h a l f b a k e r yMake mine a double.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
How about "no big bangs, just some faint farting noises in the wind"? |
|
| |
God your an asshole. Asshole number one, as you clearly indicated in choosing your user name. |
|
| |
What [a1] said. Twice if it makes me an asshole. The first thing he said, not the second thing. The second thing would make me an okay, I'm done. |
|
| |
For those interested in something other than farts, here's a thought on this. So this idea is to change the way we think about a big bang. There was a big bang evidently, okay, but who's to say it was the only one? In an infinite universe on an infinite time scale the bang we're involved in is the only one? That sounds almost superstitious. Ours is the only one? Has a "Earth is the center of the universe" vibe. Might it be a cycle? Might there be infinite universes so far away we can't see them, in a scale so vast we can't imagine it with our little fart obsessed brains? |
|
| |
If that's the case, there should at least be some questioning of this theory, one way to do that is to not address it as fact by giving it a name that implies it's the only one. "The" big bang theory. Changing the name changes the very message in two ways. It's A theory about big bangs in general, and acknowledges that there may be more than one. |
|
| |
Because in fact, it isn't THE big bang theory, it's A big bang theory. Changing the name changes the category of what it is, which I think should be considered. |
|
| |
Plus I think it'll piss people who thing they've got the universe figured out because there's a reasonably plausible story about where our tiny little universe and micro blip in time came from that they subscribe to. "It's better than the pissed off guy with a beard in the clouds so it's good enough to not be questioned." Does't answer what happened before or to cause "the" big bang, kind of just opens the door to a million other questions. Where did the universe come from? Pointing out that it's expanding in a particular direction from a particular point and saying "The universe comes from there" doesn't answer much. It's a start, but only that. |
|
| |
So the idea is to, when talking about universes coming out of explosions, refer to any given incident of that happening as a, not the, because in all likelihood it's not the only one. |
|
| |
Okay, back to the fart discussion. |
|
| |
You already pointed out the fact that you don’t understand it, no need to repeat yourself. |
|
| |
There at least used to be a "grand bang theory", which was supposed to be when the forces started to separate. I don't know if the term was widely used but it's in a paper published in 1981. Not quite the same thing as you mean though. |
|
| |
doc i think you might be confused about the the the the refers to the theory not to the bang |
|
| |
ps sorry for writing the the the the the the the the the the needs punctuated but i left it plain for a laugh |
|
| |
Like [a1], I'm not sure I see anything in this idea except renaming something, and some philosophical hand-waving |
|
| |
Oh, hello [nineteenthly]; Nice to see you drop by! |
|
| |
Thanks [pertinax]. I should spend more time here. |
|
| |
No because that would be an a. |
|
| |
//doc i think you might be confused about the the the the refers to the theory not to the bang// |
|
| |
I think it refers to both. When you say "The big bang" nobody says "What big bang?" |
|
| |
But even so this would clear that up. Might be better to refer to "a" theory about "a" big bang. |
|
| |
As far as the hand waving, just speculating. I don't know anymore about the birth of the universe than anybody. Anyway, this clearly triggered something. I think there actually might be a faith element to the one and only theory about the one and only bang. When science becomes faith it's useless as either. |
|
| |
But for a final clarification, there isn't only "one" big bang theory so calling it "the" is not appropriate. Doubtful there was only one big bang as well so same thing with suggesting changing the title and therefore the statement that title implies to better reflect reality. |
|
| |
Unless somebody knows for sure there was only one big bang in which case I stand corrected. Upon seeing proof anyway. Still leaves the multiple theory thing misnamed though. Anyway, let me see if I can keep this bone storm rolling with another post. |
|
| |
Could call it "a sort-of-theory about something" |
|
| |
Calling it the "Not sort of un-theory about everything or nothing depending on whatever." would be interesting. |
|
| |
<raises hand> may I make a sex joke out of that? |
|
| |
Please do, might put the defibrillator to this moribund thread. |
|
| |
I think Douglas Adams owns that joke. |
|
| |
