RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,588
Posts: 5,403,921
Members: 24,867
Currently online: 700
Newest member: jack@gerryander

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek: Gold Key Archives Vol. 2 Comic
By: T'Bonz on Oct 1

Cumberbatch In War Of Roses Miniseries
By: T'Bonz on Oct 1

Trek 3 Filming Location Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Oct 1

October-November 2014 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Cho Selfie TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

TPTB To Shatner: Shhh!
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Mystery Mini Vinyl Figure Display Box
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

The Red Shirt Diaries Episode Five
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

Shatner In Trek 3? Well Maybe
By: T'Bonz on Sep 28

Retro Review: Shadows and Symbols
By: Michelle on Sep 27


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science and Technology

Science and Technology "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." - Carl Sagan.

View Poll Results: Do you think E=MC^2 Applies to the Universe Prior to the Big Bang
Yes - Explain Your Reasoning 2 28.57%
No - Explain Your Reasoning 5 71.43%
Voters: 7. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 1 2014, 05:43 PM   #61
Asbo Zaprudder
Rear Admiral
 
Asbo Zaprudder's Avatar
 
Location: Sand in the Vaseline
Re: Does E=MC^2 Exist in Universal Constant Prior to the Big Bang?

or the 13.8 billion year plan.
__________________
"After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true." -- Spock -- Flip flap!
Asbo Zaprudder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2014, 12:43 AM   #62
Dryson
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Does E=MC^2 Exist in Universal Constant Prior to the Big Bang?

It really isn't that difficult to imagine a Universe prior to the Big Bang.

Since the Higgs-Boson is thought to be the Creation Particle and would have been around prior to the Big Bang the Universe might have been teeming with Higgs-Boson Particles on a massive scale.

But what process created the Higgs-Boson would the next logical question to ask be just like a god like figure in the infinite theory of creation any god like figure would first need to be created in order to create.

Although god can never be proven to exist or not exist the notion of infinity that surrounds the ideology just like particles proves that Universe is in fact infinite and that the farter down the rabbit hole we travel the more infinite in our knowledge we become.

....A goddess however can be proven to exist.

Meaning that E=MC^2 can be proven within the confines of a gravitational environment AFTER a Big Bang has occurred but not prior to a Big Bang taking place.
Dryson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2014, 07:22 AM   #63
Silvercrest
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Does E=MC^2 Exist in Universal Constant Prior to the Big Bang?

Silvercrest wrote: View Post
Silvercrest wrote: View Post
Seriously, you keep mentioning the Big Bang but I don't think you're using the term correctly. You seem to perceive it as some sort of reaction that's the result of particles colliding. That's not what is proposed by the so-called "Big Bang Theory", more properly known as the Expanding Universe Model.
Dryson wrote: View Post
The particles that created the Big Bang
Like I said....
Dryson wrote: View Post
It really isn't that difficult to imagine a Universe prior to the Big Bang.

Since the Higgs-Boson is thought to be the Creation Particle and would have been around prior to the Big Bang the Universe might have been teeming with Higgs-Boson Particles on a massive scale.
And again.

I'm not going to say that you're wrong. But I will repeat that all your usages of the term "Big Bang" are inconsistent with the Expanding Universe Model as it's understood. (Similar to all your incorrect references to the Higgs boson.) What I just quoted from your post is a total non sequitur.

Therefore, you will need to explain how you envision a "Big Bang" and what that term means if you expect to make any sense at all.
Silvercrest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2014, 09:30 AM   #64
iguana_tonante
Admiral
 
iguana_tonante's Avatar
 
Location: Italy, EU
Re: Does E=MC^2 Exist in Universal Constant Prior to the Big Bang?

Silvercrest wrote: View Post
Dryson wrote: View Post
Since the Higgs-Boson is thought to be the Creation Particle and would have been around prior to the Big Bang the Universe might have been teeming with Higgs-Boson Particles on a massive scale.
And again.

I'm not going to say that you're wrong.
I am. He is.
__________________
Scientist. Gentleman. Teacher. Fighter. Lover. Father.
iguana_tonante is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2014, 03:41 PM   #65
Silvercrest
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Does E=MC^2 Exist in Universal Constant Prior to the Big Bang?

I'd say the iguana has the chops to do so. But anyway, I'd still like Dryson to explain what he means by a "Big Bang" -- rather than simply spouting the term.

