a question about the big bang...

yes, another one.

when the big bang occured, the matter in the universe should have been completely homogenous. all the matter would have been distributed perfectly evenly. why then where some areas of the universe more dense than others which formed stars and planets and galaxies?

We are still unsure whether or not the Big Bang occurred. Pure theory and speculation.foxhound_fox

We are still unsure whether or not the Big Bang occurred. Pure theory and speculation.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]We are still unsure whether or not the Big Bang occurred. Pure theory and speculation.Def_Jef88

We are still unsure whether or not the Big Bang occurred. Pure theory and speculation.foxhound_fox

We are absolutely sure it occured. What we are unsure about is the cause.

Gravity...FTWlycrof

Yeah I think that's what it was. I saw a BBC physics documentary and it said that gravity made matter attract and form larger masses which in turn attracted more matter and so forth and so on.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]We are still unsure whether or not the Big Bang occurred. Pure theory and speculation.Gamer556

We are absolutely sure it occured. What we are unsure about is the cause.

We're not ABSOLUTLY sure. If we were, it wouldn't be a theory. (But most evidence points to the big bang "theory")

We are absolutely sure it occurred. What we are unsure about is the cause.Gamer556

[QUOTE="Gamer556"]We are absolutely sure it occurred. What we are unsure about is the cause.foxhound_fox

1: Cosmic background radiation with a blackbody spectrum of 2.73K

2: hubble's law

3: Einstein's theory of general relatvity

4: abundance of primordial hydrogen and helium

5: the galaxies which we see 13.5 billion light years away where the stars are bluer and much more massive

6: on the large scale, the universe is mostly homogenous

7: the universe cannot be infinite and boundless. the theory of general relativity proves this to be impossible

umm, okay, first, we have evidence that it occured.

1: Cosmic background radiation with a blackbody spectrum of 2.73K

2: hubble's law

3: Einstein's theory of general relatvity

4: abundance of primordial hydrogen and helium

5: the galaxies which we see 13.5 billion light years away where the stars are bluer and much more massive

6: on the large scale, the universe is mostly homogenous

7: the universe cannot be infinite and boundless. the theory of general relativity proves this to be impossible

mig_killer2

don't think too deep about this

in fact this poster tells you everything you need to know

This thread is full of phail.KHfanboy2

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]umm, okay, first, we have evidence that it occured.

1: Cosmic background radiation with a blackbody spectrum of 2.73K

2: hubble's law

3: Einstein's theory of general relatvity

4: abundance of primordial hydrogen and helium

5: the galaxies which we see 13.5 billion light years away where the stars are bluer and much more massive

6: on the large scale, the universe is mostly homogenous

7: the universe cannot be infinite and boundless. the theory of general relativity proves this to be impossible

foxhound_fox

yes, another one.

when the big bang occured, the matter in the universe should have been completely homogenous. all the matter would have been distributed perfectly evenly. why then where some areas of the universe more dense than others which formed stars and planets and galaxies?

mig_killer2

Firstly, let me make this clear, the big bang was not an "explosion". Secondly, to answer the question, the matter within the universe arose from certain random temperature variation in the early universe - there's no reason to think everything *should* be distributed evenly.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]We are still unsure whether or not the Big Bang occurred. Pure theory and speculation.CptJSparrow

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations which is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory

don't think too deep about this

in fact this poster tells you everything you need to know

cold_skull

[QUOTE="cold_skull"]

don't think too deep about this

in fact this poster tells you everything you need to know

mig_killer2

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="cold_skull"]

don't think too deep about this

in fact this poster tells you everything you need to know

Schnauzerz

It had to start somehow

Some people just ignore it and say "lol how did everything come from nothing" then you are missing the point and aren't even replacing the idea with something you think. Even worse they critisice the people who believe the universe began.

[QUOTE="Schnauzerz"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="cold_skull"]

don't think too deep about this

in fact this poster tells you everything you need to know

mig_killer2

Well, except maybe this guy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGrvp-8oDok

i bet most people don't know that the guy who invented the big bang theory was a priest, and that at first scientists including Einstein rejected the theory. but the pope accepted it, even saying it supported Genesis (think about it "let there be light" wouldn't the big bang have produced tons and tons of light, the pope might be right).whipassmt

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]umm, okay, first, we have evidence that it occured.

1: Cosmic background radiation with a blackbody spectrum of 2.73K

2: hubble's law

3: Einstein's theory of general relatvity

4: abundance of primordial hydrogen and helium

5: the galaxies which we see 13.5 billion light years away where the stars are bluer and much more massive

6: on the large scale, the universe is mostly homogenous

7: the universe cannot be infinite and boundless. the theory of general relativity proves this to be impossible

foxhound_fox

You're right to say that General Relativity is a theory, but your implication is completely wrong. It is a theory because it is supported by a vast amount of experimental evidence.

The Big Bang theory is also supported by a vast amount of experimental evidence. There is a reason that the vast majority of the scientific community supports it as being true. That isn't to say that we have everything figured out, of course not. There will always be questions that need to be answered, and discoveries that are waiting to be made. It is silly however to claim the big bang didn't happen when physicists all over the world say otherwise.

Your argument is really no different than creationists arguments against evolution, and both are nonsense.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]umm, okay, first, we have evidence that it occured.

1: Cosmic background radiation with a blackbody spectrum of 2.73K

2: hubble's law

3: Einstein's theory of general relatvity

4: abundance of primordial hydrogen and helium

5: the galaxies which we see 13.5 billion light years away where the stars are bluer and much more massive

6: on the large scale, the universe is mostly homogenous

7: the universe cannot be infinite and boundless. the theory of general relativity proves this to be impossible

foxhound_fox

There's plenty of evidence supporting the big bang theory, I suggest you look into it.

