Big Bang...How Did it Happen?

you may or may not be, one does only have to see a few facts to understand certain things and doesn't have to be a genius. I don't have to be a scientist to understand that if I drop a pen it will fall to the ground even as a child I new this.

Ok, but the stuff we're talking about is way, way more complicated than that.For instance, you do essentially have to be a scientist to understand the consequences of the collission of two m-branes in higher dimensional space, which is one purported cause of the Big Bang.You do have to be a scientist to read this paper:

quote:

---

Large-scale sequencing of the CD33-related Siglec gene cluster in five mammalian species reveals rapid evolution by multiple mechanisms.

​

Angata T, Margulies EH, Green ED, Varki A.

​

Glycobiology Research and Training Center and Departments of Medicine and Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0687.

​

Siglecs are a recently discovered family of animal lectins that belong to the Ig superfamily and recognize sialic acids (Sias). CD33-related Siglecs (CD33rSiglecs) are a subgroup with as-yet-unknown functions, characterized by sequence homology, expression on innate immune cells, conserved cytosolic tyrosine-based signaling motifs, and a clustered localization of their genes. To better understand the biology and evolution of CD33rSiglecs, we sequenced and compared the CD33rSiglec gene cluster from multiple mammalian species. Within the sequenced region, the segments containing CD33rSiglec genes showed a lower degree of sequence conservation. In contrast to the adjacent conserved kallikrein-like genes, the CD33rSiglec genes showed extensive species differences, including expansions of gene subsets; gene deletions, including one human-specific loss of a novel functional primate Siglec (Siglec-13); exon shuffling, generating hybrid genes; accelerated accumulation of nonsynonymous substitutions in the Sia-recognition domain; and multiple instances of mutations of an arginine residue essential for Sia recognition in otherwise intact Siglecs. Nonsynonymous differences between human and chimpanzee orthologs showed uneven distribution between the two beta sheets of the Sia-recognition domain, suggesting biased mutation accumulation. These data indicate that CD33rSiglec genes are undergoing rapid evolution via multiple genetic mechanisms, possibly due to an evolutionary "arms race" between hosts and pathogens involving Sia recognition. These studies, which reflect one of the most complete comparative sequence analyses of a rapidly evolving gene cluster, provide a clearer picture of the ortholog status of CD33rSiglecs among primates and rodents and also facilitate rational recommendations regarding their nomenclature.

---

and understand what it says about the evolution of mammals. (That's just the abstract, by the way, where they usually simplify things a little bit.)This is science we're doing, and a fair bit of science outright contradicts common sense. Which it should, since "common sense" is nothing but what folks who don't know any better have been telling you is always true. Well, what the hell do they know?As it turns out, not as much as scientists. A bunch of what you consider "common sense" is outright wrong under some conditions. The universe is under no obligation to operate in a way that makes sense to you. Making sense of the universe through science starts when you stop demanding that everything make sense right away.

If you don't understand quantam-mechanics well then you don't know there is no cause. Scientist can know what there is but they cannot always say what there is not.

quote:

---

For instance, you do essentially have to be a scientist to understand the consequences of the collission of two m-branes in higher dimensional space, which is one purported cause of the Big Bang.

---

You don't have to be 10 to know that. I am 13 and I know alot about strings and quantim mechanics. Science interests me greatly and I have read alot of books and saw alot of documenteries about the inner-workings of our universe.HEY! I wanted a blue background around that quote. How do you do that.This message has been edited by Guidosoft, 08-28-2004 04:00 PM

No, it turns out that the most accurate quantum models are always the ones that include randomness and uncertainty; furthermore experiments to detect underlying structure have always failed.While it's true that we can't conclude for sure that there's no underlying determinism to quantum mechanics, it's also true that there's no reason to conclude that there is, and so asserting that "cause and effect" is a universal law is simply wrong. We don't know if it is or not, and the evidence suggests that it isn't.

Right, but how much of the math have you done?I was all up into this stuff when I was your age, too. I thought I knew all about relativity and shit, but then, when I got to college, I found out that what I knew was jack because I didn't know any of the math.It's one thing to have heard that time dialates as a function of velocity. It's quite another to see the mathematics that proved this to Einstein, or to even calculate the amount of time difference for a given velocity.I'm glad you're into science and I hope you continue that interest in your studies. But I also hope you come to the same realization that I did; that it's one thing to hear about science on PBS and quite another to do it yourself.

quote:

---

furthermore experiments to detect underlying structure have always failed.

---

so, experiments to create a program when I was 7 failed but succeded when I was 10. It's because I didn't understand some things. You must have a full understanding of something to dismiss or enstate(Hope I used that word right) laws or ideas about it otherwise it is a hypothesis or theory.

So we're agreed, we don't know if cause and effect is universal or not. No, it's neither of those things. Theory is what you have when you've come to an understanding.Until then, what you have is "conjecture."

Well, I have been looking for where I can learn physics math but I just can't find it online anywhere because it assumes to much prior knowledge of itself and therefore teaches you absolutley nothing.I have been programing enough to have the mathamatical skills to learn it. I am sure of it. I just need a place where I can find it.

That's starting with something to cause the nothing to explode which isn't starting from the beginning. right? You said it not me.

Common sense is a word that shouldn't even be used becuase it is sense that is common. Logic would be the better word. Lot's of people believe that magic is real so it is "COMMON" sense.

It's called "calculus". Start with that, or algebra.From there, I don't know where you go, because I sucked at math - because I always ignored it at your age, because I didn't realize how integral it was to science. Yeah, it generally assumes a working knowledge of calculus.I'd talk to one of your teachers. Tell them that you want to learn calculus ahead of schedule. They'll be able to set you up with the texts the upperclassmen use, or maybe even find you college-level texts. It turns out that these are two different kinds of math, sort of. Programming generally involves what they called at my college "discreet math", that is, functions that were not continuous.Continuous functions are calculus, and it's how you model physical motion.I wish I had some books to recommend, but I don't - I'm not really interested in math, because I suck at it.

I CAN'T MAKE THE BLUE BACKGROUND QUOTE THING!This message has been edited by Guidosoft, 08-28-2004 04:12 PM

I don't think m-branes count as "something", actually. They're certainly not matter or energy. I don't really know; I don't know anything about the theory.

It's something. If it exists it is something. Even in concept. Duh. A thaught in your head is something. Physicly it is in some format or code in your brain anyway so it can even be considered matter maybe.