A few Qs i have about of The Big-Bang Theory formulated by Georges Lemaître.

[TiercelR]

Hello all, this is my very first post here in this forum (after of my post of presentation).

I have a few Qs about of The Big-Bang Theory formulated by Georges Lemaître that have been sprouted since a some years ago. This Qs are placed here in a ramdom way (but not in an order).

I am asking here this Qs because one of the main bases of the scientific thinking (and also of the skeptic thinking) is questioning all the things for to obtain the answers that the person is looking for.


1.- If the whole floating objects (moons, planets, suns or stars, galaxies, small asteroids, comets, etc.) were at the first time an integral part of a kind of a very diminutive size object, how can be possible that (after of "the mega-explosion" of this very diminutive size object) all their expulsed thrown parts of it have been shifted to so gigantic floating objects in the outer space before of to be so "microscopical"? Have you a theory about of this particular phenomenom?

2.- This very diminutive size object that exploded out really was composed in their whole of all the chemical elements that do exist in our universe and in such inmense quantities? Have you a theory about of this particular phenomenom?

3.- If the force of the explotion of this very diminutive size object was so strong, how is possible that this particular force (force which still until today as strongest as it was since the moment of this explosion), so, how can be possible that this so powerful force is the weak enough for to thrown away (just in the same direction or way than takes the planets, suns or stars, galaxies, etc.) all the most smallest floating objects of our universe as are the moons, small planets, asteroids, comets, etc)? What i am refering in this Q is about why and how is possible that in the paticular circunstances of this mega-explotion do exist the orbits of the floating objects that firstly must be thrown away by this force without any minimal chance of to return repeatedly just in the same contrary direction of the direction that takes this mega-explotion almost without to be really affected by this force? Have you a theory about of this particular phenomenom?

4.- Why all the bigger floating objects of this universe have particularly a spherical shape while the smallest floating objects (as are the comets, asteroids, meteorits, a some moons, etc.) have particularly very asymmetrical shapes? All the millions of years passed since the mega-explotion do not was the enough time for to shape them too in a some spherical-like shape? Have you a theory about of this particular phenomenom?

5.- How can be possible the formation of solar systems, constellations and galaxies if the monumental force of this mega-explotion is supposed that is so strongest that "in theory" none of the floating objects could have "the time" for to end "hooked" to a "vulgar" and "ordinary" orbit? Really the gravity force of the solar systems, constellations and galaxies is much more strongest than the mega-explotion which "do form" this universe avoiding so the chaotic destiny of floating objects that do not have none orbit at all? Have you a theory about of this particular phenomenom?

6.- Why our modern telescopes still without to find floating spherical objects (like moons & planets) that are floating just alone in the outher space and without to have at all an orbit around of another floating body? Really all and each of the moons & planets that do exist in our universe actually are not alone and actually have an orbit for to follow or are outhere moons & planets without any orbit at all --because The Big-Bang Theory points to this chaotic view--. Have you a theory about of this particular phenomenom?

Well, i can have a few more Qs about of The Big-Bang Theory, but i can not remember them now.
Many thanks in advance for your commentaries!

 

[Thermal]

While we are just asking questions, I have a nagging one about galactic redshift. Most summaries say that most of the galaxies are moving away from us, hence the redshift in their light. But in the vacuum of space, wouldn't that mean we are on or near the center of the universe if they are mostly moving away from us? Or at the very least, shouldn't we all be moving at plus or minus the same speed in the same direction (away from BB ground zero), lacking enough friction to change the speed of expansion?

 

[theprestige]

While we are just asking questions, I have a nagging one about galactic redshift. Most summaries say that most of the galaxies are moving away from us, hence the redshift in their light. But in the vacuum of space, wouldn't that mean we are on or near the center of the universe if they are mostly moving away from us? Or at the very least, shouldn't we all be moving at plus or minus the same speed in the same direction (away from BB ground zero), lacking enough friction to change the speed of expansion?

Draw five dots close together on a balloon. Inflate the balloon. The dots all move away from each other. There is no ground zero on the surface of the balloon.

 

[Dave Rogers]

4.- Why all the bigger floating objects of this universe have particularly a spherical shape while the smallest floating objects (as are the comets, asteroids, meteorits, a some moons, etc.) have particularly very asymmetrical shapes? All the millions of years passed since the mega-explotion do not was the enough time for to shape them too in a some spherical-like shape? Have you a theory about of this particular phenomenom?

