now you've gone from predicting what will happen before the big bang
to asking about masses creating, life forming (things that happened after the big bang)
== you didnt think about that and its come out sounding stupid
Printable View
now you've gone from predicting what will happen before the big bang
to asking about masses creating, life forming (things that happened after the big bang)
== you didnt think about that and its come out sounding stupid
No, I'm asking how we calculate that with math.
"== you didnt think about that and its come out sounding stupid"
TViYH, the argument seems to be going like this?
sirlaughsalot: how can you explain X?
yakman: you can explain it with method G.
TViYH: how do you use method G to explain Y?!?! you cant.
if you see what im getting at, theres no responce other then to say you've made a mistake.
You can calculate throwing a ball because you actually KNOW something about the ball, where it is being thrown and with how much force. However with the big bang, you are trying to prove it by saying "We know what happened before it therefore we can prove it" my question is how can you use something, you have to use some kind of figures FROM the big bang to figure out what happened BEFORE the big bang which is supposed to prove the big bang... making it circular reasoning...Quote:
Originally Posted by Yakman
i see what you're trying to say, but you've misunderstood.Quote:
Originally Posted by sirlaughsalot
finding out what happens before the big bang doesnt give evidence for a big bang.
what gives evidence for the big bang is how the universe is expanding, and how there is a uniform cosmic background radiation, and a few other things which i wont go into here because its overkill.
Once we had good evidence for the big bang, we can ponder about what happened before it.
But also as I've already mentioned, it could be that working out what happened before the big bang doesnt make sense, because time started at the big bang so there was no before.
but then i Widget posted saying he could work out what happened before, and he hasnt posted a source of his information yet.
so Widget if you're reading, post your source!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aser
Thank you Yakman for paying attention to my posts. That should be all of the source you need.
Also for calculating masses that will be created they use a combination of Chemistry (to calculate the substances involved) and Quantum Physics (to calculate the forces and math involved)
If you don't know something you can mathematically solve for it by using surrounding information.
Simple example x + 3 = 5. You don't actually know what x is but you can find out by looking for things related to x that remain constant (3 and 5) by doing this you can find the x = 2. Just complicate that past understanding of a regular person and you have the high level mathematics that are capable of solving useful stuff.
Sure you can do that, but try to figure it out with 2 unknowns, you will find you can make whatever answer you want but they may or may not be right. for instance x+y=5 x stands for before the big bang y is the big bang and 5 is what the big bang created... That is a realistic example...Quote:
Originally Posted by Aser
Except that there are very many different factors. They know the speed at which the universe is expanding. This gives them the ability to track that back to determine velocities and trajectories for generic mass in the universe. If you know the velocity and trajectory of an object, you can find out where it was propelled from.
Supposedly they have calculated that the universe actually imploded. The forces of the implosion caused the universe to then bounce out. (Big Bounce Theory)
I'm going to guess that this kind of math is way beyond anybody here at SRL. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't work. (You might know this, just an example) You can find out the square root of a number by using derivatives. You may not understand how this is done. That doesn't mean it doesn't work.
Rt7 = 2.6457
You convert that into x^2 - 7 then take the derivative of that 2x. Then you get an x0 value by guessing a whole number it could be. In this case it would be 2. Then plug in the 2 giving you (fast track) 2 - -3/4 = 2.75 Repeated gives you 2.75 - .56/5.5 = 2.648. If the steps are repeated you will get 2.6457 eventually.
Just an example of how math can calculate things you might not think it could.
If I remember right the Big Bounce theory is that two (or more) other universes in the multiverse collided which exploded our universe outwards, so I guess that counts as both an explosion and an implosion (think of clapping your hands, you compress the air together between your hands and the force sends the air outward, creating the clapping sound).
Want a cooler Newtonian's Method to get the reciprocal of a square root?
All of that code is about 4 times faster than a single assembler FSQRT call. It's not 100% accurate, but it magically gets to within 0.1% (if I understand right).Code:float InvSqrt (float x){
float xhalf = 0.5f*x;
int i = *(int*)&x;
i = 0x5f3759df - (i>>1);
x = *(float*)&i;
x = x*(1.5f - xhalf*x*x);
return x;
}
Would you please tell me how it works? If you can't explain it, it must not work, right?
Edit: That's from the Quake III source code, which Id Software released awhile ago.
