Was spacetime present before Big Bang?
in [Relativity]
|
From: ESKI on 24 Sep 2009 16:38 On Sep 24, 2:40 pm, "Hagar" <ha...(a)sahm.name> wrote: > "Sanny" <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:e3fbbbdc-02e5-47ac-9ccd-31466264e4c2(a)b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > > > Our Universe was born after Big Bang [99% Agree] > > The last Big Bang occurred when ShnuPuss climbed atop of NoTroll2009 > and fed him his tube steak. > There was plenty of space and time ... space-time, as it were. > So they took their sweet space-time, making it last all day ... taking > turns, > of course. > It just took a long time to change the male/female werewolfie costumes every > time they switched positions. At the end of the day, they still had > sufficient > strength, or was it stench, to pray to Obama, their new Messiah. Well. this last post above. reduces the whole thing to an absuridty, which perhaps it is. If one analyzed the words, "Space-Time" closely, one might say that they can be summarized, or paraphrased, as "Existence," a "Substance of Existence," or a "Substance." If the "Big Bang" happened, it happened in some kind of existence. if that exitence be described by "Space-Time," or be named, "space-Time," then the answer to the question is: "Sure, Space-Time" has always been there....
From: Stamenin on 24 Sep 2009 17:30 On Sep 24, 9:50 am, Sanny <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Our Universe was born after Big Bang [99% Agree] > > When Universe was created It is said it was even smaller than even an > electron. > > Am I Right here? > > What about spacetime. Was spacetime created after 10 ^ (-1000) seconds > the Universe was formed? Or it was present even before BigBang > happened? > > When the Universe was point small was it a Exact Regular Sphere? > > Were the Matter in Universe 100% Uniform when Big Bang started? > > If someone says Matter in Universe was not Uniform Then what forces > made an irregular Universe? > > Was Gravity present when Universe was 1/100000000000000000000th of a > second old? > > Say a star in another Universe at a Distance of Trillions of Lightyear > was present when our Universe was formed. Had our Universe had sent > Gravity force to that star in other Universe? > > Was the Mass of Universe when it was smaller than an electron same as > the mass of Whole Universe we currently have. > > Last Difficult Question. When all Universe was the size of Electron > Why didnt our Universe become a Black hole? Was the Gravitational Laws > not developed at that time? Incase the mass of Universe was larger > than the mass needed to create a black hole. What was the Force that > was so huge that it even Broke a Black hole. > > At the time Universe was smaller than an electron Was Gravity Absent? > If not What force was acting against Gravity? Even Nuclear Energy > cannot withstand the pressure of Black hole? > > Say I drop Nuclear Bombs in a blackhole will it Brust. No A Black hole > will even absorb a complete Star/ Galaxy. They how a Mass of Whole > Universe contained in small sized electron was able to break the > Gravity? What was that force that was higher than the force of > Gravity? > > What was the Mass of Universe before Big Bang "ZERO" In that case from > where "ZERO" mass changed to such a big mass. > > Was there something that created Big Bang. If there was something that > created Big Bang. Then Why that thing is not part of our Universe now? > > Bye > Sanny > > The Computer chats like Humans. > Believe it???:http://www.GetClub.com > Now you believe it. What do you say? Sanny I understand very well your intention an I should prized it with ten stars. In fact is speaking about the impossibility to find out the truth about thing that happened in a far space and in a fare time. These questions are treated by me in my Principle of the impossibility, which I like to publish here as answer to your questions: IS EVERYTHING RELATIVE? As a consequence of the apparition of the Einstein relativity we have the general conclusion that everything is relative. A long time ago I tried to find out if the truth is relative and I was simply surprised that this sentence is without a real contain. And really according to Einstein theory of the relativity results that the time, the length, the mass etc, are relative sizes but the speed (v) is not for example relative. And there are a lot of other notions that cant be considered as being relative too. This is the cause why I started to analyze the content of the principle of the relativity. The result was the following article about the relativity as being a method of asking the truth by analyzing all the comparative notions. By the application of this theory is visible that all the unclear cases in science appear because of the impossibility to be determined the micro infinites and the macro infinities in physics and mathematics. Because of that I give the biggest importance to this article that shows what is possible and what is impossible to be known in science. This