My speculation is that it was formed from black holes clumping together. We know that our Milky Way and another galaxy are on a collision course. If the black holes at their centers come within the gravitational event horizon of each other they world merge to form an even larger black hole.
yes that is plausible, however that in itself proves that the 'big bang' was not the beginning but rather the end result of a collapse of an entire universe that previously existed...
LOL!! It IS a little like that. There is no possibility of humans running error free, and there is no possibility of proving something to be true in our natural world. (Only math gets positive proof.) So, science is designed to eliminate false ideas as fast as possible and to continually recognize the possiblity of error and/or factors we aren't aware of - like Newton being unaware of relativistic speed, thus getting his equations better than those before him, but still wrong. Do you have a better approach for science to take?
The idea that there was something before the big bang doesn't hit me as particularly unlikely. Everything we know is limited to being within our own universe, starting from when the big bang really started rolling. Was there something "before"? Was/is there something "outside"? Was whatever that was eternal? Science doesn't have much in the way of answers to that, because our ability to observe is limited - and science is founded on observation.
No, the Natural Selection Model can be applied to the accumulation of knowledge in any domain. I apply it to developing my own frames of understanding which has improved throughout my life as I have discarded ideas, narratives, and explanations of my own or others as I have accumulated knowledge that either reinforces my current frames of understanding or supersedes them with more robust frames that provide for improved understanding, and improved predictability of how things work... a process that, for me, never stops; The why’s never stop. What I find interesting is, those that decry the process of Natural Selection, don’t realize how pervasive it is in nearly every domain of human experience and that beyond the what we learn in accumulating knowledge in the application of the Scientific Process, the models of understanding from which narrative explanations are continually improved through the continual challenge of those narrative explanations. Everyone was once a curious child. Some, like me, still are.
Many studying cosmology have replaced the popularized phrase of the ‘Big Bang’ , in part meant to encapsulate the theory of the Universe’s origin from and infinitely dense point of singularity postulated by Einstein’s equations combined with tracing the measured trajectories of observed cosmological features that seem to converge at a common point, to some variation of a term like ‘Cosmic Inflation’ for other theorists uncomfortable with the implications and ambiguities of the infinities of a singularity suggested by E’s equations over alternative models for the Universe’s origin. With some Theorists, the idea of ‘before’ is moot as time is considered a product of the Universe and began with it and the concept of outside equally moot if dimensions are also a product of the universe. There are several theories of origins, each with different operating constraints and descriptive mathematical constructs. Which is the more likely? A fun question. Lots of thoughts, lots of interesting models evolving, and technology is improving to aid in exploration of ideas. For those that stop at God as the explanation, I would say, my God would say ‘I am pretty clever’... figure out what I did so you can see how clever I was. If you don’t, I will keep sending you back until you do... Lol. BTW... while some origin theories postulate an eternal cycle of universe creations, endless sequences of universes emerging as white holes from black holes, collisions between branes of multiverses, and other theories, for those questioning how something can emerge from nothing, here’s a fun video on an explanation for that [video][/video]
Great post. Of course, we don't have observational evidence back to a singularity. I try to use quotes on "before" when referring to the environment in which this universe arose. I know that time is part of our universe. However, I don't believe that means that there is absolute nothingness (whatever that is!) outside of the energy and mass that comprises our universe.
Exactly! The CYCLICAL Universe concept conforms to the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy which is the basis for the existence of an eternal universe that alters form over time. What we are observing is an expansion phase.
He can do anything that's worth doing. If the Bible can be believed that includes things like healing the sick, raising the dead and making the Sun stand still relative to the Earth. It doesn't include things like making a perversion a sacrament or creating virtue without temptation. If you decide that's no way to run a universe, I wish you all the luck you deserve in your search for a better one.
Something cannot come from nothing. A cause and effect sequence cannot begin with a uncaused-effect, but it can begin with an uncaused-cause.
Nobody in science has suggested something came from nothing. Einstein pointed out that energy and mass are equivolent. So, one can not count energy as "nothing". In fact, scientists weigh fundamental particles in terms of electron volts - energy. Whether it is energy or mass is not always important. Anyway, let's stop the rumor that science thinks something came from nothing. That's just not true.
Power and mass are equal not equivalent. Energy is effectively material change. Power is affectively material change. Energy and change are equivalent. Apart from material change, there is no energy, and apart from matter's potential to change, it has no power.
No, mass and energy are equivalent. Einstein provided the conversion factor. You can express the mass of an object in electron volts, because mass and energy are equivalent.
Mass and power are equivalent. Apart from change, there is no energy. One can only express the mass of a thing in voltage because no particle of matter can occupy the same position relative to the balance of matter in any two increments of time. Therefore, all matter is subject to constant change. This holds true on the quantum scale as well as on the macro scale.
OK - that's just not physics. In physics, energy is equivalent to mass. That is Einstein's statement. You can't just discard that.
I don't care who you say said what. Without material change, there is no energy. There is potential energy, which is power. Power is the ability to affect change. Energy is effectively change. That's physics plain and simple. E=MC2 Energy = mass x change P=M Power = mass All of the potential energy (power) is equal to all of the mass moving at the speed of light squared. All of the energy is equal to all of the mass that is actually moving at whatever velocity it is actually moving at squared.
No, the c in that equation is the speed of light - not "change", not anything about moving. It's just a conversion factor - leaving energy equivalent to mass, with a constant conversion facor that just indicates how much. Also, that's not a proper definition of power. Power is the rate of doing work or transferring heat. Where do you get your physics ideas? If I knew, it might help me understand what you're saying.
If matter does not move, there is no energy. If subatomic particles did not move, mass could not be measured by voltage.
No. This is false. Matter and energy are quivalent. There is no movement implied by Einstein's equation. Let's remember that we caused mass to energy conversion with our nuclear bombs. We tested those bombs on static platforms and burrid in the ground. The conversion of about 2% of the mass to energy produced a STUPENDOUS amount of energy (as might be expected with the speed of light squared being part of the equation).
Your knowledge of physics is sadly lacking. Using your logic, distance and velocity are the same. Stationary mass has energy
