Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,353 Year: 3,610/9,624 Month: 481/974 Week: 94/276 Day: 22/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big bang and Gases
joz
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 59 (22611)
11-13-2002 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Lemming
11-13-2002 11:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Lemming:
well gases go bang when ignited hence big bang when there is alot of gas, 2 gases that can ignite when put together could be a theory couldn't it ?
well i thought Scientists looked at all aspecs of the subject they was studying,i guess you didn't d'oh.... , why else would i bring it up?

LMFAO you should take some of your own advice....
From Create a Website | Tripod Web Hosting
quote:
Fifteen billion years ago, the entirety of our universe was compressed into the confines of an atomic nucleus. Known as a singularity
If all matter was confined to an atomic nucleus your 2 gasses scenario is hardly very relevant is it?
I think you need to go and do some reading, afterall this whole thread is based on a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of what you are trying to argue against.....
Joz - Bsc Physics and space science (Cantab)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Lemming, posted 11-13-2002 11:31 PM Lemming has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Lemming, posted 11-14-2002 10:49 AM joz has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 59 (22631)
11-14-2002 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Lemming
11-13-2002 11:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Lemming:
there fore you can infer up to the moment but can not infer at the point could that means something could have happen and possibly didn't ??? ........
If you mean that we don't know, then yes, you are correct.
quote:
i think you contradicting your misunderstandings of what you think are the implications of what i said works both ways nothing clever about that ......
Except that after about five physics classes you'll be kicking yourself.
quote:
Physics i know enough to say you can't divide something by 0
Aha... division by zero. I hate to break it to you but this isn't physics, its math. Ever wonder why you can't divide by zero? The short answer is that no one can figure out what to do if we allow it. In other words, it causes trouble so we kicked it out. This has nothing whatsoever to do with natural law.
quote:
so why are you even trying to do that if something has the value of 0 it means theres nothing
Ever notice that 1 + -1 = 0 ? Or 0 = 1 + -1 ? Interesting, we still have nothing but it looks different.
quote:
however some people would like to tell me other wise
But you are too smart for that.
quote:
i think that your that type of person
Am I also the type to tell you that your last sentence was a run-on sentence?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Lemming, posted 11-13-2002 11:48 PM Lemming has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Lemming, posted 11-14-2002 11:04 AM John has replied

  
Lemming
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 59 (22678)
11-14-2002 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by joz
11-13-2002 11:52 PM


lmfao
Fifteen billion years ago, the entirety of our universe was compressed into the confines of an atomic nucleus. Known as a singularity
If all matter was confined to an atomic nucleus your 2 gasses scenario is hardly very relevant is it?
what does atomic mean ? and also can something atomic be a gas? also can you have 2 types of atomic gases ?
first proposed by Einstein in 1924
[This message has been edited by Lemming, 11-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by joz, posted 11-13-2002 11:52 PM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by John, posted 11-14-2002 11:03 AM Lemming has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 59 (22685)
11-14-2002 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Lemming
11-14-2002 10:49 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Lemming:
lmfao <----- what happened here that technicaly not possible ....
And you are drawing this conclusion based on what?
The real irony here is that the evidence suggests it did in fact happen. That we can or cannot understand it is not the universe's problem. When you say it 'technically' can't happen, what you mean is that we don't how it could have happened. Wow... we don't know something. I'm stunned.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Lemming, posted 11-14-2002 10:49 AM Lemming has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Lemming, posted 11-14-2002 11:28 AM John has replied

  
Lemming
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 59 (22686)
11-14-2002 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by John
11-14-2002 1:23 AM


1 + -1 = 0 = -1 + 1 i agree it doesn't look right but lets do this sum under the exsistence of items
Lemmings cookies
Lemming has 1 cookie
John has -1 Cookies
Joz has a entire pack of cookies
if i was to give you john my cookie it would mean you would have 0 but i gave you a cookie so you should have 1 because you can't have -1 cookies this is where you could be wrong to have -1 cookies you must have borrowed 1 cookie and ate it but in the theory of the big bang no one has beable to rule this exsistence of anything out so its possible you could have borrow a cookie of joz now the cookie i have gave you now is in joz's hands so the maths now look like this
Lemming 0 cookies
John 0 Cookies
joz a pack + 1 cookie
So does this mean you should looking at exsistence before the BB ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by John, posted 11-14-2002 1:23 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-14-2002 11:20 AM Lemming has replied
 Message 28 by John, posted 11-14-2002 11:43 AM Lemming has not replied

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 59 (22690)
11-14-2002 11:18 AM


And what makes you think that the BB singularity obeys the same mathematical and physical laws as cookies?