theory is very similar with Heisenbergs Uncertainty principle that says that we cant measure accurately the position and the speed of the particles at the present time in cosmos. But my article treats more general these phenomena by replacing the term uncertainty with the term impossibility. The difference is enormous because it says not only what we measure erroneously but also what we cant know, we cant determine, and what is impossible for us to determine at all. And it says why Einstein relativity is errant at least for the description of the motion of the material bodies. And of course it shows that everything in the nature is absolute, that means that for everything there exists only one truth, the absolute truth. This means that the relativity considered as a theory of the comparability is valid for all sciences. But to our disappointment we in many cases cant determine the absolute truth. THE RELATIVITY IS A METHOD OF ASKING THE TRUTH. (THE PRINCIPLE OF THE IMPOSSIBILITY) It isnt difficult to remark, that Einstein has taken the word relativity from the Galilei principle of the relativity. Because of that it is important to have a look, what is doing with this principle. We can see in fact that Galilei makes a comparison between two systems of coordinates, K1 and K2 and concludes what kind of mathematical expression will have the laws of the mechanics in K1 if we know what kind they have in K2 and inverse. The condition that must be fulfilled in this comparison is that we have to know that at least one of the two coordinate systems must be an inertial system. That means that he makes a comparison and finds out a truth: that the laws of the mechanics are identical in both inertial systems of coordinates. By this we can generalize and realize that we practically in our lives do similar comparisons with all comparative notions about which we have learned in grammatica. All these notions we can divide in three groups: 1) Notions that represent multitudes of natural elements. For example, 12 birds, 6 cars, 5 fingers. The words bird, car, finger are in this case units of counting. 2) Notions that are contained in the technical system, (MKS). When we say that a buildings high is 60m, we do make in fact a comparison between the buildings height and the length of the meter. In this way we obtain a truth. But in this case we can have a unit of measurement, a meter in hands and we know what it is. If we now like to do a comparison between the coordinate systems K1 and K2 with this case and take K1 similar with the building and K2 with the meter, we shall have a clear picture about what happens with the systems K1 and K2. Here, we have supposed that the systems K1 and K2 are inertial systems of coordinates. But we cant determine such coordinate systems, as they are defined by Newton, and we cant repeat again such a determination. This is a substantial difference between the determination of the buildings height and the determination of the absolute or relative coordinate system. 3) Comparative notions without units of measurement. For example: we say, that this man is a very wise man. But we havent any unit of measurement for the wisdom and we cant have it. This song is more beautiful than the former one. And in this case the truth is very unclear, because there is not any unit of measurement. In all three groups we obtain some kind of truth. What can we say about this truth taking in consideration the preciseness with which we can determine it? In the first group when we count natural elements we obtain an absolute truth because there is no mistake, five fingers evidently are five fingers. In the second group when we say the building has 60m, both the meter and the height of the building cant be measured with an absolute preciseness, because the absolute preciseness for the meter is 1+_0 and for the building is 60+_0 tolerances. Because the measurement is done comparatively to the meter we can say that it is done relatively to the meter and let us name it relative truth. In this case we cant obtain the absolute truth that really exists, but the relative truth that represents a good approximation of the absolute truth. And that happens for all sizes of the metric system. Out of that for the biggest values of every size we cant determine a relative truth but a subjective truth. For example, we cant measure the infinity of the universe wit a meter. So we have a lot of situations when we are not capable to find out an absolute truth. It is visible that all these situations are caused by the existence of the micro infinity, as there is the case of the determination of buildings height and the macro infinity in the case of the determination of the infinity of the cosmos. We can change nothing, so is the world constructed. If we take a point in a straight line at the plan and note it with (0) how can we determine the next nearest point if the points are defined as circles with diameters zero? And we cant determine a finite number of points because we shall have 0*n=0. But