OK suppose there are lots of bangs. |
|
| |
The size of bangs is uncountable, i.e. not measured in countable numbers. Therefore by the nature of numbers, no two bangs will be equally big. |
|
| |
Therefore one of the bags will be bigger than all of the others. |
|
| |
Yes, but which of those bangs are we talking about as being the big one? Ours? That's why I'm saying that for all we know it's just "A" big bang. |
|
| |
So yes, if you know which bang is the big one, call it "the", but we're talking about ours. Now it's certainly our biggest, but I'm not going to suggest we call it "our" big bang (the big in that context being a term of affection maybe, since the relative size is unknowable) because that would be as pointless as this whole post. |
|
| |
Alternatively we could have Change "The Big Bang Theory" to "The Bed Bug Theory" In this theory it was Bed Bugs that created the entire universe in order to feast on humans when they go to Paris where they are running amok. |
|
| |
The deal with the Big Bang is that time and space as we have it also started then, so the image of it being just an explosion in empty space is a bit oversimplified. In short, there doesn't seem to be a way for any other big bangs to happen as there was no space form to occur, or if they did, they'd perhaps be undetectably outside of time and space. Maybe that's a thing? |
|
| |
Ninteenly and Ray, thank you for actually addressing what this post was supposed to spark a conversation about. Not even going to comment, just going to bask in the fact that somebody actually listened. |
|
| |
What I simply don't get is if there's an "outside" of spacetime or not. What did the singularity exist in? |
|
| |
When two big universes love each-other very much and want to make a new universe, they... |
|
| |
OK think of the number line of real numbers (to keep it in one dimension) |
|
| |
Think of a thing starting at 0 and growing, we would normally think of it growing into the number line, its size is 1, then 2, then 3, then 4, etc. |
|
| |
The expansion of the Universe is not like that at all. I think the expansion of the universe is more like the number line itself growing. So number 1 is now 1cm from the origin Later it will be 1 inch. Then it will be 10cm. By next year no.1 will be 1 foot from 0, and so on for ever. |
|
| |
Now run that backwards, shrink the number line. Number 1 gets gradually closer to number 0, and number 2 gets equally closer to number 1, and no.3 closer to no.2 etc. |
|
| |
If you extrapolate that shrinking backwards far enough then you get to the point where number 1 is zero distance from number 0, number 2 is zero distance from number 1, and so on. |
|
| |
Every real number both positive and negative is zero distance from every other number. The number line is not a line, it is a point. |
|
| |
So your question [RayfordSteele] is like "what's on the line each side of the point?" - the answer is there is no line, the line does not exist until the Big Pop when the distance from 0 to 1 increases from zero to infinitessimally small. - because if the distance from 0 to 1 is infinitessimally small, then the distance from zero to an infinitely large number is an infinite distance and so the number line exists. |
|
| |
There are other problems - due to the speed of thought, we can only count to a certain very large number before getting tired and sitting down for a cup of tea - current number theory puts this limit as about one hundred and eleventy one. Whilst it is of course possible to define and work with numbers arbitrarily large, we can only actually count up to one hundred and eleventy one, and so numbers that are further away from us than that are not directly countable. I think this is kind of an analogy for the event horizon of the universe but I need to go and make more tea urgently |
|
| |
Yes I understand all of that. |
|
| |
But there's a part of me that still asks about what the number line was drawn on. I have a hardish time conceiving of an absence of time and space that for some reason time and space and matter decided to invade. Maybe nature before truly abhors a hoover and wanted it. |
|
| |
Also, does it mean that I'm getting taller but can't measure it? |
|
| |
You're not getting taller if the yardstick is growing with you. What bakes my noodle is how They can possibly say the universe is expanding if the yardstick is expanding. |
|
| |
I think they just rely on the outcomes of math to do that. A bit of extrapolation of a sort. |
|
| |
The number line is not drawn, because you can't draw an infinite line, And the length of the line is already infinite at any time t>0 |
|
| |
And to stay on topic, there is only one number line of real numbers. So there is only one Big Pop. |
|
| |
That you know of or can say anything about... |
|
| |