And I am not an astrophysicist or any other sort of trained scientist. Please feel free to correct me if my references or usages are wrong.
Silvercrest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2014, 11:53 PM   #66
iguana_tonante
Admiral
 
iguana_tonante's Avatar
 
Location: Italy, EU
Re: Does E=MC^2 Exist in Universal Constant Prior to the Big Bang?

I would be more optimistic if his previous musings had made at least a modicum of sense, but at this point, I am kinda skeptic.
__________________
Scientist. Gentleman. Teacher. Fighter. Lover. Father.
iguana_tonante is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2014, 06:44 AM   #67
PurpleBuddha
Rear Admiral
 
PurpleBuddha's Avatar
 
Re: Does E=MC^2 Exist in Universal Constant Prior to the Big Bang?

gturner wrote: View Post
Since an almost infinite amount of time, energy, and matter were condensed into the same microscopic spot, there was an incredible excess of supply and the price of anything would be virtually zero.
What is the number that crosses the line from finite to almost infinite?
PurpleBuddha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2014, 12:30 PM   #68
Asbo Zaprudder
Rear Admiral
 
Asbo Zaprudder's Avatar
 
Location: Sand in the Vaseline
Re: Does E=MC^2 Exist in Universal Constant Prior to the Big Bang?

The net energy in the expansion from the initial singularity was probably zero given that the curvature of the Universe is found to be flat -- the positive mass-energy balance appears to be precisely cancelled out by the negative gravitational potential energy. For a full explanation, see chapter 6 "The Free Lunch at the End of the Universe" in A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence M Krauss.
__________________
"After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true." -- Spock -- Flip flap!
Asbo Zaprudder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 12 2014, 08:43 PM   #69
Dryson
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Does E=MC^2 Exist in Universal Constant Prior to the Big Bang?

Asbo Zaprudder wrote: View Post
The net energy in the expansion from the initial singularity was probably zero given that the curvature of the Universe is found to be flat -- the positive mass-energy balance appears to be precisely cancelled out by the negative gravitational potential energy. For a full explanation, see chapter 6 "The Free Lunch at the End of the Universe" in A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence M Krauss.
This brings up another really good question which can be answered based on already proven facts.


given that the curvature of the Universe is found to be flat...

The Earth was once perceived to be flat as well until explorers realized that the ports they were sailing from were not sinking the farther that they traveled from the port but in fact that the ocean they were sailing on had a curve to it the same as an orange or an apple has a curvature.

With the Earth having a curvature that has been proven to be curved and not flat then the Universe that we live in will also be part of a much larger curvature with an immense gravitational field at the center of the Universal Curvature that would be similar to the core of planet Earth with each Universe being an ocean upon the planet surface of a much larger world.

This theory can be proven using General Relativity - General relativity, or the general theory of relativity, is the geometrictheory[B[/URL]] of [/B]gravitation[B[/URL]] published by [/B]Albert Einstein[/URL] in 1916. General relativity generalizes special relativity[/URL] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation"]Newton's law of universal gravitation[/URL], providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space[B[/URL]] and [/B]time[B[/URL]], or [/B]spacetime[B[/URL]]. In particular, the [/B]curvature[B[/URL]] of spacetime is directly related to the [/B]energy[B[/URL]] and [/B]momentum[B[/URL]] of whatever [/B]matter[B[/URL]] and [/B]radiation[B[/URL]] are present. The relation is specified by the [/B]Einstein field equations[/URL], a system of partial differential equations[/URL].

Geometric Theory of Gravitation would apply to the entirety of the Universe before the Big Bang that created our Universal center that then created the actual Big Bang that created our Universe for the simple fact some type of gravitational force that we have yet to discover would have formed the Universal Center into a geometric theory equation that would then have expanded rapidly in an outwards manner thus effecting particles such as the Higgs-Boson that then added mass to the expanding particles that then created our Universe. So the theory of the Universe being flat is hogwash because the Earth is not flat but of a geometric gravitational theory proven by Einstein and early mariners which then translates back to the beginning of our Universe being a geometric gravitational theory where the Universal Center would have a curvature to it.

The entire Universe cannot be flat because that would put a limit or edge to the term of infinity which like the early mariners proved the Earth is not flat so therefore infinity cannot be flat.

Everything has a curvature to it. An orange, a breast, an apple, our heads, the heel of our feet, our fingernails even our arms and legs all have some type of curvature. If the Universe was flat then we would be flat as well.