we will not have such difficulties with a finite number of golf balls for example. In the third group when the notion hasnt unit of measurement the truth is a subjective truth. For example, about the assessment of the wisdom of a man every body takes his wisdom as unite of measurement. But how well somebody could assess his wisdom? It is evident that an absolute truth exists and in this case but it is the same unavailable and impossible to be determined and is available only the subjective truth that is a rough approximation of the absolute truth. All these cases allow us to affirm that everything in the nature is absolute and not relative as has concluded Einstein. And this is the cause why I affirm that Einstein has done an upside-down situation in physics. So we can say now that the principle of the relativity is not a law of the nature but a method of finding out the truth in the nature, and it has as mathematical expression the Galilei transformation. Let us conclude that: only the absolute truth exists in the nature and it is independent of our will. So, taking in consideration the above analysis, we can do the following conclusions: 1) For the multitudes composed of natural elements, we can determine the absolute truth. 2) For the sizes of the MKS system, we can determine the relative truth and for the infinite values only the subjective truth. 3) For the comparative notions with out units of measurement we can determine only the subjective truth. This is all that we can say about the real relativity. It seems to be extreme simple but has enormous possibility for the explanation of many difficult problems in science. In the next pages I will give some clarifications about cases in science where exist dubious situations using these conclusions. MATHEMATICS AND PHYSICS In mathematics scientists, work usually with the absolute truth and all the mathematical formulas are based on the absolute truth. For example the surface of a triangle is obtained by the formula: S=a.h/2 and gives the absolute truth if (a) and (h) are given as being known with the absolute truth. But in physics in spite of the fact that there are used the mathematical formulas in the previous case (a) and (h), have to be measured and they cant be taken in the absolute form of the truth. In mathematics just in the case when we have a sum of micro infinites can be found out as a value that represents an absolute truth. Such a case is when in superior mathematics we like to calculate the surface which is placed between the function, y= (b/a) *x, and the abscise of a plan coordinate system (y,x.). The surface will be the integration (S), for (y*dx) for (x=0 to x= a): Q=S(b/a).xdx= (b/a)(x^2)/2 =(b/a)(a^2)/2-0=ab/2 for (x=0, until x=a) Where x=a, and y=b are the coordinates until which is calculated the surface. For mathematicians the infinite small values and the infinite big values are considered as clear notions, but if you ask them, what is an infinite small value will get an answer, arbitrary small value, which clarifies no more the situation. In this case the infinite small value is represented by the term (dx). This quantity is so small that if we multiply it with any number the produce remains the same an infinite small number. So the term, (b/a)xdx, is the same an infinite small number. And the operation of integration makes a sum of an infinite number of such small quantities to give the exact formula, as we know it from the Euclidean geometry. And Einstein and other scientists criticize this geometry!! A similar situation is with the number zero when we refer it to a size, as it is a distance for example. Many people ask themselves how is possible 1/(infinite)=0 and in the same time 10000/(infinite)=0. This result appears because we cant determine the infinite number and for that we consider that the division between every finite number and the infinite number gives zero. By this we can see that an infinite small value is very close to the number zero, but isnt equal with it. There exists vicinity around the number zero which is impossible to be known. That could be explained with the fact that by the point of view of the physics we cant know how big or small are the macro infinity and the micro infinity. EUCLID AND LOBACHEVSKI. One of the most characteristic confusions in mathematics is the critic done by the Russian mathematician Lobachevski referred to the 5th postulate of the Euclidean geometry. Euclid is considered the father of the geometry. In spite of the huge time difference between their livings Euclid is in principle right. But so far the question is considered unsolved, as it is the case and with Einsteins relativity theory. Euclids definition of the 5th postulate says that to a straight line on the plan we can draw only one parallel line from an external point A. But, Lobachevski says that there could be drawn an infinite number of parallel lines. The definition of the parallel lines says: two right lines are parallel if they do not cut one another if we prolong them as much