The 'Singularity'

[Y0u_G0t_Pwn3d]

From what I understand, from my limited knowledge of theoretical physics, the current singularity theory is that the universe was infinitely small and had infinite gravity and just somehow exploded into the universe which we know. How would you explain the explosion of the 'singularity' point?

If the universe is continuously growing then would it not gain so much mass that it just beings to collapse in upon itself? Making another infinitely small point with infinite gravity, therefore continuing the cycle? or am I thinking of this all wrong?

 

Do you really believe anything in reality can have infinite gravity or be infinitely small?

 

[Y0u_G0t_Pwn3d]

Well, thati s the problem I had with this theory. Infinite is just a word we use because we cant grasp the massive number which the true answer is. I am just wondering how could a tiny point just explode into an entire massive universe?


And if we allow for the mathematical models of the multiverse then our laws of physics do not apply in every universe. So therefore infinite could be a possibility, so there COULD have been something so small and so gravitated that it can only be described as infinite.....

 

Well, thati s the problem I had with this theory. Infinite is just a word we use because we cant grasp the massive number which the true answer is. I am just wondering how could a tiny point just explode into an entire massive universe?


And if we allow for the mathematical models of the multiverse then our laws of physics do not apply in every universe. So therefore infinite could be a possibility, so there COULD have been something so small and so gravitated that it can only be described as infinite.....

If the physical laws do not apply in 'other universes' and 'other universes' are a result of a mathematical model, then the mathematical model is self-contradictory. Reason, logic, mathematics are based on physical reality. We are reasoning from our physical laws in order to conclude that they are only relative physical laws, which makes the entire argument in contradiction with its own premises.

 

[Y0u_G0t_Pwn3d]

True, but if every possibility was allowed for, that would make anything possible...

Therefore we have no concept of what those possibilities are, but I digress to my original question. How does the universe explode from a small point, what is the logic behind this theory.

 

True, but if every possibility was allowed for, that would make anything possible...

Therefore we have no concept of what those possibilities are, but I digress to my original question. How does the universe explode from a small point, what is the logic behind this theory.

Well I'm trying to point out that there really is none. The big bang is a pretty piss-poor hypothesis.

I'm sure a big-bang fanboy will come along and expound on the theory explaining that background microwave radiation and red-shifted galaxies prove it in some way.

 

[FreedomFight]

The big bang does not postulate for a pre-universe existence. The very clear evidence is that the universe outwardly expanded from a much smaller size, whether it be infinitely small is not entirely known.

In basic terms, this is what we know.

1. The universe is expanding outwardly extremely fast. Evidence: Doppler effect, see: Blue Shift, Red Shift.

2. The universe once started at a much smaller area. Evidence: We are expanding roughly from the same area.

3. The singularity theory: The universe itself contains a lot of mass. When density hits a critical point (mass over volume), we observe that the outward nuclear forces submit to an overwhelming force a gravity.

In simplistic terms, we do observe singularity phenomenon today. The black hole idea was coined a few decades ago, though only modern technology has confirmed that they probably do exist. There are both empirical and theoretical evidence for these features. I would also be clear the existence of a black hole would not prove the Big Bang.

 

The Big Bang wasn't just simply a sudden explosion out of nothing, if it was then that would prove creationism to be correct. It's believed that two or more particles collided at greats speeds (same as that of light, even faster) and created an explosion intense beyond belief, creating more and more matter.

 

[Repentless]

We should just accept that we don't know what really happened, no matter how much we debate it.

I was hoping this was about technological Singularity.

 

[The Fat Controller]

Well I'm trying to point out that there really is none. The big bang is a pretty piss-poor hypothesis.

I'm sure a big-bang fanboy will come along and expound on the theory explaining that background microwave radiation and red-shifted galaxies prove it in some way.

The observational evidence does support a big-bang like scenario though, doesn't it?

 

[misha]

In theory the universe was a singularity with not "infinite" gravity and mass but "close to infinite"
meaning that though it was crushed down smaller than a particle it still could be weighed on a scale is they had precise variants on the density of a Small piece of matter from a section. in thus the singularity may be a possibility that the universe is in a constant cycle with it

 

[Macroman]

Do you really believe anything in reality can have infinite gravity or be infinitely small?

Do you really believe something cannot be infinitely small or have infinite gravity? It's highly theoretically improbable but we know so little about our Universe.

 

[R4n3r-Beast]

If the physical laws do not apply in 'other universes' and 'other universes' are a result of a mathematical model, then the mathematical model is self-contradictory. Reason, logic, mathematics are based on physical reality. We are reasoning from our physical laws in order to conclude that they are only relative physical laws, which makes the entire argument in contradiction with its own premises.

Holy crap i was gonna say that too, except in a less complicated way.

Case and point, Second law of Thermodynamics, Entropy, look it up, its a vast contradiction to the Big Bang Theory the OP stated.

 

[FreedomFight]

Case and point, Second law of Thermodynamics, Entropy, look it up, its a vast contradiction to the Big Bang Theory the OP stated.

Maybe you're the one who needs to look it up, not the rest of us. In short, the law states that entropy always increases. How do you know that there was less entropy before the big bang occurred? This contradiction only applies in the oscillating universe theory.

The second law of thermodynamics is also only applicable to closed systems, so you'd first have to prove the universe is one. Can you show me evidence that the universe isn't an open system?