Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well... Inform me on how the Big Bang ignited and what slowed us down in the space travel from the point of origin.
The person who came up with the big bang theory was a Catholic priest who thought it was a sure sign of creation by God.
Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia
And we seem to be accelerating, not slowing down...
I have already explained that cosmologists do not know what initiated the Big Bang. Would you please take the time to explain why you are asking a question that has already been answered? Be aware that it is frustrating when that happens. In some quarters it would be considered discourteous.Well... Inform me on how the Big Bang ignited and what slowed us down in the space travel from the point of origin.
Because it's catchy and alliterative, even if it isn't quite accurate.
Have you ever heard of sub atomic particles?E = mc2 or m = E/c2
I work in a lab with spectrometers. I have set up and used AA (atomic absorption), OES (Optical Emmissions) and ICP (plasma) spectrometers. We will energize metallic samples and measure the emission or absorption of light.
I have often wondered that if light is released from an atom as it is energized, if the elements were not created with wavelengths of light along with the heat of energy. As the big bang turned to plasma did the wavelengths of light determine the elements what would freeze as it would cool?
Have you ever heard of sub atomic particles?
Before the Big Bang was the generally accepted cosmological theory the other option was the Steady State universe, one of whose proponents was Sir Fred Hoyle. In a radio program on the BBC in the 1940s, discussing the two theories, Hoyle coined the phrase to help listeners grasp something of the idea. He has been accused of using the term to denigrate the theory, but he vigorously denied that this was the case.Then why call it a big bang?
It was not already answered.Before the Big Bang was the generally accepted cosmological theory the other option was the Steady State universe, one of whose proponents was Sir Fred Hoyle. In a radio program on the BBC in the 1940s, discussing the two theories, Hoyle coined the phrase to help listeners grasp something of the idea. He has been accused of using the term to denigrate the theory, but he vigorously denied that this was the case.
The colourful nature of the phrase and its simplicity made it popular across a wide spectrum of interests and it became generally used.
Now would you please state why you were asking a question that was already answered?
It was answered by me in post #91. I have emboldened the key words in a copy of the post, duplicated below.It was not already answered.
I don't say. I have philosophical objections to the Big Bang, but accept it because it is the best model, by far, to explain many observations in physics, chemistry, astronomy and cosmology. Until and unless a superior model is produced it would be obscene for me to discard it because of personal dislike.
As long as you understand that "ignited" is an inappropriate word, then I can say that cosmologists do not know what ignited it. There are various speculations, most of which - as I understand it - could not currently be tested and are therefore on the fringes of good science. Big Bang theory explores what happened a small fraction of a second after Time-Zero, until now.
My feelings are that I am dealing more with the old British ego than with anything else.It was answered by me in post #91. I have emboldened the key words in a copy of the post, duplicated below.
Your anticipated apology is accepted.
I think we are discussing cosmology and currently, specifically, the origin of the term "Big Bang". If you feel no apology was due then I apologise for the unwarranted assumption that you would wish to be courteous.My feelings are that I am dealing more with the old British ego than with anything else.
E = MC^2 is a simplification of the real equation.Yes, and it is interesting that the photon is considered a massless particle, or electromagnetic radiation, or, what I imagine, as pure c2 as it does not have the E which, attached to it, would give weight, or M.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?