as we like. Here the term as much as we like means infinite practically. That means that there is impossible to determine if two right lines are parallel or not by the aid of this definition. Lobachevski has exploited this feeble part of the definition and said that is possible to be drawn an infinite number of parallel lines. Because of that he decided to create a new geometry, which some authors compare the effort done by him with the effort done by Einstein creating his theory of the relativity. But his definition is not totally correct because he uses a macroinfinite term in his definition. This leads us to a subjective form of the truth that enabled Lobachevski to use it in errant manure. So we can conclude that there is a need to be changed the definition given by Euclid and to have the following content: Two straight lines are parallel if being cut by a third line make adjacent angles equal one to another. We will always do an error when we try to draw a parallel line to an existing line with this definition, but the error will appertain to the group of notions where we can find out the relative truth where we have a good approximation of the absolute truth. A similar critic to the Euclidean geometry makes Einstein in his book, Relativity. He affirms that through two points in the plan can be drawn an infinite number of straight lines. But we have seen that the two chosen points every one of them has an infinite number of neighbor points, which we cant determine. That is a micro infinity. And if we say that we can take a point from one infinity of neighbor points, we can consider that through every point of this infinity of points, passes only one line. So it is evident that this critic is the same errant. Surely there are and other problems like these in mathematics and physics, but freely we can conclude that all they can be explained with the existence of the micro infinities and macro infinities. Such an example could be the infinity of the cosmos. We cant know how big is the universe. But Einstein gave a strange assessment that it isnt infinite but is unbounded. This is an absurd sentence, but being said by Einstein is accepted as being real. A similar situation is with the sum of two segments: AB+BC =BC. The Lorentz transformation shows that it is not correct relation. LT just shows that AB seen from one coordinate system is not equal with AB seen from the other coordinate system. This conclusion is a consequence of the Lorentz transformation and is easily to be seen that is errant. In physics are tendencies to create theories about everything or theories that will unite all the laws of the nature, or all the forces in the nature. Einstein managed in this direction to find out that in the term, all laws of the nature, to be contained only one law, the law of the constancy of the light speed. How will find out other authors the content in terms like, everything and, all forces and phenomena in nature? So far we where treating problems which appertain to the second group of the comparative notions. Problems of the first group we havent, evidently because there we havent difficulties for the determination of the absolute truth. But for the third group we have big problems for the determination of the absolute truth because there we have in disposition only the possibility to determine a subjective truth which is very far of the absolute truth. Such are for example, the sociology, the history, the medicine and others where we cant have a possibility to measure the comparative notions.
From: Double-A on 24 Sep 2009 17:35 On Sep 24, 9:50 am, Sanny <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Our Universe was born after Big Bang [99% Agree] > > When Universe was created You mean when God pushed the plunger? > It is said it was even smaller than even an > electron. > > Am I Right here? Who was around to measure? > What about spacetime. Was spacetime created after 10 ^ (-1000) seconds > the Universe was formed? Or it was present even before BigBang > happened? Not present. > When the Universe was point small was it a Exact Regular Sphere? Probably irregular shaped to to quantum fluctuations. > Were the Matter in Universe 100% Uniform when Big Bang started? What matter? > If someone says Matter in Universe was not Uniform Then what forces > made an irregular Universe? Quantum fluctuations. > Was Gravity present when Universe was 1/100000000000000000000th of a > second old? Why not? > Say a star in another Universe at a Distance of Trillions of Lightyear > was present when our Universe was formed. Had our Universe had sent > Gravity force to that star in other Universe? That star would not be part of our universe, therefore that star would not exist in our universe, therefore there is nothing there for gravity to act upon. > Was the Mass of Universe when it was smaller than an electron same as > the mass of Whole Universe we currently have. What mass? > Last Difficult Question. When all Universe was the size of Electron > Why didnt our Universe become