Simple Question on Big Bang

[Kinana]

these are not claims this is the truth, vacuum is indeed = energy. this has being proven in lab and the most direct evidence of it is Casimir effect. u refuse to accept it is your fucking problem, and with a basic degree will be able to get it. this very much shows how uneducated you are.

Vacuum may contain energy. so where did that energy come from? You did not answer.
Why shld anyone accept your stupid answers when you failed to clarify?

vacuum = energy, u are too stupid to view one as an object and the other as its property, this is classic physics level at lower level learning yes both are 2 view as one as "object" the other one as "property" the object has. ALL THE WHILE I HAVE BEING SAYING THEY ARE THE SAME THING AND THIS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT QUANTUM MECHANIC LEVEL FOR CLASSICAL LAWS NO LONGER WORKS STUPID FUCK. you cannot appreciate the beauty of quantum field that not my problem, i do not appreciate stupid people to do so.

asking where does energy comes from is as good as asking where does vacuum come from. YOU DO NOT NEED TO CREATE ANYTHING TO CREATE A VOID. are you really so stupid not to get this? this is in total agreement with the energy conversation principle that energy CANNOT BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED.

u have empty space, NOTHING IN THERE, BUT SPACE = ENERGY. so ENERGY IS ALWAYS THERE as space is energy. DO YOU NEED ANY FUCKER TO CREATE A SPACE? NO U DO NOT NEED. SO REPHRASE THE QUESTION TO WHERE DOES EMPTY SPACE COMES FROM? YOU WILL REALISED HOW STUPID YOUR QUESTION IS, COS THE ANSWER IS IT COMES FROM NOWHERE, IT IS ALREADY THERE

You used the concept of zero point energy didn't you?
If it is already the lowest energy, how then can it explode? You cannot answer but end up contradicting yourself sir.

 

[drifter]

who create god ?

 

[Ash007]

You guys should really stop feeding the trolls. You do know that trolls like to be fed.

 

[zhihau]

You guys should really stop feeding the trolls.

Sir, Yes Sir! :p:p:p

 

[Fook Seng]

bro,
if we give our mental capacity a little stretch, how big is that space? are we able to comprehend what can be found beyond the edges of the observable universe?

It really doesn't matter. Assuming you want to get off the edge of the universe? How do you do it? Whatever propulsion you use, you will, in no time, be pulled back into the universe by the collective gravitational attraction. Don't think you have the chance to see anything. Like God? Don't think anyone can get to edge of the universe. It would be like the beginning of time, the singularity that started the Big Bang.

 

[zhihau]

Don't think you have the chance to see anything.

bro,
assuming that the observable universe has a boundary, doesn't going beyond that boundary allows us to see the entire observable universe in its entirety? would be interesting to know its geometrical shape, isn't it?

 

[fishbuff]

bro,

me wouldn't fault kinana that much, even my good self had been trapped in the past, viewing stuffs strictly in a 3 dimensional view point. we're all brought up that way, fearful of the unknown, attributing unexplained phenomenon to another unknown. don't we as mathematicians do that too? "let X be the number of apples bought." the concept simply eludes kinana, or as simple as his/her refusal to accept the explanation

the beauty of science is perhaps being able to explain the most complex phenomenon using the simplest methods so that even a young child can understand. therefore, if kinana couldn't understand the complexity of the big bang theory, it means that it hasn't been simplified enough. that's all. do you recall Einstein's paper in 1905? the first paper on E=mc2 was a mere 3 paged article with calculations all inclusive.

speak of einstein, one of his explanation was; if your theory cannot be understood by the bar tender, it is probably no good.

 

[fishbuff]

bro, we all were trapped till our prof forced us to be enlightened in the finals LOL

you fellas are lucky to have tertiary education in your youth.

 

[Fook Seng]

bro,
assuming that the observable universe has a boundary, doesn't going beyond that boundary allows us to see the entire observable universe in its entirety? would be interesting to know its geometrical shape, isn't it?

Do we really want to go to the edge of the Universe to observe what we are seeing today? If so, I think we can only speculate because we have to travel faster than the speed of light to get to the edge of the observable universe which is showing what the universe was some 11 billion (or is it 14 b?) years ago at the start of the Big Bang. If we travel at below the speed of light we will never be able to get to the edge of the observable universe. It is forever getting further and further from us unless there is a reversal of the Big Bang which I pointed out in another part of the thread.

Although no one has actually detected a reversal of the Red Shift, there are signs of a slowdown in the expansion of the universe and some scientists with the help of appropriate maths can infer that the universe will go into a contracting phase. When that happens, your chance of travelling to the edge of the universe to find out what is happening becomes a little brighter, provided the speed of light remains the constant as it is today.

I am highly doubtful of this happening easily because to maintain relativistic principles from being violated, the dimension of time could very well slow down as increasing gravity would compress space-time making time seem longer and longer. You will experience a paradox not too dissimilar to your Schrodinger's Cat. Anyway we are dealing with space-time continuum, my friend.

