The Big Bang Theory

[Ani_Ibi]

mich2:

What I meant by “potential” energy state was not inheritant in the collision itself but in the two different type of energies creating a dynamic state or universe.

I am not following you. How much of the thread have you read? It would help us to follow you if you referred to parts of the thread.

mich2:

What is considered flat or rippled? space or energy states, or both?

The branes. The links to the brane articles have been posted. Those articles will explain.

mich2:

While matter cause electrical fields, the fields themselves are made of energy aren’t they? Can we not conceive that such fields may exist in the absence of matter in certain circumstances?

I am not following the import of this? As far as I understand, and my knowledge is limited, fields exist in response to the existence of something else. (Lenz’s law for example) I am not aware if fields can exist in their own right as rogue entities.

mich2:

so are you saying that the two separate branes already had within themselves what in one would be matter, and the other anti-matter before colliding?

No. I am not saying that. As far as I know branes and virtual twins are two distinct phenomena. A brane collision creates. A virtual twin collision annihilates.

mich2:

What I meant by non -linear was simply a non -constant rate, which would be the reason why time does not flow at a constant rate as well…it depends on the observer’s frame of reference.

A non-constant rate can be linear. Depends also on the proximity of black holes. Are you going somewhere in particular with this?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

The brightest supernova

In the case of SN 2006gy, astronomers think that a very different effect may have triggered the explosion. Under some conditions, the core of a massive star produces so much gamma ray radiation that some of the energy from the radiation converts into particle and anti- particle pairs. The resulting drop in energy causes the star to collapse under its own huge gravity.

After this violent collapse, runaway thermonuclear reactions ensue and the star explodes, spewing the remains into space. The SN 2006gy data suggest that spectacular supernovas from the first stars — rather than completely collapsing to a black hole as theorized — may be more common than previously believed.

 

[heisenburg]

yea…
I saw that…
Liked how it was such a massive explosion that they think it went strait from star to cloud of dust, most interesting, it did NOT produce a black hole because it was such a violent event.

 

[heisenburg]

speaking of black holes… got something for you to chew on…

This is just something that has made me think. Black Hole experts always talk about how BH’s are singularities. What has always struck me as odd is that this shouldnt be possible.

all stars have some rotational value. as the start collapes on itself, the rotation will increase, much like an ice skater who pulls his arms in. It should never be able to collapse to a singularity because at some point the rotational velocity will approach the speed of light, and thus, giving an lower limit to size since it cannot exceed the speed of light. spin away as it might, it should never drop below a certain radius.

In essence, it should never reach a singularity

Just a thought

 

[Ani_Ibi]

… it did NOT produce a black hole because it was such a violent event.

And because the electrons and positrons annihilated each other.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

speaking of black holes… got something for you to chew on…

This is just something that has made me think. Black Hole experts always talk about how BH’s are singularities. What has always struck me as odd is that this shouldnt be possible.

all stars have some rotational value. as the start collapes on itself, the rotation will increase, much like an ice skater who pulls his arms in. It should never be able to collapse to a singularity because at some point the rotational velocity will approach the speed of light, and thus, giving an lower limit to size since it cannot exceed the speed of light. spin away as it might, it should never drop below a certain radius.

In essence, it should never reach a singularity

Just a thought

There is an angular velocity which cannot exceed the speed of light.

But is there a limit on gravity? Although the energy can no longer go into angular velocity, it can go into an expulsion out of one side of the bh which in fact we have observed. Initially, Hawking thought bh’s violated the laws of thermodynamics. But then he found that expulsion of energy which allowed the formulae to work again.

 

[Nagoda]

My own thoughts on the big bang… mystically speaking it reminds me of the marriage bed. Orgasm is supposed to be highest point during the sexual union of the husband and wife… and it also represents our intimacy with Gd. Becoming one flesh with husband wife is also representation of us becoming one and united with God. All the great mystics have described being in the presence of God as orgasmic… or at least thats the closest thing that can come to describe it.

The big bang then with its explosion of life, is like a creative loving orgasm bursting forth from God, not from selfish masturbatory act, but from a genuine selfless love in which God wishes to unite his love with his creation by the act of the big bang. Much like the orgasm that comes from the husband, the sperm that flows from it creates life and so God breathed life and created life in the universe and made himself present and connected and united to his creation that came from his sefless, loving creative orgasm that is the big bang. I know its a little wierd, but tell me what you guys think.

 

[BobP123]

I’ve been wondering about this…esp. during my Astronomy class. I have this theory that time was different from the creation. You know how time slows down around black holes? This is where the idea came from. Thus, Man measures time to be 13.7 billion yrs, while God measures time to be…oh, how long was it? 6,000 yrs? I forget. One God day may be one billion years to us. I have more to this theory, and might write a novel incorporating it…someday

I hope this helps, and it’d be fun seeing everybody else’s opinions!

Actually it’s possible per Einstein’s Laws that 13.7 billion years pass in someone else time reference frame while only 6,000 (or is it 12,000) yrs pass in someone else’s. Genesis, however, doesn’t write in mathematical physical equations.

If Genesis did write in equations, it would have been something like:

And God said,

E=mc^2, gradient of B = 0, curl of E + differential of B with rt time =0, etc.

and there was light.

 

[holly_potter]

Actually it’s possible per Einstein’s Laws that 13.7 billion years pass in someone else time reference frame while only 6,000 (or is it 12,000) yrs pass in someone else’s. Genesis, however, doesn’t write in mathematical physical equations.

If Genesis did write in equations, it would have been something like:

And God said,

E=mc^2, gradient of B = 0, curl of E + differential of B with rt time =0, etc.

and there was light.

Thanks! That is very helpful, esp. to a non-mathematical person such as me (i’m more into theories)

Now I have proof!

 

[Bobby_Jim]

And God said,

E=mc^2, gradient of B = 0, curl of E + differential of B with rt time =0, etc.

and there was light.

do you mean the divergence of B = 0? In other words there are no sources or sinks of the magnetic field.

gradient (a vector) of B (a vector) would be some kind of dyad or tensor.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I thought I’d bump this since there is a lot of info in here relevant to a current discussion on Multiverse Theory.

Since this is science, I think it might do well to be moved into Philosophy. Thank you.