Ok, so this question comes up and I'm not sure where to go with it, so here it is:

We have analyzed the evidence of the big bang back to milliseconds after creation. Since energy and mass are interchangeable, the early universe is essentially a hot, dense, rapidly expanding 'ball' of pure energy. But where was gravity in all this? Given the density, the early universe would have been the equivalent of the mother of all black holes. So how did the expansion continue?

My answer was that it remained energy (ie massless photons) until the expansion allowed cooling to the level that allowed mass to form, at which point gravity could no longer take over. Any other thoughts would be appreciated.

 

Ok, so this question comes up and I'm not sure where to go with it, so here it is:

We have analyzed the evidence of the big bang back to milliseconds after creation. Since energy and mass are interchangeable, the early universe is essentially a hot, dense, rapidly expanding 'ball' of pure energy. But where was gravity in all this? Given the density, the early universe would have been the equivalent of the mother of all black holes. So how did the expansion continue?

My answer was that it remained energy (ie massless photons) until the expansion allowed cooling to the level that allowed mass to form, at which point gravity could no longer take over. Any other thoughts would be appreciated.

How long did it take you to decide that allaboutcircuits.com was the most likely place to get an accurate answer to this rather specific question?

 

Your question is about one of the most abstract phenomenon known to man and it is still open to debate by many professionals.

Photons do have momentum so it might construed that they might have some property like mass. However because of their relativistic velocity, this may not be considered a form of rest mass. Therefore, it might - or might not- be possible to create a ball of stationary photos.

Regarding the object that produced the big bang, the debate might be simplified by considering two questions:
1. Why was the "object" stable?
2. Why did it become unstable and expand at a tremendous velocity?

 

How long did it take you to decide that allaboutcircuits.com was the most likely place to get an accurate answer to this rather specific question?

Maybe he thought the board was getting too boring and he wanted to liven things up a bit.

 

My thoughts are that modern science has completely mis-understood the laws of nature. Big Time.
I believe that all phenomena HAS been explained using classical physics with the corrected equations.
These new equations show that the electric force, the magnetic force, the nuclear weak force, the strong nuclear force and gravitational force all come from the same thing. Charge.
As a matter of fact, there is only one stuff, one entity in the universe. Charge.

All energy, all mass, all light, all emission, all decay, all heat and all movement comes from charge.

These new charge equations show that gravity as been decaying. It is now decaying at a slow rate, but in the past, it decayed very rapidly.

This implies that instead of a big bang.....it was a big release or a big relaxation that cause the expansion. Before the expansion, all matter was combined with gravity, very cold and ordered and no entropy.

Modern science assumes that gravity has been more or less constant over the last 14 billion years. Because of this they believe that nucleate decay has been constant also. This is how they get the 14 billion number.

The corrected equations show it is more likely 1 billion years old.

Now the reason there is a big bang theory is because all the farthermost stars(which are assumed to be the oldest) have a large red shift. To modern science this means that all the stars are accelerating away from us at a very high rate. Some of these rates turn out to be faster than light.

This red shift is not caused by acceleration.....these are the oldest stars....and when the light was emitted long ago.....gravity was much stronger. The red shift was caused by very strong gravity long ago.

The universe is very stable now and will continue to expand at a low rate.

 

The corrected equations show it is more likely 1 billion years old.

Just curious?

With the correct equations; is there a change of the earths age?

kv

 

i always thought it was obvious.
a blackhole is born and all matter is crushed/condensed into a point source/singularity.
scientists mostly agree the big bang was a super condensed ball of matter/energy which rapidly exploded/expanded outward into "the void".
conclusion?
our universe is the interior of a black hole in some other higher/alternate universe of much larger dimensions.

 

conclusion?
our universe is the interior of a black hole in some other higher/alternate universe of much larger dimensions.

So where did that universe come from?

Oh, I forgot: "It's turtles all the way down..."

 

once ya know where YOU come from, the rest is just icing on the cake

 

once ya know where YOU come from, the rest is just icing on the cake

And, "no matter where you go, there you are..."

 

How long did it take you to decide that allaboutcircuits.com was the most likely place to get an accurate answer to this rather specific question?

I don't know- a bunch of smart people can always answer off topic questions!

 

kv....yes.

 

BR-549: couple of obvious corrections
1-you can't get acceleration greater than the speed of light from red-shift. At that point the shift would be so far that the light would essentially wink out
2-There's evidence that expansion is accelerating over time. See 'dark energy'

 

BR-549: couple of obvious corrections
1-you can't get acceleration greater than the speed of light from red-shift. At that point the shift would be so far that the light would essentially wink out

BR-549 never lets a fact get in the way of his interpretation of science.

 

Hello Denesius,

No. 1......I know, that's why I would never say such a thing. Please re-read my post. This is what modern science says....not me.
Ask Neil deGrasse Tyson to explain it to you. I don't believe him.

No. 2...There is no such evidence. Ask any scientist...they will tell you so.

As the big bang theory was invented to explain red shift, dark matter and dark energy is invented to explain the movement and rotation of galaxies.

This is because gravity is not moving these entities as Einstein equations say they should.

Has anyone ever told you of this? The planets, stars and galaxies do not move or travel as Einstein's equations say they should.

This should be printed in red on every scientific paper!

Yet this equation is one of the most proven proofs of modern science.

Is this blind faith? A religion? Ignorance? Political agenda? Reputation and career? I don't know, you pick one.

I know that it is not science. At least with my definition.

But the biggest invention is quantum mechanics. This was invented because maxwell's equations could not explain the movement of an electron in an atom.

They where convinced the an electron obits an atomic nucleus.

Of course now we know that protons, electrons and neutrons are stationary within the atom. And that electron and protons are distributed equally through-out the atom.

These new equations answer many old questions, but is doesn't answer all.

It does not answer where and when and how charge became confined, so it could neutralize and become matter.

I have played with some ideas, but no one knows how electrons and protons were made.

And as of now.....no one knows why gravity released.

Other findings.

The center of the universe is not too far from our galaxy.

Charge has structure, shape and volume.

The size of the charge structure changes(expands and contracts) with polarity, temp, spacial velocity and energy level.

Positive charge is almost always physically smaller than negative charge.

Anti-matter is matter in an odd state. That's why there is so little of it.

Inertia, spin and magnetic moment all come from the confined charge structure.

If you would like to learn more about your environment and study how these new equations were derived....google "common sense science" and "charge ring structure".

There are very few "facts" in science.

 

I don't know- a bunch of smart people can always answer off topic questions!

Take a look; it's not in Off-Topic anymore. Was moved to the General Science Forum.

kv

 

...
There are very few "facts

that can't be explained away by the FSM.

 

Hmmm...

Spaghetti and Meatballs.

What is FSM?

 

What is FSM?

Google - Dawkins FSM

 

Hmmm...

Spaghetti and Meatballs.

What is FSM?

Flying Spaghetti Monster