 

[vamjok]

bro,
if we give our mental capacity a little stretch, how big is that space? are we able to comprehend what can be found beyond the edges of the observable universe?

actually the assumption on this in astrophysic is this: the universe is homogenious what u see at this point of space and at another point is the same, electron found here and at another point of the universe is the same as well (same for other subatomic particle). so where you are does not really matters.

then again this type of question no one will be able to really know the answer one la.

 

[vamjok]

Do we really want to go to the edge of the Universe to observe what we are seeing today? If so, I think we can only speculate because we have to travel faster than the speed of light to get to the edge of the observable universe which is showing what the universe was some 11 billion (or is it 14 b?) years ago at the start of the Big Bang. If we travel at below the speed of light we will never be able to get to the edge of the observable universe. It is forever getting further and further from us unless there is a reversal of the Big Bang which I pointed out in another part of the thread.

Although no one has actually detected a reversal of the Red Shift, there are signs of a slowdown in the expansion of the universe and some scientists with the help of appropriate maths can infer that the universe will go into a contracting phase. When that happens, your chance of travelling to the edge of the universe to find out what is happening becomes a little brighter, provided the speed of light remains the constant as it is today.

I am highly doubtful of this happening easily because to maintain relativistic principles from being violated, the dimension of time could very well slow down as increasing gravity would compress space-time making time seem longer and longer. You will experience a paradox not too dissimilar to your Schrodinger's Cat. Anyway we are dealing with space-time continuum, my friend.

As of current as far as i know, the universe is still expanding at an increasing rate due to the red shift observed from the stars. but it is not as fast as expected (that is where the dark material comes into play). the expand and contract version most do not agree with it.

 

[vamjok]

Vacuum may contain energy. so where did that energy come from? You did not answer.
Why shld anyone accept your stupid answers when you failed to clarify?




You used the concept of zero point energy didn't you?
If it is already the lowest energy, how then can it explode? You cannot answer but end up contradicting yourself sir.

STUPID FUCK VACUUM IS ENERGY NOT VACUUM HAS ENERGY.NOT ONLY ARE YOU STUPID IN UNDERSTANDING SCIENCE, YOU HAVE FUCKING PROBLEM COMPREHENDING BASIC ENGLISH. THIS IS WHAT I AM SAYING ALL THE WHILE.


its not explosion u urself keep saying explode explode. explode your bloody ass. i cannot answer or you too stupid up your fucking brain/lazy/high unemployment rate in your neurons to read and infer?

Energy = mass. this is at least the 3rd of 4th time (might be even more, i fucking lost count how many times i repeat the same thing, are you really so fucking stupid?)

vacuum is all the while emitting particle and antiparticle and they recombine to give void back. (how many more times u want me to type this u stupid fuck) There is a large till toward the particle and that is the start of the big bang. what causes the inbalance no one knows as yet, where are the complementary anti-particle no one knows as yet. one day we will know and u can fucking throw your stupid god idea out into the toiletbowl

 

[vamjok]

you fellas are lucky to have tertiary education in your youth.

No use la, only good for trolling that idiot. also working for others only to make own stomach full. u see drifter never study but is a boss of his own

 

[vamjok]

You guys should really stop feeding the trolls. You do know that trolls like to be fed.

its ok i am a troll myself, but a more intelligent one

 

[bullfrog]

Thot you know? It came from Lee Kuan Yew.

What exploded? Where did the energy came from?

 

[Kinana]

Thot you know? It came from Lee Kuan Yew.

Unfortunately none of thenm atheist have yet to answer.

 

[vamjok]

Unfortunately none of thenm atheist have yet to answer.

answer already, is you too stupid to understand it. in fact i keep repeat and repeat the same fucking thing over and over again. you are really dumb FUCK

 

[Kinana]

answer already, is you too stupid to understand it. in fact i keep repeat and repeat the same fucking thing over and over again. you are really dumb FUCK

No sir, you tried to BS with concepts you don't even know much about and eneded up contradicting yourself. Thats why you dare not answer my clarifying questions and end up using profanity.

 

[vamjok]

No sir, you tried to BS with concepts you don't even know much about and eneded up contradicting yourself. Thats why you dare not answer my clarifying questions and end up using profanity.

Who knows or who don't know its pretty obvious here. everyone here is singing the same tune, and you are the only idiot that did not see the picture. of course i do not blame you, its no one fault that you are stupid.

IS YOU TOO DUMB TO GET THE CONCEPT THAT VACUUM AND ENERGY IS ONE ENTITY. YOU KEEP ASSUMING BOTH ARE SEPARATE. I LOST COUNT HOW MANY TIMES I SAID THAT, I BET YOU DID BADLY IN CLASS, COS U ARE SERIOUSLY FUCKING SLOW. I DID GUIDE SEC LEVEL KIDS B4 BESIDE AT TERTIARY EDU DUE TO SOME UNWANTED ARROW, UR LEVEL OF INTELLIGENT I RATE HONESTLY BELOW RETARD

 

[Kinana]

Thanks for showing us your ignorance for all to see.

The concept of vacuum energy does not say that vacuum and energy are one my dear atheist boy. It simply says energy can exist in vacuum. You lied.


In the end, you still did not answer the question, what exploded?
Where did the energy came from?