04-05-2011, 04:45 PM
Quote:indeed concentration of energy was needed, but where did this come from? if it isnt so not organised afterall. they say it came from quantum mechanical fluctuationwithin a vacuum but no vacuum existed before the Big Bang. everything is based on preexisting matter or energy, EVERYTHING.
"It came from quantum mechanical fluctuation within a vacuum". I don't know where did you hear that energy came from there. Nobody knows where did the Big Bang come from. And quantum fluctuations don't explain where did the energy come from. Because of the quantum fluctuations, you can say in simple words, that no matter how stable and not moving you keep the particle, it is still moving just a little because of the uncertainty principle, and since it moves, it has some energy.
It's not that quantum fluctuations gave the whole energy to the Universe.
Quote:what made the big bang be the big bang? the mass concentration just proposed in this theory would rly remain forever bound as a universal black hole and the gravity itself is the problem, it would prevent it from expanding outward.Universe isn't in a zone, where the gravity keeps the whole thing from expanding. Hence, it's already proven that Universe is expanding, so that means that at the very moment of the Big Bang Universe was at the point, where gravity wasn't strong enough to keep the things in one point.
Quote:and what is the natural way for formations of planets,stars,galaxies? if there was explosion it should produce outward sprays of gas and radiations etc. and the gas would be expanding and not form planets,stars,entire galaxies.Not the gas is expanding, but the whole velocity of Universe is rising. We are not expanding, Earth is not expanding, gases are not expanding. I don't really know if this is right here, but the dark matter might be expanding (the matter that is between the galaxies, stars, etc.). Imagine a pie with raisins - if you expand the pie (dark matter), raisins (known normal matter) don't necessarily expand.
Quote:big bang relies(some versions of big bang) the equal production of matter and antimater, but e.g in spaces u find only small traces of antimatter positrons and antiprotons...........No, the amount of anti-mater isn't equal to the amount of matter. You probably mixed that with the total amount of positively charged particles and negatively charged particles, which, in the sum, make the charge of 0.
And if we can't find something, that doesn't mean that doesn't exist (for example, dark matter, dark energy).
Quote:there is still no 100% proof about universe's age and some of the experiments relys on that, that the universe is too young for all the evolution theoriesThere won't be 100% proof (not crossing the Sci-Fi boundaries). But according to Hubble's Law, which is quite accurate, we know approximately the age of the Universe.
Quote:QUOTING NEXT(its hard to example,but it is indeed interesting, specially the density,distribution of the mass itself. )I don't see anything new here. We know that Universe is expanding with an acceleration.
"Missing Mass: Many scientists assume that the universe will eventually stop expanding and begin to collapse inward. Then it will again explode and repeat its oscillating type of perpetual motion. This idea is an effort to avoid an origin and destiny for the universe. For oscillation to occur, however, the universe must have a certain density or distribution of mass. Space Exploration. Illustration copyrighted.So far, measurements of the mass density are 100 times smaller than expected. In fact there are indications that the universe is accelerating outward instead of slowing down. The universe does not appear to be oscillating. The necessary mass or “dark matter” is “missing.” "
Quote:u mentioned the formations etc. etc... what about formations around the galaxy? universe was evolving, u even mentioned the time and evolution with it, the universe should be filled with radio singlas from intelligent life forms =OOOOUseless discussion here. We don't know what kind of forms could evolve, smarter or not, what they could have found (maybe they don't even know what is a radio signal). And the distances in the Universe are so damn big, that it would take thousands, millions, billions of years for the signals to reach us from some galaxies.
Quote:what about neutrinos, because they should flood the earth because of the sun's fusion, there are so small, so "not real" science should not speak about originality at all there......Well, what about neutrinos? I don't see your question there. Yes, they are small and they are already discovered.