RoccoR
Gold Member
RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ BreezeWood, et al,
BLUF: Commentary on the original domain that the point of origin for the "Big Bang" is not science. You cannot make a hypothesis and then immerse it into the Scientific Method for evaluation. It is a necessary criterion for something of Scientific Study.
When I listen to Big Bang enthusiasts, and I often do because (like Dr Carl Sagan -•- Dr Michelle Thaller -•- Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson) they usually have such vivid imaginations, they are so inspirational.
It is a question of thresholds. Remembering that the Earth is only ≈ 4.5 Billion y/o and the Universe (we believe) is ≈ 13.8 Billion y/o.
Space.com Article By Clara Moskowitz May 25, 2011
Scientists can't be sure exactly how far away the so-called gamma-ray burst was,
but their best estimates place it at around 13.14 billion light-years away, making it
potentially the farthest object yet detected in space.
In general, today we are taught, that:
✦ Is the fabric of space-time like a fluid that takes the shape of the Universe as the primordial ball?
✦ Did the fabric of space-time already exist, and that is what the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" expanding into.
MUSING:
If the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" was infinitely dense, then there would have been no excitement of anything. It would have been at absolute zero (no movement, no frequency, no wave action).
IF this is NOT TRUE - THEN, we do not understand what the impact is on an infinitely dense → "primordial ball" filled with "energy" is or what it describes.
Anyway, I think you might have already gathered were this is going?
What can break the bond of the "quantum gravity" to offset the equilibrium of the "infinitely dense" → "primordial ball" and force the release of the energy? (RHETORICAL) Of course, the answer is heat (new energy → first motion).º
Just my thought.
FOOTNOTE infinitely dense → "primordial ball"
______________________________
a: Although we generally define "gavity" as a "force;" it is really an effect we can directly detect and measure when mass deforms the fabric of space-time.
0: In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.
Most Respectfully,
R
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ BreezeWood, et al,
BLUF: Commentary on the original domain that the point of origin for the "Big Bang" is not science. You cannot make a hypothesis and then immerse it into the Scientific Method for evaluation. It is a necessary criterion for something of Scientific Study.
When I listen to Big Bang enthusiasts, and I often do because (like Dr Carl Sagan -•- Dr Michelle Thaller -•- Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson) they usually have such vivid imaginations, they are so inspirational.
[/QUOTE]Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?
(COMMENT)why be the elephant in the room ...
It is a question of thresholds. Remembering that the Earth is only ≈ 4.5 Billion y/o and the Universe (we believe) is ≈ 13.8 Billion y/o.
Space.com Article By Clara Moskowitz May 25, 2011
Scientists can't be sure exactly how far away the so-called gamma-ray burst was,
but their best estimates place it at around 13.14 billion light-years away, making it
potentially the farthest object yet detected in space.
"In the beginning, there was an infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter.
Then, it all went bang, giving rise to the atoms, molecules, stars
and galaxies we see today."
So the thresholds are defined (sort of):◈ That inside the surface of the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter."
◈ That which was outside the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter"
Later on, we learn (or are taught) that the " infinitely dense, tiny ball" was really a "singularity" filled with "energy." We assume that at this point, the forces were:◈ Gravityª
◈ Electromagnetism
◈ Weak Interaction (or Weak Nuclear Force)
◈ Strong Interaction (or Strong Nuclear Force)
Infinitely dense would probably suggest that the ever-elusive "unified force" had once existed:
✦ Is the fabric of space-time like a fluid that takes the shape of the Universe as the primordial ball?
✦ Did the fabric of space-time already exist, and that is what the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" expanding into.
MUSING:
If the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" was infinitely dense, then there would have been no excitement of anything. It would have been at absolute zero (no movement, no frequency, no wave action).
IF this is NOT TRUE - THEN, we do not understand what the impact is on an infinitely dense → "primordial ball" filled with "energy" is or what it describes.
Anyway, I think you might have already gathered were this is going?
What can break the bond of the "quantum gravity" to offset the equilibrium of the "infinitely dense" → "primordial ball" and force the release of the energy? (RHETORICAL) Of course, the answer is heat (new energy → first motion).º
Just my thought.
FOOTNOTE infinitely dense → "primordial ball"
______________________________
a: Although we generally define "gavity" as a "force;" it is really an effect we can directly detect and measure when mass deforms the fabric of space-time.
0: In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.
Most Respectfully,
R