Einsteins theory of General Relativity does prove that the Universe is round and not flat...but it still does not prove that light speed is the fastest velocity possible outside of a solar and black hole causality of quantified entanglement of particles.

Last edited by Dryson; July 12 2014 at 09:03 PM.
Dryson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 12 2014, 09:07 PM   #70
sojourner
Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Does E=MC^2 Exist in Universal Constant Prior to the Big Bang?

So where did you cut and paste that from? You should really attribute your sources.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2014, 07:34 AM   #71
Trek or Treat!
Rear Admiral
 
Trek or Treat!'s Avatar
 
Location: Second star to the right
Re: Does E=MC^2 Exist in Universal Constant Prior to the Big Bang?

In this case, I think he's doing the author a favor by not attributing it.
Trek or Treat! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 18 2014, 01:04 AM   #72
Dryson
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Does E=MC^2 Exist in Universal Constant Prior to the Big Bang?

Another very important factor that must be added into E=MC^2 not being a Universal constant prior to the Big Bang is the afterlife.

A co-worker, who studies theology, and I were discussing ghost's and other apparitions today at work. We talked about what I had seen and what he knew related to ghost's. We got on the subject of how people see them from time to time but shows like Ghosthunter on SyFy never seem to capture any proof other than what are called orbs.

Now we know that life forms and plants absorbed light all the time and therefore reflect that light back out through the release of energy that the eyes can see and the brain then translates into a visible object.

Once a person passes on the energy in their body remains and slowly dissipates over several weeks. Perhaps the residual energy is collected within Dark Energy that since it is not effected by gravity but does in fact hold the key to our seeds prior to Big Bang that were released after the Big Bang retains something of our persona where the spirit inside of the Dark Energy stream is able to use Dark Energy to coalesce into a form that we can see in our dreams and waking dreams as well as appearing as orbs and the occasional black post in photographs that appear shortly after a loved one has passed on.

If ghosts existed in the same realm that we do then they would absorb light in the same manner that we do therefore allowing us to see them more often as well as being able to capture them on camera.

Light that we can see functions in a gravitated environment where light is effected by gravity. But in an environment where there is no gravity that is created by a sun, blackhole or other celestial body but where energy still exists could be the explanation behind why we can see ghosts in a waking dream. In the ethereal world beyond our gravitated environment energy would function differently much the same as dark matter or dark energy does. We know its there but it is very difficult to test for. Dark Energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
permeates all of space. This means that is flows through everything. Even our bodies. Perhaps when conditions the correct conditions exist and Dark Energy, which is not effected by gravity because it was present before gravity existed, could have carried the seeds of our life in its energy because we come from the Universe and prior to the Big Bang would have been part of the creation process.

Once a person passes on the energy in their body remains and slowly dissipates over several weeks. Perhaps the residual energy is collected within Dark Energy that since it is not effected by gravity but does in fact hold the key to our seeds prior to Big Bang that were released after the Big Bang retains something of our persona where the spirit inside of the Dark Energy stream is able to use Dark Energy to coalesce into a form that we can see in our dreams and waking dreams as well as appearing as orbs and the occasional black post in photographs that appear shortly after a loved one has passed on. Proving that E=MC^2 did not exist prior to the Big Bang is a big boost to religious philosophies relating to the afterlife. If Dark Energy travels faster than the speed of light then it would be able to carry our 'soul' away from other forms of energy that would otherwise devour it and never allow it to roam the Universe to find its way into a living seed of energy again. Tarantula 11..how do you copy over? We're moving to underground location 12 Delta Alpha October....ghost emitters are emplaced and active. Copy T11.
Dryson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 18 2014, 01:09 AM   #73
sojourner
Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Does E=MC^2 Exist in Universal Constant Prior to the Big Bang?

Your cut and paste is showing again. You really need to start crediting the original material.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 18 2014, 03:58 PM   #74
Silvercrest
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Does E=MC^2 Exist in Universal Constant Prior to the Big Bang?

Yeah! Otherwise Tarantula 11 might sue for infringement.
Silvercrest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 26 2014, 12:18 AM   #75
Dryson
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Does E=MC^2 Exist in Universal Constant Prior to the Big Bang?

Its obvious that you are Canonist's who only believe what other popular and well known and excepted theorist have written about.

Because the extent of your comments prove that you are not able to logically deduce or even grasp the theoretical application outside of what is already known and is simply switched around to make it sound like something new.
Dryson is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.