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Lemming, posted 11-14-2002 2:53 PM Karl has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 59 (22691)
11-14-2002 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Lemming
11-14-2002 11:04 AM


quote:
So does this mean you should looking at exsistence before the BB ?
How many cookies were there before the Big Bang?
------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Lemming, posted 11-14-2002 11:04 AM Lemming has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Lemming, posted 11-14-2002 11:24 AM Primordial Egg has replied

  
Lemming
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 59 (22693)
11-14-2002 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Primordial Egg
11-14-2002 11:20 AM


am i right to say Atom's can do exactly what i did with those cookies?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-14-2002 11:20 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-14-2002 11:27 AM Lemming has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 59 (22695)
11-14-2002 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Lemming
11-14-2002 11:24 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Lemming:
am i right to say Atom's can do exactly what i did with those cookies?
Not sure what you did with those cookies to be honest. Didn't you give them to John?
------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Lemming, posted 11-14-2002 11:24 AM Lemming has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Lemming, posted 11-14-2002 11:36 AM Primordial Egg has not replied
 Message 27 by Lemming, posted 11-14-2002 11:42 AM Primordial Egg has replied

  
Lemming
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 59 (22696)
11-14-2002 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by John
11-14-2002 11:03 AM


Technically laughting your butt off is not possible unless you add other things to its conclusion lets see rotton flesh then its possible
if you add thingas to a theory that are logical its can become possible but we knew that .....
and the maths which you stated is only possible in the way i stated Right or its only logical in the way i explainned it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by John, posted 11-14-2002 11:03 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by John, posted 11-14-2002 11:46 AM Lemming has replied

  
Lemming
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 59 (22697)
11-14-2002 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Primordial Egg
11-14-2002 11:27 AM


no i didn't just do that
let me explain it this way
john had borrowed a cookie and ate it or did something to it to make in disappear this gives him 0 cookies but he had to give it back to the person who borrowed it him giving john -1 cookies
i had 1 cookie which i gave john meaning he has 1 cookie and plus i gave it him meaning he doesn't have to give me it back but because john borrowed a cookie he has now got to give that back
the reason for joz's pressence is that john borrowed his first cookie off joz and then gave back the cookie in which i gave john making the sum add up
That means you have got to look at the exsistence of something else to make what you are trying to say logical
now should you be looking at exsistence before the big bang ?
[This message has been edited by Lemming, 11-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-14-2002 11:27 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
Lemming
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 59 (22699)
11-14-2002 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Primordial Egg
11-14-2002 11:27 AM


playing dumb and avioding or to ignore something that was perfectly Logical is totally stupid wonder if those scientists studying some of these things do what you have just done because it seems like it
[This message has been edited by Lemming, 11-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-14-2002 11:27 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-14-2002 12:11 PM Lemming has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 59 (22700)
11-14-2002 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Lemming
11-14-2002 11:04 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Lemming:
1 + -1 = 0 = -1 + 1 i agree it doesn't look right but lets do this sum under the exsistence of items
I'm sorry. What exactly DOES NOT LOOK RIGHT? You did take first grade math, right?
quote:
if i was to give you john my cookie it would mean you would have 0 but i gave you a cookie so you should have 1 because you can't have -1 cookies
As has been pointed out already, why do you think the physics of the BB follows the same laws as that of cookie distribution?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Lemming, posted 11-14-2002 11:04 AM Lemming has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by joz, posted 11-14-2002 5:09 PM John has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22473
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 29 of 59 (22701)
11-14-2002 11:46 AM


The singularity that existed just prior to the Big Bang was a quark plasma, sometimes referred to as a quark soup in popular literature. It wasn't matter as we know it. Only some time after the Big Bang began did the universe become cool enough (though still incredibly hot) for the quarks to combine to form sub-atomic particles like protons, neutrons and electrons. Some additional time passed before additional expansion and cooling allowed these particles to combine into atoms, mostly just hydrogen, a little helium, and a very little lithium.
A chemical explosion such as might occur if you provided a spark to a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen is the wrong analog for the Big Bang. The Big Bang was not the result of chemical forces, because such forces only exist between elements, and no elements, ie, no atoms, existed at the time of the Big Bang. It was due to the interaction of the fundamental properties inherent in matter and energy, and to properties inherent in the universe itself.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Lemming, posted 11-14-2002 4:41 PM Percy has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 59 (22702)
11-14-2002 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Lemming
11-14-2002 11:28 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Lemming:
Technically laughting your butt off is not possible unless you add other things to its conclusion lets see rotton flesh then its possible
What?
[quote][b]if you add thingas to a theory that are logical its can become possible but we knew that ..... [/q][/quote]
What?
quote:
and the maths which you stated is only possible in the way i stated Right or its only logical in the way i explainned it
What?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Lemming, posted 11-14-2002 11:28 AM Lemming has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 11-14-2002 12:11 PM John has not replied
 Message 33 by Lemming, posted 11-14-2002 12:36 PM John has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024