Taking this question in isolation, this is very simple and well understood. For a very large object, its own gravity is strong enough to overcome the strength of the material it's made of, so it pulls itself into something close to a sphere (not exactly spherical, because if it's spinning, the centrifugal force acts in opposition to gravity at its equator; as a result, the Earth is slightly greater in diameter at the equator than at the poles). However, the strength of gravity is much less in a smaller object, whereas the strength of the material it's made of remains the same. So, below a certain size - determined by what the object is made of - an object won't collapse into a near-spherical shape, however many billion years it has to do it.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

6.- Why our modern telescopes still without to find floating spherical objects (like moons & planets) that are floating just alone in the outher space and without to have at all an orbit around of another floating body? Really all and each of the moons & planets that do exist in our universe actually are not alone and actually have an orbit for to follow or are outhere moons & planets without any orbit at all --because The Big-Bang Theory points to this chaotic view--. Have you a theory about of this particular phenomenom?

If they're out there, very far away from us and from any other star, how would we see them? They wouldn't emit any light, and there wouldn't be a nearby star to illuminate them, so they would be completely dark on a completely dark background. Trying to find them would make looking for a black cat in a coal cellar look easy; there's simply nothing to look for.

Dave

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Disclaimer: I am not a physicist. It took me a while to write what you see below. I see Dave Rogers (and perhaps others—I haven't yet read the other responses) has already given good answers to a couple of the questions.

Hello all, this is my very first post here in this forum (after of my post of presentation).

Welcome to the forum.

I have a few Qs about of The Big-Bang Theory formulated by Georges Lemaître that have been sprouted since a some years ago.

As you read my specific answers to your questions, you will find that my answers mostly fall into one of these two categories:

• We don't know. It's a mystery. We'd like to find out.
• We understand that pretty well. The reason we understand it so well is that the same sort of progress in mathematics and science that led to technologies you rely upon when you use the Internet or your cell phone has also led to well-tested theories (such as Newtonian dynamics, general relativity, and quantum mechanics) that answer most of your questions.

1.- If the whole floating objects (moons, planets, suns or stars, galaxies, small asteroids, comets, etc.) were at the first time an integral part of a kind of a very diminutive size object, how can be possible that (after of "the mega-explosion" of this very diminutive size object) all their expulsed thrown parts of it have been shifted to so gigantic floating objects in the outer space before of to be so "microscopical"? Have you a theory about of this particular phenomenom?

Although I am not entirely sure what you're asking here, I am pretty sure the answer to whatever you're asking is yes, we have two extremely well-tested theories that explain how chaotic products of an explosion can coagulate into objects and structures of greater size. One of those theories, known as Newton's theory of gravitation, was first published by a guy named Isaac Newton way back in 1687. In the course of developing his theory of gravitation, Newton had to invent a branch of mathematics known as calculus. Together with Newton's laws of motion, those theories are the foundation for modern mechanical engineering (e.g. buildings and bridges) as well as sciences such as astronomy.

Although Newton's theories are good enough for almost all purposes here on earth, they are not perfectly accurate. That inaccuracy starts to matter when you need to deal with extreme situations such as the force of gravity near objects as large as the sun, or with extremely fast-moving objects, or with vast astronomical distances, or with the Big Bang. That is why, a little over a century ago, a guy named Albert Einstein developed the special and general theories of relativity.

A few years later, Georges Lemaître used Einstein's general theory of relativity to derive the Hubble–Lemaître law that describes our expanding universe. Combining that law with astronomical observations, Lemaître was able to publish the first estimate of the Hubble constant, which is a measure of how rapidly the universe is expanding at the present day.

That same program of research led Lemaître to realize the universe must have begun with what he called a "primeval atom", which is now commonly called a Big Bang.

2.- This very diminutive size object that exploded out really was composed in their whole of all the chemical elements that do exist in our universe and in such inmense quantities? Have you a theory about of this particular phenomenom?

Yes.

The familiar chemical elements did not exist at all until some time after the Big Bang. To understand what was going on shortly after the Big Bang, we rely on the theory of subatomic physics, which is based upon the theory of quantum mechanics, which is the theory that explains how neon lights and transistors and a lot of other familiar technologies work.

At some time after the Big Bang, subatomic particles began to combine to form the lightest elements (hydrogen, helium, lithium). By combining the theories of subatomic physics, quantum mechanics, and relativity, we have been able to understand how those three lightest elements came to be and in what proportion.

Most of the other elements that are familiar to you were formed still later, by the processes of nuclear fusion in stars.

Our understanding of the very earliest moments of our universe is limited by our present understanding of subatomic physics. One of the reasons physicists get so excited when new particles are discovered is that those particles may lead to a better understanding of what happened immediately after the Big Bang.