We can't know what happens beyond an event horizon because we can't take something into it and then bring it back, meaning that we can't probe it and expect to get results. You also can't make observations because nothing can escape the event horizon.

Until someone comes up with a way to defeat gravity, and a way to keep molecules together during the whole experience, it's pretty difficult to see beyond the event horizon. Anything about it is speculation. It's possible that black holes lead to other galaxies, or other dimensions, or other parts of the universe, it's even possible that they can create new universes.

Any predictions as to what happens once you go past the event horizon are just that; predictions. If any of them are included in a theory, that wouldn't make the entire theory itself false, or any less possible. It simply means that a part of the theory is still unproven. If the predictions are false, there's still a way to salvage the theory itself by removing the falsified prediction. If the theory can't adjust to the new data, it is rejected.

A theory also can't consist of only predictions; if it did, we'd call it a hypothesis, not a theory.

That's not true for the big bang, however.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Schnauzerz"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="cold_skull"]

don't think too deep about this

in fact this poster tells you everything you need to know

digidrive

Well, except maybe this guy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGrvp-8oDok

don't think too deep about this

in fact this poster tells you everything you need to know

cold_skull

En Garde my creationist foe!

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="Gamer556"]We are absolutely sure it occurred. What we are unsure about is the cause.mig_killer2

1: Cosmic background radiation with a blackbody spectrum of 2.73K

2: hubble's law

3: Einstein's theory of general relatvity

4: abundance of primordial hydrogen and helium

5: the galaxies which we see 13.5 billion light years away where the stars are bluer and much more massive

6: on the large scale, the universe is mostly homogenous

7: the universe cannot be infinite and boundless. the theory of general relativity proves this to be impossible

Hmm, the Universe WE ARE IN had a beginning, the Big Bang. Doesn't mean the UNIVERSE that ties all Universes together had a beginning.

Big Bang resulted in OUR Universe. Ever heard of Multiverse?

i bet most people don't know that the guy who invented the big bang theory was a priest, and that at first scientists including Einstein rejected the theory. but the pope accepted it, even saying it supported Genesis (think about it "let there be light" wouldn't the big bang have produced tons and tons of light, the pope might be right).whipassmt

Einstein also rejected Tectonics.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="Gamer556"]We are absolutely sure it occurred. What we are unsure about is the cause.ab1205

1: Cosmic background radiation with a blackbody spectrum of 2.73K

2: hubble's law

3: Einstein's theory of general relatvity

4: abundance of primordial hydrogen and helium

5: the galaxies which we see 13.5 billion light years away where the stars are bluer and much more massive

6: on the large scale, the universe is mostly homogenous

7: the universe cannot be infinite and boundless. the theory of general relativity proves this to be impossible

Hmm, the Universe WE ARE IN had a beginning, the Big Bang. Doesn't mean the UNIVERSE that ties all Universes together had a beginning.

Big Bang resulted in OUR Universe. Ever heard of Multiverse?

it is pure speculation. there is no evidence, and it really seems like a philosophical ploy to prove nature to be infinite and boundless

I have heard of this multiverse.

it is pure speculation. there is no evidence, and it really seems like a philosophical ploy to prove nature to be infinite and boundless

mig_killer2

It has as much evidence as god's existence; none. ;)

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]

I have heard of this multiverse.

it is pure speculation. there is no evidence, and it really seems like a philosophical ploy to prove nature to be infinite and boundless

DeeJayInphinity

It has as much evidence as god's existence; none. ;)

It has as much evidence as god's existence; none. ;)

DeeJayInphinity

Off topic: Is "God" not explained by his very nature?

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"]

I have heard of this multiverse.

it is pure speculation. there is no evidence, and it really seems like a philosophical ploy to prove nature to be infinite and boundless

mig_killer2

It has as much evidence as god's existence; none. ;)

Some see it as a way to explain the big bang. Unless I see some substantial evidence, I don't really believe in it.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"]

I have heard of this multiverse.

it is pure speculation. there is no evidence, and it really seems like a philosophical ploy to prove nature to be infinite and boundless

DeeJayInphinity

It has as much evidence as god's existence; none. ;)

Some see it as a way to explain the big bang. Unless I see some substancial evidence, I don't really believe in it.

If you dont want to believe in God, that's fine. I'll continue to believe in God,but dont be so pompous and arrogantmig_killer2

he's talking of the multiverse in that context.

If you dont want to believe in God, that's fine. I'll continue to believe in God,but dont be so pompous and arrogantmig_killer2

I don't see it as being pompous or arrogant. I was just saying that there is no difference between the two mindsets.

Quantum physics; random variation is inevitable. The butterfly effect accounts for the magnitude of diversity, as it amplified what were initially subatomic variation.quiglythegreat

has anyone seen or measured these virtual particles?

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]Quantum physics; random variation is inevitable. The butterfly effect accounts for the magnitude of diversity, as it amplified what were initially subatomic variation.mig_killer2

has anyone seen or measured these virtual particles?

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]Quantum physics; random variation is inevitable. The butterfly effect accounts for the magnitude of diversity, as it amplified what were initially subatomic variation.mig_killer2

has anyone seen or measured these virtual particles?

You might want to read "The Book of Nothing" by John D Barrow.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]Quantum physics; random variation is inevitable. The butterfly effect accounts for the magnitude of diversity, as it amplified what were initially subatomic variation.quiglythegreat

has anyone seen or measured these virtual particles?

Read this if you want to learn more about vacuum fluctuations.

I do believe they've been observed and tested.