Does E=MC^2 Exist in Universal Constant Prior to the Big Bang?
- Thread starter Dryson
- Start date
E = M*c ^ 2 and c = Distance / Time
Prior to big bang the universe was infinitely dense.
Therefore zero distance.
E = M (0/T) ^ 2 = 0
So no matter, no energy. Thus the universe has no matter or energy...which means you do not exist.
Discussion over, I'm not arguing with a figment of somethings imagination.
Prior to big bang the universe was infinitely dense.
Therefore zero distance.
E = M (0/T) ^ 2 = 0
So no matter, no energy. Thus the universe has no matter or energy...which means you do not exist.
Discussion over, I'm not arguing with a figment of somethings imagination.
^
H(x)|Psi> = 0
There you go. Fiat lux.
H(x)|Psi> = 0
There you go. Fiat lux.
Not even wrong for the simple matter of fact there would had to have been matter and energy prior to the Big Bang in order for the Big Bang to occur because just like you stated nothing comes from someone's, that being God, figment of an imagination.
I was reading a section from Funk and Wagnel's regarding heat.
Heat always travels or transfers from the hottest point to the coldest point.
Perhaps prior to the Big Bang there was a tremendous amount of energy released somewhere else in the Universe where the heat generated by the releases of energy traveled across space and time's particle network until it found a colder place in space where the heat or the transfer collected in the cold spot and then rapidly expanded outwards across the network until the heat had dissipated enough to allow for solar creation.
But what kind of heat would it have been? Possibly Dark Matter or Dark Energy produced heat.
Heat always travels or transfers from the hottest point to the coldest point.
Perhaps prior to the Big Bang there was a tremendous amount of energy released somewhere else in the Universe where the heat generated by the releases of energy traveled across space and time's particle network until it found a colder place in space where the heat or the transfer collected in the cold spot and then rapidly expanded outwards across the network until the heat had dissipated enough to allow for solar creation.
But what kind of heat would it have been? Possibly Dark Matter or Dark Energy produced heat.
Funk and Wagnel (sic) or more probably Funk & Wagnall's New Encyclopedia, last printed in 1997, was not really known as a primary-source Physics textbook. I guess the final edition might have articles on statistical thermodynamics, black-hole entropy, the Bekenstein bound, and even the CMB, but it is likely to be quite out of date on these topics and the latest findings in Cosmology.
It's fascinating how people with absolutely no understanding of a scientific field can confidently declare their own theories that the entire profession has just missed or got wrong.
I'm no professional, but I have a slightly better understanding of the topic than Dryson, so I'll offer a brief critique.
In the currently favored cosmological model, eternal inflation, time does not begin at the Big Bang. Rather, time begins at something like the instanton, a hypothesized beginning of the inflation field. Our post-Big Bang universe is but one of an infinite set of bubble universes embedded within the inflation field. Energy density in the inflation field is extreme, but not infinite.
I'm no professional, but I have a slightly better understanding of the topic than Dryson, so I'll offer a brief critique.
In the currently favored cosmological model, eternal inflation, time does not begin at the Big Bang. Rather, time begins at something like the instanton, a hypothesized beginning of the inflation field. Our post-Big Bang universe is but one of an infinite set of bubble universes embedded within the inflation field. Energy density in the inflation field is extreme, but not infinite.
Yup, it's a bit like good old Fred Hoyle's steady bang theory on steroids. Most of us poor ape-creatures have a hard time even getting our heads around the ideas popularised by Max Tegmark in Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality. Of course, many envious physicists will snort derisively that "it's not even wrong."
I'm not an expert on social media, but this thread has jumped the sharknado.
Sharks are out altogether. We nuke fridges now.
Chainsawing sharks! Send for Damien Hirst immediately!
Declaring your own hypothesis can be okay as long as you can make a good case for it. The problem is the OP clearly doesn't understand what the so-called "Big Bang Theory" actually says. To wit:
Time isn't defined before the Big Bang, so there was no "prior". Space wasn't defined before the Big Bang, so there was no "elsewhere". Until you understand that, you'll just be spouting gibberish.
Or, it's fine to have your own theory. Just explain it -- but don't keep referring to the existing "Big Bang Theory" which is incompatible.
It's not the heat. It's the humidity.
This thread is the sharknado. I'm waiting for the OP to bite my head off.
Knock it off, Hudson.
That's it, man. Game over, man. Game over.
Similar threads
