes of the same material, there is no energy difference, just an increase in particle number, and therefore volume and weight.

    The second reason is the way that we relate to spin. We vary the energy of the spin by adjusting the speed.

    We can not adjust the speed of a charge, it is at constant c. The only way left to change the AM of charge, is to change the radius.

    The charge in a particle travels helically in a circular path. Like the STRIPE on a hula hoop, at the speed of c.

    The charge is the whole stripe, not a point on the stripe(helix). It rotates at c.

    The helix has a radius called little r. The circular path(hoop) of the helix has a radius called big R. R is many magnitudes larger than r. Just like a hula hoop.

    The number of rotations of r, per one rotation of R, is the pitch of the helix, known as the n number, or energy level.

    Because of the physical structure, n can only be increased in multiples of one. Remember that structure causes this.

    The n number controls the magnetic field and R lenght controls the electric field.

    Let’s take a look at a ground state hula hoop. The stripe only has one rotation(n=1). If you pick a point on this stripe, and go in thru the center, you will find an opposing electric field from the other side of the charge. This self opposing electric field wants to blow the charge apart(outward force). But the magnetic field from r, is just as strong and holds(inward force) the charge in balance. The charge follows the stripe.

    If we increase n to 2, that will double the magnetic. This will squeeze the hula hoop down in size, until the opposing electric field is equal and in balance again, which is when R reduces one half. The size of the hoop is much smaller now.

    For the charge to remain at c, the RPM(frequency) doubled. Smaller size, but more energy. The heavier it is.....the smaller it is.

    See how that works? Protons are much smaller than electrons.

    I agree with you about Newton. An honest man. I believe modern classical physics started with Parson.

    Einstein tried all his life to explain the relationship between inertial mass and gravitational mass with mathematics.

    I believe I have explained it with a hula hoop. That is real science gentlemen. Pretty good teaching too.

    Just remember that in the future, when some longhair mathematician claims all this, where you heard it first.


    Many OTHER people own the credit for this model and theory. And I thank them for it.

    However, my antimatter theory is totally mine. It has only been published here.

    It is my part in the explanation of reality. It wasn’t hard, it only took about a year and needed no collaboration.

    I was the first to show why anti matter does not exist, and in the future I would like to have credit for that.
  18. Wendy


    Mar 24, 2008
    As we have discussed, antimatter does exist in labs all over the world. Google PET scanners, along with antimatter hydrogen.

    Kinda busts that theory. Facts don't care if you ignore them or not.
    cmartinez likes this.
  19. hp1729

    Well-Known Member

    Nov 23, 2015
    That's all very interesting and our education, or should I say conditioning, is showing. But all this describes an open system that can't possibly work. If energy cannot be destroyed or created where did it all come from at T0? Where does it all go to if the end of matter is in a dark hole somewhere?

    Observation ... everywhere we look in the universe we see stuff in all ages and stages of life. We see young subatomic stuff as well as old galaxies.

    This suggests a closed system, half of which is beyond our observation. Somewhere between black holes and the formation of new matter is the other half of a closed system. The universe is constantly in a state of destruction and creation.

    I have no proof to offer other than putative reasoning. Stuff can't come from nothing so there must be a process at work beyond our observation.

    The open-ended theories all lead to God-did-it. So where did god come from? Open systems are impossible. It isn't gods or turtles all the way down. I'm not against the concept of a "god of creation" (causal force). I just don't have a workable theory to offer for one.
    cmartinez likes this.
  20. Wendy


    Mar 24, 2008
    That is a point I frequently make. We are just beginning to ask questions that are meaningful, and we must take the experimental evidence we already have into account, always. Too many folk try to ignore that which does not fit their universe view. You can not do that and call it science.

    It is possible antimatter is unstable long term, but it does exist. It can and has been synthesized. During the early 20th century this was inconceivable, yet by the mid 20th century we are synthesizing new elements in quantities big enough to make weapons stockpiles (ie, plutonium). Of course, there are many other elements besides plutonium, but that was a large part of the effort driving research. By the end of this century it is probable we will by synthesizing new forms of matter altogether, that won't follow the rules we have established for what we know now.

    Personally I tend to favor the multi-dimensional point of view, there is a lot of evidence to support it. String theory supports other dimensions in a different direction.

    So we could be 4 dimensional beings in a 11 dimensional universe (or even larger) trying to claim all we see is all their is, when in fact the total universe is even larger than we conceive. We are like ants on an elephant trying to claim it is the entirety of everything.

    I get a little feisty when people claim to have knowledge we haven't come close to understanding. I prefer to watch current experimental evidence, there is always something new to learn.
    cmartinez likes this.