What is Digg?40 Comments
- tehWhisp, on 03/03/2009, -0/+15Awesome, but I'm still waiting for Eta Carinae to blow up and "light up the sky." Assuming the rays from that don't kill us.
- Anim8tor, on 03/03/2009, -0/+14ASTRONOMY: Watching ***** blow up for millions of years.
- feignNU, on 03/03/2009, -0/+9FTA: "a gamma ray burst - the most violent and luminous explosions occurring in the Universe since the Big Bang."
This kind of phrasing really annoys me. In what sense did the Big Bang occur "in" the Universe? The Big Bang *IS* the Universe. - WhistlinTom, on 03/03/2009, -1/+7I watched a show last night on gamma rays if that thing hits us.... we'll see the light and then just be vaporized..... YAY!!!!!
- skintigh, on 03/03/2009, -0/+3Billions.
- SQLserver, on 03/03/2009, -0/+3AND the big bang wasn't an explosion, but an expansion.
- latalianheat, on 03/03/2009, -2/+5Photo: courtesy of Bruce Banner.
- fyngyrz, on 03/03/2009, -3/+6The big bang is what you get when you run math backwards until it divides by zero - and worse. It is where science turns to belief and becomes no better than religion.
If you observed a softball in flight, having not seen the pitch, you would conclude it arose spontaneously from the ground, because that's where the arc, followed backwards by math until it fails, leads. This would result in a "spontaneous ball generation from dirt" theory, analogous to the big bang.
Everything there is did not arise from nothing, and was never compacted into an area far smaller than the area all the particles in the universe take up. It's not just inconceivable, it is impossible, and further, it is 100% inconsistent with almost all of the physics we know.
The idea that the space between the galaxies can expand faster than light is fine, as far as it goes (no mass, so no limit) but there is literally no explanation of how all the matter in the universe (which is a lot!) could fit into a single tiny object, and the matter isn't helped by yelping "singularity", because you know what singularity actually means in this context? It means, "doesn't obey the laws of physics", that's what. In other words, *****.
One thing we're pretty sure of is that everything obeys the laws of physics. So the whole big bang thing... yeah, *****.
The universe has always been here in the form of normal matter. Different places, different configurations, sure, but it has always existed, and it always will. Softballs do not arise spontaneously from the ground.
Thanks, I'll be here all day. - a3r0, on 03/03/2009, -1/+3Evolution doesn't make any claims about the universe or even try to. Completely separate theories.
- feignNU, on 03/04/2009, -0/+2"But since when is the big bang and the universe the same? I think I missed something,"
"The Big Bang isn't the Universe. Unless you want to get crazy philosophical."
Of course it is. Let's assume the big bang theory is actually pretty close to what really happened (not that we can really know that yet, but for the sake of argument, let's assume). Well, the big bang isn't something that is OVER yet. It's not something that happened once a long time ago and ended. It's still happening. The universe is STILL big banging, and everything that's happening inside of it is just the further playing out of the whole process. The creation of space and time can't be a singular event with a definite end because, well, space and time aren't DONE yet, you see? It's all still happening. Right now. The big bang is happening *right now*. This post that I'm typing is just one of the ways in which the process of the big bang is carrying itself out. And your skepticism of my point is just another one of those ways.
Imagine you take a bottle of ink and chuck in against a wall. As you go outward from the center of the ink splotch, imagine that you are moving outward in both space and time. You and I, we're the intricate little curlicues waaaaaaay out at the edge of the splotch. But those curlicues are not some separate event from the big bang itself, it's all the same event, unfolding over time. - MrColdheart, on 03/03/2009, -3/+5semantics
- flossdaily, on 03/03/2009, -0/+2Why do people say "digg down" instead of "bury"?
It's like saying 'pull me away from you' instead of 'push me'. - nowhereelse, on 03/04/2009, -0/+2Just to expand on this, a singularity is a dimensionless point which only exists in mathematics. Something which has no dimensions does not exist in the physical universe. Imagining it does and attributing *any* mass to it creates a divide by zero error and throws up an infinite density. The same fallacy is at the root of the black hole concept. Anyone who is serious about the science can read a commentary on Schwarzschild’s paper (the one which is wrongly reported to have proposed black holes) here:
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/ - BHRecon, on 03/04/2009, -0/+26000 >.>
- JasonAdams13, on 03/03/2009, -1/+2COME ON LITTLE GAMMA RAY
STANDING IN A HURRICANE - feignNU, on 03/04/2009, -0/+1"In no way does [quantum mechanics] imply that you can put a million billion megatons of stuff in a one millionth of a trillionth of a µgram box."
Of course not, but then that's not the point I was making. I brought up quantum physics as a simple example which invalidates part of the reasoning in your original argument, namely the part where you appealed to everyday experience as an analogy intended to point out the absurdity of the idea of the Big Bang. I'm not trying to justify the Big Bang with quantum theory, I'm trying to point out that we have no real reason to presume that our everyday experience is in any way a reliable indicator of what's possible or reasonable for something with a size on the scale of quantum objects and the mass of the entire universe. You were trying to use common sense to argue against the idea and I was pointing out that it's far from obvious that your common sense even applies to what we're talking about.
"Everything - meaning all galaxies, etc. - has been here all the time. There's an incomprehensible amount of matter and energy in all of this, and it moves around a lot. There's no more to it than that."