a Black hole? It was. > Was the Gravitational Laws > not developed at that time? Incase the mass of Universe was larger > than the mass needed to create a black hole. What was the Force that > was so huge that it even Broke a Black hole. > > At the time Universe was smaller than an electron Was Gravity Absent? > If not What force was acting against Gravity? Even Nuclear Energy > cannot withstand the pressure of Black hole? Space itself expanded, rather than matter breaking away from gravity. The universe is still a black hole, you know! > Say I drop Nuclear Bombs in a blackhole will it Brust. No A Black hole > will even absorb a complete Star/ Galaxy. They how a Mass of Whole > Universe contained in small sized electron was able to break the > Gravity? What was that force that was higher than the force of > Gravity? Gravity was never broken. We are still in a black hole! If you add up all the matter and energy in the universe and calculate where the event horizon should be, it ends up being way out at the edge of the universe as we measure it! > What was the Mass of Universe before Big Bang "ZERO" In that case from > where "ZERO" mass changed to such a big mass. In the beginning, there was no matter, only energy. > Was there something that created Big Bang. If there was something that > created Big Bang. Then Why that thing is not part of our Universe now? Who says He isn't? > > Bye > Sanny > > The Computer chats like Humans. > Believe it???:http://www.GetClub.com > Now you believe it. What do you say? Double-A
From: Chris on 24 Sep 2009 17:56 On 24 Sep, 17:50, Sanny <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Our Universe was born after Big Bang [99% Agree] > > When Universe was created It is said it was even smaller than even an > electron. > > Am I Right here? > > What about spacetime. Was spacetime created after 10 ^ (-1000) seconds > the Universe was formed? Or it was present even before BigBang > happened? > > When the Universe was point small was it a Exact Regular Sphere? > > Were the Matter in Universe 100% Uniform when Big Bang started? Sir Roger Penrose talks about these questions in this crudely recorded but very interesting lecture here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghbDGBOYp1g&feature=related I liked the part about the Big Bang having to proceed from a highly organised state. - Quite a lot different from the quantum fluctuation theory.
From: Immortalist on 24 Sep 2009 21:06
> Was spacetime present before Big Bang? If, in mathematics and physics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it, and before the Big Bang the dimensions of our universe did not exist, and space and time are dimensions, then no, spacetime probably does not exist outside of dimension. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension On Sep 24, 9:50 am, Sanny <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Our Universe was born after Big Bang [99% Agree] > > When Universe was created It is said it was even smaller than even an > electron. > > Am I Right here? > > What about spacetime. Was spacetime created after 10 ^ (-1000) seconds > the Universe was formed? Or it was present even before BigBang > happened? > > When the Universe was point small was it a Exact Regular Sphere? > > Were the Matter in Universe 100% Uniform when Big Bang started? > > If someone says Matter in Universe was not Uniform Then what forces > made an irregular Universe? > > Was Gravity present when Universe was 1/100000000000000000000th of a > second old? > > Say a star in another Universe at a Distance of Trillions of Lightyear > was present when our Universe was formed. Had our Universe had sent > Gravity force to that star in other Universe? > > Was the Mass of Universe when it was smaller than an electron same as > the mass of Whole Universe we currently have. > > Last Difficult Question. When all Universe was the size of Electron > Why didnt our Universe become a Black hole? Was the Gravitational Laws > not developed at that time? Incase the mass of Universe was larger > than the mass needed to create a black hole. What was the Force that > was so huge that it even Broke a Black hole. > > At the time Universe was smaller than an electron Was Gravity Absent? > If not What force was acting against Gravity? Even Nuclear Energy > cannot withstand the pressure of Black hole? > > Say I drop Nuclear Bombs in a blackhole will it Brust. No A Black hole > will even absorb a complete Star/ Galaxy. They how a Mass of Whole > Universe contained in small sized electron was able to break the > Gravity? What was that force that was higher than the force of > Gravity? > > What was the Mass of Universe before Big Bang "ZERO" In that case from > where "ZERO" mass changed to such a big mass. > > Was there something that created Big Bang. If there was something that > created Big Bang. Then Why that thing is not part of our Universe now? > > Bye > Sanny > > The Computer chats like Humans. > Believe it???:http://www.GetClub.com > Now you believe it. What do you say? |