This one is much bigger than the voids previously discovered: http://www.space.com/4271-huge-hole..._medium=most-popular&li_campaign=related_test Apparently, we do not yet have a model that can adequately explain this. How big of a deal do you think this is? I am also wondering if this is basically normal space that happens to be void for whatever reason, or if there is something different about the space itself in this void. Is that possible?
So we do have in fact have a celestial body that is violating the principal of physics. For all intents and purposes this area of space should be filled with suns, planets and other objects just like the rest of the Universe is. Since the hole in space is void of anything else then gravity would not exist there either. The hole could in fact be the location of the big bang occured. There would have been such a tremendous amount of energy released that anything close to the initial explosion would cease to exist.
That would be neat, but I am afraid it doesn't solve this mystery. All points in space were in the same place when the universe "banged". Thus every single point you can see right now (and all the rest too), were in the location the big bang occurred. This is also true for all the atoms in your body, though they were in some other form at the time.
dryson, please stop thinking of the big banfg as an actual explosion occuring in space. What we refer to as the big bang was the universe getting a lot bigger very rapidly. The whole baloon was already there just getting inflated. As such there was no place the big bang occured. the big bang was everywhere becoming a whole lot more everywhere!
If the Big Bang never occurred then explosions would not exist anywhere in the Universe. Bombs wouldn't exist that explode outwards nor would fireworks as well. Eventually that balloon of yours will bust...an explosion.
http://m.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html If you think of a bullet round leaving the barrel of a gun they is a rapid expansion of gases outward in all directions. Hence the Big Bang or sudden combination of factors that caused the rapidly expansion of matter that would otherwise remain inert until combined together. Based on Space.coms definition of the Big Bang a small singularity expanded over 13 + billion years. In order to have an expanison matter has to once again interact with matter to cause a sudden release of energy. A balloon doesnt expand until you add air or another gas to it as well a liquid. Since water, air and other gases were not present prior to the Big Bang but only matter and anti matter that when they came into contact with each other would have created a tremendous amount of energetic release.
That does it. I have to put dryson on ignore. It physically hurts to read his stuff. I have to assume he is trolling, nobody can be this ignorant of the real world.
I get your frustration but accusing people of trolling and publicly announcing you're putting them on ignore counts as trolling on this site, too. It's a warnable offense. You're implying that he's he's either ignorant or a troll. The rule on this site is: Attack the post, not the poster. You can call out a bullshit post without insulting the poster. You've never done this before so I'm giving you a last, (relatively) friendly warning, also because your wording was relatively tame. You pull this stuff again, you earn an infraction.
Except that according to the theory, the Big Bang wasn't an explosion. It was the sudden geometric expansion of SPACE ITSELF and all the matter and energy therein.
That is what an explosion is. Something getting really big really fast. And if ti's not an explosion, then it doesn't help layman when scientists call it the big bang. OR when they say the initial creation was a point smaller than a pin head.
In that sense of the definition you can call it an explosion. What dryson is saying, is that the big bang was a chemical reaction in a preexisting medium. And yes, scientist today agree that the term big bang is a misnomer, confuding the layman, but the term stuck and you probably can not change it anymore. From what I know the term was originally coined by scientist opposing and mocking the theory.
Right. It was Fred Hoyle, in comparing it to (his preferred) steady-state theory. And the layman has every right to be confused. But S.D., we're asking the layman not to continue misusing the term and misrepresenting the concept after having it explained to him. Someone who does that is just burying his head in the sand.
According to the Higgs Boson Theory a particle added mass to each partcile passing through it. These particles would then have interacted in such a way to cause energetic reactions. The question is would chemical particles have come first and seeded the Universe through this process or are chemical reactions a result of energetic particles colliding together to form more complex chemical reactions? Another question is if the singularity increased in mass what caused the increase in mass?
Space.com said that the Big Bang was possibly a singularity. How would such a singularity expand? From the books I have at home as well was watching NOVA and reading other articles when a loses its energy it collapses into a singularity.