The Universe

First, what do you mean "cosmic egg"? Second, what precicely do you think the big bang IS? Or was.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

First, what do you mean "cosmic egg"? Second, what precicely do you think the big bang IS? Or was.

"It is believed that the entire mass of the universe was compressed into a singularity, from which it expanded to its current state (the Big Bang), the so-called cosmic egg."

What do you mean?

The Cosmos is constantly expanding every hour, of every minute, of every second. Technically, it doesn't end.

Also, space is curved, basically.

EDIT: All of my science knowledge comes from Carl Sagan's Cosmos, so don't quote me on this shit.

I have question- if the big bang did happen, are planets, stars, minerals, still being created as we speak, as you said, "light energy" being transformed into mass?

if we can ever travel faster than teh spead of light (which Einstein says we can't) we will be able to view long into the past, even maybe the earth being formed. The light should, theoretically, still be travelling into space. If we could travel far enough at faster than light speed, we could travel far enough the point where we can see the light that was emitted- just like how right now we are seeing the past of stars- the stars we see outside, the time it took teh light from teh stars to reach us is 10,000 years.

Btw, I do not take any credit for what I just said, I never though of it. Someone told me it.

Quote :

"It is believed that the entire mass of the universe was compressed into a singularity, from which it expanded to its current state (the Big Bang), the so-called cosmic egg."

Well, the mass was energy, but sure. Personally I don;t like the term "egg" since it is anything but, in either shape or form, unless said egg has burst violently, but sure.

Quote :

I have question- if the big bang did happen, are planets, stars, minerals, still being created as we speak, as you said, "light energy" being transformed into mass?

Uh... they HAVE mass. Light is being transfered into matter, and matter has mass.

Quote :

if we can ever travel faster than teh spead of light (which Einstein says we can't) we will be able to view long into the past, even maybe the earth being formed. The light should, theoretically, still be travelling into space. If we could travel far enough at faster than light speed, we could travel far enough the point where we can see the light that was emitted- just like how right now we are seeing the past of stars- the stars we see outside, the time it took teh light from teh stars to reach us is 10,000 years.

If we could travel faster than light, sure, yeah. Sounds right. Beat the light to the camera, as it were.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

It was somewhat relevant, it's not like I'm posting whole posts dedicated to degrading others. How is it more irrelevant than CKX talking about me in threads like Stalin's 130th birthday.

It was completely irrelevant.

I haven't been observing the conversation in that thread; Liche has, you could have asked him to resolve the issue.

/endconversation

Quote :

The Cosmos is constantly expanding every hour, of every minute, of every second. Technically, it doesn't end.

Wouldn't it end where it hasn't yet expanded? Unless we consider the void of space to be a part of the universe.

This also takes us to the question what happens when (if) the universe can't expand anymore. My friend told me a little about Hawkings' theory, and some other guy who predicted the universe would collapse or something. My friend thinks that "time" will reverse... There's a lot of crazy theories out there.

Quote :

Also, space is curved, basically.

I think you're saying what i was trying to say. Maybe i missed the mark. Like if we were to imagine ourselves inside a giant, expanding, possibly warped globe, right?

Quote :

Wouldn't it end where it hasn't yet expanded? Unless we consider the void of space to be a part of the universe.

This would likely just be an argument of terminology, ultimately.

Like I said, I don't know nothing about nothing. But I can tell you this, BC: your friend isn't too far off. I just wouldn't use the world "collapse." Check out one of the many interviews that The Daily Show has with Neil deGrasse Tyson. He explains this idea briefly in one of them.

Also, Carl Sagan has a short segment in his TV series that addresses the whole "curved" thing. Basically, he's saying that space exists in four dimensions. But I'll let him explain it.

You mean like the universe expands to a certain point, until "its own gravity" causes it to collapse on itself (big crunch)?

I mean, how exactly do you turn light into compounds like oxygen? And aren't photons massless?

As I said to you, Alex, in our conversation, "Long, complicated proceses that I, personally do not grasp."

Well, matter decays back into light all the time. Also, is plants using sunlight to make sugars a comparison?

Not QUITE, but I suppose, in a simplistic, VERY simplistic, way.

But it is not at all done in the same proceses.

Of course not the same process. But it just shows light can be turned into other things, I guess.

Yes.

WeiWuWei wrote:

Like I said, I don't know nothing about nothing. But I can tell you this, BC: your friend isn't too far off. I just wouldn't use the world "collapse." Check out one of the many interviews that The Daily Show has with Neil deGrasse Tyson. He explains this idea briefly in one of them.

Also, Carl Sagan has a short segment in his TV series that addresses the whole "curved" thing. Basically, he's saying that space exists in four dimensions. But I'll let him explain it.

Thanks. I took a look, and its trippy. The part where the 2D square was floating reminded me of acid trips, and what i imagine taking dmt is like.

Couldn't find any youtube videos of DeGrasse on the daily show though.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

They exist, but its like they don't???? energy?

Nothing exists silly human, when will your species learn.

Alex, would you be so kind as to explain me what they get in particle accelerators?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Alex, would you be so kind as to explain me what they get in particle accelerators?

? What's your point?

I think he means that it's one thing they can do with particle accelerators.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

I think he means that it's one thing they can do with particle accelerators.

Yup.

So would you be so kind Shurik?

What's that?

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

What's that?

What's what? You mean "Shurik"? It's a way of saying "Aleksandr" in Russia. It's like "Johnny" for "John".

Oh. A nickname.

Its a diminutive version of the names Alexander and Alexandra.

A cathode ray tube is an example of a particle accelerator. And hey look, I'm looking at one right now! What do I see? What is this cathode ray tube doing?

I hope this answers your question.

If by particle accelerator you mean a machine smashing various particles together at incredible speeds, then yes, your computer is a particle accelerator, though I wasn't aware a computer did that.