http://broamalia.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/the-big-bang-theory-for-the-semi-educated-layperson/ Please, spread the word if the word is worth spreading. Wed, 17 Jun 2009 07:45:24 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 http://broamalia.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/the-big-bang-theory-for-the-semi-educated-layperson/#comment-22 broamalia Wed, 17 Jun 2009 07:45:24 +0000 http://broamalia.wordpress.com/?p=20#comment-22 most of the assertions i made in the article were based on my study of other people's research, but some of them, like the center of the universe being an exact point, and the even distribution of things at equilibrium, are based on probably irrisponsible inference. i wont contest what you say about the center of the universe, that seems to make more sense and ive never found research that suggests that the center was actually a known location. the even equilibrium, however, i should clarify. I should rather say that while the mass of the universe will probably exist in isolated pockets (planetoids and astroids and such) all energy however will have been converted into mass, the suns will have died out, and either collapsed to gravity wells or dispursed as nebulas that reform into inert mass (possibly over several cycles of reforming into progressively smaller, weaker stars). If at this point gravity is the only force involved, it wouldnt be sufficient to reconstitute the mass into another big-bang worthy, all-inclusive lump. Like you said, it will either collapse in its own weight into another big-bang, or if gravity cannot overcome the momentum of the expanding universe, it will dispurse and reach equilibrium, i believe these are the two prevailing sides. i wont go too far into it right now, but there was somethings i read about 1.)a theoretical force that einstien came up with, originally to fix a percieved flaw in his general relativity theory, which he later called the biggest mistake of his life, but recent research has brought back into the light as a possibility. it is something like (im really sketchy on the details) an attractive force between mass that increases in tandem with the distance between objects. 2.)its believed that there is possibly as much dark matter in the universe as regular matter, which isnt detectable by normal means, but would very nicely explain some irregularities, such as observed light from distant objects being bent and distorted for no apparent reason, and weird orbital destabalizations in some objects, etc. a final note in favor of the equilibrium thing, though, is that the universe is actually accelerating in its expansion (the einstien theoretical force might be repulsive, not attractive, which would explain this... like i said im quite sketchy on the details right now.) most of the assertions i made in the article were based on my study of other people’s research, but some of them, like the center of the universe being an exact point, and the even distribution of things at equilibrium, are based on probably irrisponsible inference. i wont contest what you say about the center of the universe, that seems to make more sense and ive never found research that suggests that the center was actually a known location. the even equilibrium, however, i should clarify.
I should rather say that while the mass of the universe will probably exist in isolated pockets (planetoids and astroids and such) all energy however will have been converted into mass, the suns will have died out, and either collapsed to gravity wells or dispursed as nebulas that reform into inert mass (possibly over several cycles of reforming into progressively smaller, weaker stars). If at this point gravity is the only force involved, it wouldnt be sufficient to reconstitute the mass into another big-bang worthy, all-inclusive lump.
Like you said, it will either collapse in its own weight into another big-bang, or if gravity cannot overcome the momentum of the expanding universe, it will dispurse and reach equilibrium, i believe these are the two prevailing sides. i wont go too far into it right now, but there was somethings i read about 1.)a theoretical force that einstien came up with, originally to fix a percieved flaw in his general relativity theory, which he later called the biggest mistake of his life, but recent research has brought back into the light as a possibility. it is something like (im really sketchy on the details) an attractive force between mass that increases in tandem with the distance between objects. 2.)its believed that there is possibly as much dark matter in the universe as regular matter, which isnt detectable by normal means, but would very nicely explain some irregularities, such as observed light from distant objects being bent and distorted for no apparent reason, and weird orbital destabalizations in some objects, etc.
a final note in favor of the equilibrium thing, though, is that the universe is actually accelerating in its expansion (the einstien theoretical force might be repulsive, not attractive, which would explain this… like i said im quite sketchy on the details right now.)

]]> http://broamalia.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/the-big-bang-theory-for-the-semi-educated-layperson/#comment-19 broamalia Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:13:34 +0000 http://broamalia.wordpress.com/?p=20#comment-19 http://www.youtube.com/user/TheBadAstronomer check this guy out, he's much more knowledgeable and better at explaining than i am http://www.youtube.com/user/TheBadAstronomer check this guy out, he’s much more knowledgeable and better at explaining than i am

]]> http://broamalia.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/the-big-bang-theory-for-the-semi-educated-layperson/#comment-17 banoth raju Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:46:46 +0000 http://broamalia.wordpress.com/?p=20#comment-17 i would like to know more about big bang it is really blasting what is going on please send me brnaik8 @rediffmai.com i would like to know more about big bang
it is really blasting
what is going on
please send me
brnaik8
@rediffmai.com

]]> http://broamalia.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/the-big-bang-theory-for-the-semi-educated-layperson/#comment-14 anton Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:07:30 +0000 http://broamalia.wordpress.com/?p=20#comment-14 http://www.youtube.com/user/TheBadAstronomer check this guy out http://www.youtube.com/user/TheBadAstronomer check this guy out

]]> http://broamalia.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/the-big-bang-theory-for-the-semi-educated-layperson/#comment-13 anton Mon, 01 Sep 2008 10:36:17 +0000 http://broamalia.wordpress.com/?p=20#comment-13 hello! That was a damn good way to explain the theory, pretty much anyone could grasp the model of it. Just a couple of things though, i thought (my references are outdated though) that the universe didn't have an absolute center, i thought that any point of observation appears to be center (check out badastronomy.com). the other thing is that i'm not sure the end of the article is quite right: if the force of gravity is strong enough to overcome the momentum of the universe then things will fall inwards, if not then things will continue to expand--but in a system as large as the universe entropy will not likely be completely uniform there will likely be isolated pockets of greater and lesser mass, and the pockets of greater mass, given the opportunity will accumulate more mass (even if the mass of the universe is distributed over the entirety of expanding space, given an infinite amount of time, i am under the impression that the random behavior of particles should still eventually create clumps of mass). Still, it sounds like you've read up on this more than me, and i assume scientific opinion on the matter is divided anyway so i can't really say any of this with certainty. hello! That was a damn good way to explain the theory, pretty much anyone could grasp the model of it. Just a couple of things though, i thought (my references are outdated though) that the universe didn’t have an absolute center, i thought that any point of observation appears to be center (check out badastronomy.com). the other thing is that i’m not sure the end of the article is quite right: if the force of gravity is strong enough to overcome the momentum of the universe then things will fall inwards, if not then things will continue to expand–but in a system as large as the universe entropy will not likely be completely uniform there will likely be isolated pockets of greater and lesser mass, and the pockets of greater mass, given the opportunity will accumulate more mass (even if the mass of the universe is distributed over the entirety of expanding space, given an infinite amount of time, i am under the impression that the random behavior of particles should still eventually create clumps of mass). Still, it sounds like you’ve read up on this more than me, and i assume scientific opinion on the matter is divided anyway so i can’t really say any of this with certainty.

]]> http://broamalia.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/the-big-bang-theory-for-the-semi-educated-layperson/#comment-3 Mia Pettyjohn Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:06:05 +0000 http://broamalia.wordpress.com/?p=20#comment-3 One of your better writings. Its very good. :) One of your better writings. Its very good.

]]>