500th post :p
Is that to me? Asking to explain how what works, the method I posted above or your script?Quote:
Originally Posted by Widget
As to the other part. I can't explain TPA's and they work... :(
Ah yes a debate on the existence of God. :-). Such a vast and unknowing discussion. I usually am sad of it, because usually what happens when I get into a discussion on the existence of God, is everyone (including me) simply tells their points angrily and considers their point to be aboslutely true and that everyother argument is thus false and that there is no need to examine everyones claims. I hope this will not come to be and I will try in my own power not to do so as I fall into that view as well, well here I go. :-)
I personally believe in God. This is somewhat based off growing up in a Christian atmosphere but not solely contributed to that, I also had time to consider the possibilities in my own mind and come to a point where I believed in God.
I think a lot of times, including me, is that we tend to look God or the existence of God in a human sense which is fine, but we never come to the logic of the mind of God, if he truly does exist. If God does exist , his thoughts, his mind must be far more vast than our own. I say this because of the present state of science and complexity with all that exists. If God does exist then he must of created it.
I kind of want to explain a little my reasoning why I believe in God. To me it makes more sense, if everything is present as we see and to a certain degree there the state we are in on earth is perfect. The distance of the earth from the sun to perfectly give us enough heat/energy to sustain life, the plants creating oxygen for us to breathe and eat for food. I would state that is was by God's design to do so. This of course is not the only reason.
The behavior of man is quite remarkable to me. In a sense that even as children, we understand that we did something wrong. Like a simple lie, a simple steal of candy. There was some feeling that made you understand that the act was wrong. I ask why is that? Could it be genes? Learning? What christianity would say and what I would say is that, God implanted that into us. A moral law. A universal law. That tells us right for wrong. I am only stating a simple and short explanation of it and I hope that this interests you.
I am always happy to talk about God.
-Corn77
I think that a planet a certain distance from the sun, with all the stuff we need to live, was bound to happen in a universe this big. And I also think that this planet isn't perfect for us, but that we are perfect for this planet (though I hate to use the word "perfect"). You can look at penguins, and then at tropical birds, and the different environments they live in. If the earth was farther or closer to the sun (to a certain degree, I'm not talking a lot closer or farther), either one of those animals could probably survive here, given that they had a source of food of course: penguins could live near the equator if it was farther, and tropical birds could live near the north or south pole if it was closer. My point is that this planet isn't perfect for us, and could still support life if it was farther from or closer to the sun, and that life has adapted to fit any environment on the planet, be it extremely cold, or extremely warm; extremely dry, or extremely wet.Quote:
Originally Posted by corn77
I suggest you watch Nice Guys Finish First, a documentary by Richard Dawkins. He explains how morals could have developed through evolution better than I ever could. It's quite interesting.Quote:
The behavior of man is quite remarkable to me. In a sense that even as children, we understand that we did something wrong. Like a simple lie, a simple steal of candy. There was some feeling that made you understand that the act was wrong. I ask why is that? Could it be genes? Learning? What christianity would say and what I would say is that, God implanted that into us. A moral law. A universal law. That tells us right for wrong. I am only stating a simple and short explanation of it and I hope that this interests you.
Hello Bullszeye, That is a good point. And I appreciate it. Welcome, I can initally see that you are a logical man and I am honored to discuss this with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by bullzeye95
I really like your comment "we are perfect for this planet" and I know you dont like the word perfect, because it doesnt describe as well, as I would agree, perfect is a unique word. Our own ability to change according to our environment is quite remarkable as you have stated, but to the extent of saying that a penguin that is stationed at the north pole area to then be at the equator may be too extreme for it to survive. and so with the tropical bird.... And I know that you didnt mean it in that sense. but, there is a sense that whatever environment an animal is located that it will change accordingly, to a certain extent in my opinion.
I Kind of want to go back to Earth and its precise position to the sun. I would say that yes, in our own eyes it could be said that everything adapted and such in order to live in such a place, but I would also say that there is a bigger picture to it, that in the context of God. (were discussing about God right? xD) That God designed everything on earth to be able to sustain animals/plants/life... (see comment below xD)
Ill comment on this later. xD. I am actually in my university library and they are closing in a few minutes, so I must go. haha.Quote:
Originally Posted by bullzeye95
pleasure to discussing with you. :-)
-Corn77