3.- If the force of the explotion of this very diminutive size object was so strong, how is possible that this particular force (force which still until today as strongest as it was since the moment of this explosion), so, how can be possible that this so powerful force is the weak enough for to thrown away (just in the same direction or way than takes the planets, suns or stars, galaxies, etc.) all the most smallest floating objects of our universe as are the moons, small planets, asteroids, comets, etc)? What i am refering in this Q is about why and how is possible that in the paticular circunstances of this mega-explotion do exist the orbits of the floating objects that firstly must be thrown away by this force without any minimal chance of to return repeatedly just in the same contrary direction of the direction that takes this mega-explotion almost without to be really affected by this force? Have you a theory about of this particular phenomenom?

Yes. Newtonian dynamics is adequate to give a rough explanation of that phenomenon, which has been refined by the general theory of relativity.

4.- Why all the bigger floating objects of this universe have particularly a spherical shape while the smallest floating objects (as are the comets, asteroids, meteorits, a some moons, etc.) have particularly very asymmetrical shapes? All the millions of years passed since the mega-explotion do not was the enough time for to shape them too in a some spherical-like shape? Have you a theory about of this particular phenomenom?

Yes. Newtonian dynamics and the Newtonian theory of gravity explain those phenemena quite well. There is no great mystery here.

5.- How can be possible the formation of solar systems, constellations and galaxies if the monumental force of this mega-explotion is supposed that is so strongest that "in theory" none of the floating objects could have "the time" for to end "hooked" to a "vulgar" and "ordinary" orbit ? Really the gravity force of the solar systems, constellations and galaxies is much more strongest than the mega-explotion which "do form" this universe avoiding so the chaotic destiny of floating objects that do not have none orbit at all ? Have you a theory about of this particular phenomenom?

In asking that question, you appear to be assuming a couple of things that basically aren't true. I have highlighted two of your mistaken or confused assumptions.

6.- Why our modern telescopes still without to find floating spherical objects (like moons & planets) that are floating just alone in the outher space and without to have at all an orbit around of another floating body? Really all and each of the moons & planets that do exist in our universe actually are not alone and actually have an orbit for to follow or are outhere moons & planets without any orbit at all --because The Big-Bang Theory points to this chaotic view--. Have you a theory about of this particular phenomenom?

By definition, there are no moons or planets that aren't in orbit around some other body.

Everything is affected by gravity, so there are no objects that lie completely outside the gravitational influence of other objects. Because the influence of gravity falls off with the square of distance, however, there can be objects that, for all practical purposes, lie outside the gravitational influence of other objects. Examples include extragalactic gas and plasma. Those examples exist in the form of individual particles such as ions, atoms, and molecules, so they don't really qualify as "floating spherical objects".

We have strong evidence for some mysterious stuff we refer to as dark matter, but most of that evidence involves dark matter associated with galaxies. We don't yet have a good theory of dark matter. In particular, I don't think we have a good theory of extragalactic dark matter.

Well, i can have a few more Qs about of The Big-Bang Theory, but i can not remember them now.
Many thanks in advance for your commentaries!

You're welcome. I hope you follow some of the links I've provided, and I hope you enjoy learning more about these fascinating subjects.

 

[Ziggurat]

Okay, my question about cosmology is, what sort of kind and loving god would create a font like Arial Narrow?

God is indifferent to our suffering. Existence is a waking nightmare.

 

[Thermal]

Draw five dots close together on a balloon. Inflate the balloon. The dots all move away from each other. There is no ground zero on the surface of the balloon.

Right, on the expanding plane they would all move away. Another balloon just inside the first balloon would see that it and the outer balloon, as well as other inner balloons, moving slightly slower or faster or largely at the same rate.

 

[Thermal]

Re: planets and solar systems and galaxies forming. Is the OP asking why the chaos ordered itself instead of moving towards more chaos?

 

[Ziggurat]

Right, on the expanding plane they would all move away. Another balloon just inside the first balloon would see that it and the outer balloon, as well as other inner balloons, moving slightly slower or faster or largely at the same rate.

In this analogy, you are a 2D entity confined to the surface of the balloon. You cannot see off the balloon. There are no other balloons. You live in a 2D space, and objects aren't moving out into empty space, the space itself is expanding.

Our universe is a 3D equivalent to that. The big bang is not objects expanding into an otherwise empty space. Matter is distributed throughout all of space, and space itself is expanding.

 

[Ziggurat]

4.- Why all the bigger floating objects of this universe have particularly a spherical shape while the smallest floating objects (as are the comets, asteroids, meteorits, a some moons, etc.) have particularly very asymmetrical shapes? All the millions of years passed since the mega-explotion do not was the enough time for to shape them too in a some spherical-like shape? Have you a theory about of this particular phenomenom?

