Waziyata

--keya 13:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia\Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.mht The Big Bang is the prevailing cosmological theory of the early development of the universe. Cosmologists use the term Big Bang to refer to the idea that the universe was originally extremely hot and dense at some finite time in the past and has since cooled by expanding to the present diluted state and continues to expand today. The theory is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation.

[1]HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#cite_note-1"[2]

Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the Universe since that instant.

Well, yes the entry does give an accurate basic description only to go off on some tangents without giving much further explanation. {The universe was originally extremely hot and dense at some finite time in the past} due to the concentration of matter [mass} expanding {and has since cooled {decompressed} expanding to the present state.} Which is stating more than what meets the eye when you start to think the theory in it's total regression to the Beginning . . .

The observed abundances of the light elements throughout the cosmos closely match the calculated predictions for the formation of these elements from nuclear processes in the rapidly expanding and cooling first minutes of the Universe, as logically and quantitatively detailed according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

Strangely to my dismay upon looking up various terms and the theories which spawn them, I chanced upon “The Big Bang Theory”. I read the web page & then started looking for a link to what I had been taught?

Greene Turtle Stew

The Big Bang theory does provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the Universe since that instant.

Frankly, I think I originally heard initial instance as ”what happens when an irresistible force collides with an impenetrable mass. One; it is not a statement of “In the Beginning.” rather the projected motion of matter indicates it is expanding 'due to the concentration of matter ' => (mass per volume) or molecular (atomic, nuclear, matrix) density [of space]

. . . “general evolution of the Universe” . . .

While one might perceive that at some point in time 'All Matter [mass] exist as one body of matter => mass? Yet one may visualize our solar system as being evolved. For Example: If all the matter of our solar system were to contract toward the center, what would exist?

A) Big Blue Marble

B) Brighter (massive) Sun (star) . . . galaxy, etc. =>universe.

As to this point, “ has since cooled by expanding to the present diluted state.”

Again this statement is technically correct but does not portray the dynamics very well. The expansion would extend two components or aspects:

A) in the volume of space

B) in a direction away from a center point

*Wikipedia\Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.mht 

But it's also physically meaningless, in a sense. The present particle horizon is of interest only to us, not to any hypothetical observer at the Big Bang.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is being written for us, not for all possible hypothetical observers. The observable universe is what laypeople think of when they hear the term "universe", so references to it are a useful teaching aid. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC) But when referring to the early moments of the Big Bang, the "us" in question doesn't exist to declare what the relevant observable scale is. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)* '

"Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion in forward time required that the Universe contracted backwards in time, and would continue to do so until it could contract no further, bringing all the mass of the Universe into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space comes into existence.[16]"

• Note:* After the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiationin 1964, and especially when its spectrum (i.e., the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength) sketched out a blackbody curve, most scientists were fairly convinced by the evidence that some Big Bang scenario must have occurred.
  

The observed abundances of the light elements throughout the cosmos closely match the calculated predictions for the formation of these elements from nuclear processes in the rapidly expanding and cooling *first minutes of the Universe

• Note: No Unless like the biblical 7 days, they mean 'cosmic scale' first minutes?
  

“Explanation for such an initial condition;” then this super dense => ( *dark matter* ) "primeval atom" would still [abide] function then matter (mass) would still attract matter in proportion to the distance between them (or between their center of mass) => Mass Density would vary according to the distance from it's center?

As Classically defined then the density of matter (matrix density) of our space defines (has) relative functional values.

Therefore as we see matter as a function of electromagnetic waves (light) as characterized by absorption, reflection, etc.; we don't see, dark matter because the characteristic wavelength of dark matter "Acts as a black body & absorbs radiation in those wavelengths" . . . Higher density particles would produce shorter wavelength => higher frequency.

Can we readily (compare) see the formation of planetary systems in our daily lives, like foam insulation in a pressurized can? You squirt a little in a container & it expands . . sometimes we might use to much & it expands beyond our intent. Expanding beyond the limits of the container, perhaps even running down the sides or clumps of it separating, dripping globs of it which continue to expand and hardens (solidify). If we acccept that both our earth & sun => solar system, etc does exist in the present tense 'due to the concentration of matter ' or matrix density .

Which kind of makes me wonder about statements of the time line, though?

keya 14:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC) (inertia: resistance to change)

Action <=> reaction

Gravity <=> expansion