Sure, I'm more or less in agreement with you. We could get into an interesting philosophical discussion about my personal understanding of all this, I'm sure, but my original comment was not intended to express my own thoughts about the ultimate nature of the universe. Rather I simply intended to point out a fallacy -- that if you take the Big Bang as an accurate description of the history of the universe, then you can't talk about the Big Bang as being INSIDE of that universe. I wasn't making any positive assertions of my own, just critiquing the language employed by the author of the article. And since that author was clearly situated "inside" the big bang theory, I framed my answer from that perspective as well. - JPOOPOO, on 03/03/2009, -0/+1***** reverse psychology
- pfhayter, on 03/03/2009, -0/+1and it went uuh diggess me down
- pw378, on 03/04/2009, -0/+1yeah, actually it is. The "big bang" is the common name for the primeval atom theory that all of "space" (i.e. the universe) was once smaller than an atom. Then "bang", space exploded and the universe expanded to what we have today.
- sgnpkd, on 03/04/2009, -0/+1stabilize him to zero, people.
- feignNU, on 03/03/2009, -1/+2These are some kind of silly arguments against the Big Bang theory...Your first one, that singularities violate the laws of physics is not something I can respond to with mathematics or physics, because I'm neither a mathematician or a physicist, but I'm pretty sure if the theory were that easily defeated, someone would have done it already a while back. As far as appealing to everyday experience for empirical evidence against the big bang...well...our understanding of the quantum world makes it quite clear that the way that the universe works at OUR level is not necessarily the way that the universe works at *all* levels. So the fact that baseballs don't spontaneously form out of the ground doesn't really mean anything for the big bang theory.
Anyway, this is all pointless because my post wasn't intended to be an endorsement for the theory of the big bang. I'm sure we're probably wrong. Or at least not totally right. At any rate, it seems very unlikely that the Big Bang theory will persist unchanged for any significant period of time. My point is simply that the *creation* of the universe can't be said to have happened *inside* the universe. And whatever you think describes that creation, I think you have to agree with that. - Vaiper, on 03/04/2009, -1/+2The big bang theory is no better than the "god created everything" theory. Fact is...no one knows. You just have to ask yourself what makes you feel warm and fuzzy on the inside? In the end, that is all that matters.
- fyngyrz, on 03/04/2009, -0/+1> I'm neither a mathematician or a physicist
Fair enough. And in turn, I won't concern myself with which theory you choose to believe in. Truth is not a matter of popularity; it just *is*.
However, I will give you a tip; quantum theory gives us a handle on the micro; it does not violate the laws of physics. It just gives us more of them, and shows that things aren't constant across major scale changes (though they certainly are similar.) In no way does it imply that you can put a million billion megatons of stuff in a one millionth of a trillionth of a µgram box. Which *is* what the proponents of the big bang theory would have us believe, only more so.
> My point is simply that the *creation* of the universe can't be said...
Yes, and my point is that the "creation" of the universe, in the way you mean it, is an utterly nonsensical idea. It's just another magical creation story. Didn't happen; couldn't happen; doesn't happen.
Everything - meaning all galaxies, etc. - has been here all the time. There's an incomprehensible amount of matter and energy in all of this, and it moves around a lot. There's no more to it than that. - df12, on 03/04/2009, -0/+1Off the top of my head I would say that's because there would be no UV or visible light emitted from a matter/anti-matter annihilation. It would be all Gamma-rays.
- mattmollysdad, on 03/03/2009, -1/+1FANTASTIC 4
- skintigh, on 03/03/2009, -1/+1Who are we to say there was only one big bang? That's presuming to know a lot about the universe before the most recent big bang.
Also, it's the most violent explosion *known to us*. It also bugs be when they say water is required for life. Only as we know it.
But since when is the big bang and the universe the same? I think I missed something, - Wuss, on 03/03/2009, -1/+1LMAO! ur soooo right!
- flossdaily, on 03/03/2009, -1/+1The Big Bang isn't the Universe. Unless you want to get crazy philosophical.
- Ceryn1126, on 03/04/2009, -1/+1HULK SMASH!!!
- Shamusjp, on 03/03/2009, -2/+2You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.
- cuestbeats, on 03/03/2009, -1/+1I can do a better one in photoshop, and with less effort.
- inactive, on 03/03/2009, -3/+2Im a christian trying to jump on the evolution bandwagon where did the matter that makes up stars and planets evolve from? Does space just make it own matter? Can something evolve from nothing?
- mad2max666, on 03/03/2009, -1/+0nice bloom effects
- garryw, on 03/03/2009, -3/+2Funny how nobody hypothesises a matter-antimatter collision
- pumanegra2012, on 03/04/2009, -2/+1Was it a cloudburst? A ray bursting is something i have not heard of
- TenaciousG86, on 03/03/2009, -4/+2Pics or it didn't happen
- RockerMaster, on 03/03/2009, -2/+0Who needs a microwave when you have gamma rays!
- johnmonty5, on 03/03/2009, -3/+0Who needs a microwave when you have gamma rays! nice bloom effects
- carbonfree314, on 03/03/2009, -16/+11DIGG ME DOWN
- shylove, on 03/03/2009, -6/+1How can gamma ray's burst, rays can only radiate. Only particle can burst, only bad economic bubbles can burst, only cuister bombs can burst and spray women and children even today in the debris of the Vietnam war or Lebanon or Gaza, with scrap metal fragments long after everyone earned their medals.
How can we worry about it when our world is bursting with bloodshed, when our economic bubbles are popping like pop corn, when we have gone before the world with an unprovoked war of aggression ffor falsified reasons????
Maybe the morality of this country has also Burst!!!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is