Gravity. Gravity will crush any sufficiently large object into a sphere. Small objects do not have enough gravity to crush themselves into spheres.

6.- Why our modern telescopes still without to find floating spherical objects (like moons & planets) that are floating just alone in the outher space and without to have at all an orbit around of another floating body? Really all and each of the moons & planets that do exist in our universe actually are not alone and actually have an orbit for to follow or are outhere moons & planets without any orbit at all --because The Big-Bang Theory points to this chaotic view--. Have you a theory about of this particular phenomenom?

Are you asking why we don't see planet-sized objects floating around in interstellar space, but only around stars?

Well, the simplest reason is that they would be too dim. Stars are easy to see because they give off light. Planets outside our solar system are very hard to see because they only reflect the light of stars. Nearby planets are similar in brightness to stars even though they are much, much closer. It's actually extremely hard to see planets around other stars, and we have only been able to do that very recently. Even most planets around other stars we don't observe directly, but by their shadow as they pass in front of their star. A planet in interstellar space would receive very little light to begin with, and we would receive almost none of it. They would blend into the blackness of space.

 

[hecd2]

As it requires some effort to answer all of these fully (WDC has made a great start) I'm going to wait and see if this is a hit and run. But I'll just say now that extragalactic stars and planets (also known as rogue planets) not gravitationally bound into an elliptical orbit are known and observed.

 

[Thermal]

In this analogy, you are a 2D entity confined to the surface of the balloon. You cannot see off the balloon. There are no other balloons. You live in a 2D space, and objects aren't moving out into empty space, the space itself is expanding.

Our universe is a 3D equivalent to that. The big bang is not objects expanding into an otherwise empty space. Matter is distributed throughout all of space, and space itself is expanding.

Yeah, I get that, but when switching from a two dimensional reference to 3 or 4, the analogy self-negates. I've thought before that there might simply be no way for humans to conceptualize expanding time/space, except as a mathematical representation. I dunno.

 

[theprestige]

Yeah, I get that, but when switching from a two dimensional reference to 3 or 4, the analogy self-negates. I've thought before that there might simply be no way for humans to conceptualize expanding time/space, except as a mathematical representation. I dunno.

The analogy does not self-negate with more dimensions. It actually remains valid.

 

[pzkpfw]

Yeah, I get that, but when switching from a two dimensional reference to 3 or 4, the analogy self-negates. I've thought before that there might simply be no way for humans to conceptualize expanding time/space, except as a mathematical representation. I dunno.

Also from your earlier post ("away from BB") it sounds like you think of the BB as being an "explosion" that occurred in space, and everything is moving away from that place.

That's not how it's considered. The BB is everything (more or less; modified by gravity ...) moving away from everything else.

The tip of your nose is the centre of the BB and everything is moving away from it.

The tip of zognord's tentacle, on a planet at the furthest distance we've yet seen, is also the centre of the BB and everything is moving away from it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, I get that, but when switching from a two dimensional reference to 3 or 4, the analogy self-negates.

Why would it self-negate?

Perhaps you're hung up on the fact that surface of the balloon is a 2D object embedded in a 3D space. Extending that analogy requires that space be a 3D object embedded in a 4D space. But here's the thing: the embedding isn't actually necessary. Viewing a curved space as being embedded in a higher dimensional flat space is sometimes referred to as "extrinsic geometry". But if you're inside that curved space, you can find out everything there is to know about that curvature from within the space, even without access to (or even the existence of) a higher dimensional embedding space. Approaching geometry from within the curved space itself is referred to as "intrinsic geometry". The mathematics doesn't require any embedding to exist.

tl;dr: you need to do some abstraction to get from the analogy to our universe, but no negation is required.

 

[theprestige]

Thermal, you assumed that if one observes recession in all directions, one must be at or near ground zero of the recessive phenomenon. I gave you an example of a simple geometry that falsifies that assumption. It's also an easy way for laymen to visualize the kind of thing cosmological physicists are talking about. And cosmological physicists have been quite clear that they are talking about a ((much) more complicated) version of that same kind of geometry.

So what's your complaint? You don't understand the simple visualization? You don't like the simple visualization? You think cosmological physicists must be wrong about the geometry they're describing? You're just playing silly buggers? You think you gave some substantive point not covered by the possibilities I've listed?

 

[alfaniner]

A few Qs i have about of The Big-Bang Theory formulated by Georges Lemaître.

Here's an A: It's not God.

 

[theprestige]

Here's an A: It's not God.

Counterpoint: How can we possibly know what goes on in regimes where time doesn't exist yet?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Counterpoint: How can we possibly know what goes on in regimes where time doesn't exist yet?

Counter-counterpoint: How can anything "go" when time does not exist?