Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.

[NiteStryker]

Originally Posted by n0e

Perhaps they're thinking outside the box more then you realize. The normal view is that it all started from somewhere. They're talking about something that defies current logic and our understanding of how things work. But how much do we really know about space and what is out there? We're still stuck on one planet out of an untold number of trillions.

How can the universe always exist, but we can measure the light as being some 13 billion years old?

[Mr. Pedantic]

Particals are something.
Particals were created in the big bang conversion.
Everything is not energy.Well it is, but it isnt.
Everything contains energy.
A rock is a rock, and its energy is usually bound by its mass and density.
But its still a rock, made from rock particals.
And just to keep you interested...
What is energy ?

But what if you annihilate something with its antimatter equivalent? Where do your "particals" go?

And rocks are not primarily bound by mass and density. Rocks are primarily bound by energy.

[Admiral Donutz]

Originally Posted by jackripped

Your mixing what you know now with what used to be taught l think.

Perhaps, sadly I don't have access to my highschool books anymore so I can't check to see what the wrote.

[Showd0wN]

Your mixing what you know now with what used to be taught l think.

So are you. Well you're stating what you've been taught, but this is high school physics and so is not always entirely accurate (read: mostly inaccurate).

There were no particals before the big bang, just mass, and gravity, no elements or particals, or time ,thats how it was taught to us in primary school.

You were taught the big bang theory in primary school? (ages 4-7?) In any case, there is no general agreement (due to lack of any evidence or method for testing) on what occurred before the big bang.

In effect, when the big bang happened, it looks like we got particals and elements from gravity and mass, just what is mass, and just what is gravity, two things humans dont understand properly

I'd say mass is much better understood than gravity. But we're obviously still missing pieces of the puzzle (which, hopefully, confirmation of the existence of the Higgs boson will go some way to filling in).

Gravity is a force. Not something you can pick up and throw. Like particals.
Mass, is very confusing when gravity is added, and no human yet understands them properly.

It depends really. All forces are mediated by particles. For electromagnetism you have the photon (light), for the force that binds particles together you have other particles (depending on the force). There is postulated a "graviton" which is the theorised mediating particle for gravity.

Mass isnt even an object or force, but rather our form of measurement

In physics mass is considered the result of a "charge", in the same way electrons have "charge" in electromagnetism, massive particles have "charge" in the Higgs field. So in that sense it is considered a "force" (sort of).

Everything is not energy.Well it is, but it isnt.

Could you explain what you meant by this?

What is energy ?

I think Feynman dealt with the abstract-ness of energy quite well

Originally Posted by The Feynman Lectures

There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing all natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law—it is exact so far as we know. The law is called the conservation of energy. It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same.

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by NiteStryker

How can the universe always exist, but we can measure the light as being some 13 billion years old?

Light isn't mass and doesn't exist on it's own. Do you judge a flashlights age by how long you turn it on?

[NiteStryker]

Originally Posted by n0e

Light isn't mass and doesn't exist on it's own. Do you judge a flashlights age by how long you turn it on?

If its on all the time, you can tell how old it is by the strength of the light.

[jackripped]

You missed his point l think, and if its left on [torch ] all it tells you is the strength of the batteries, not the actual torch, the torch could produce a brighter light beam, if it had more current.anyways yadda yadda yadda.

Yes necro in primary school they taught us about the big bang, although at the time they referred to it as just a huge explosion, no it wasnt bound by complex explanations, lets face it, in its raw form the big bang idea is pretty neat and fits well, even today with everything we know, better than any other idea/theory.
As for the rest of the post l was just being a little philosophical.

In physics mass is considered the result of a "charge", in the same way electrons have "charge" in electromagnetism, massive particles have "charge" in the Higgs field. So in that sense it is considered a "force" (sort of).

yea sort of, and the exact understanding is ?....not perfect perhaps.Was kinda my point in the whole post mate.

[jackripped]

[QUOTE=necrosect;5373664]So are you. Well you're stating what you've been taught, but this is high school physics and so is not always entirely accurate (read: mostly inaccurate).






It depends really. All forces are mediated by particles. For electromagnetism you have the photon (light), for the force that binds particles together you have other particles (depending on the force). There is postulated a "graviton" which is the theorised mediating particle for gravity.

Yea so, like l said you cannot pick up and throw gravity.
And again our understanding of it is limited.





Could you explain what you meant by this?

Probably not, but what l meant was, everything was energy, is matter, is mass, is energy, pretty open interpretation, l was being philosophical again sorry.




missed ya post so l tacked it on last sorry .

[Showd0wN]

yea sort of, and the exact understanding is ?....not perfect perhaps.Was kinda my point in the whole post mate.

Your posts smack of condescension on a matter about which you patently have no understanding. While I feel it a responsibility (as a scientist) to attempt to explain matters of science accurately and concisely, where possible, your absolute refusal to ever listen or incorporate anything that doesn't agree with your initial view on a subject puts me at a complete loss. This may have been better served as a private message, but I really can no longer take the time nor effort to respond to any of your posts regarding science or religion as it seems I may as well talk to a brick wall. Painted in lead. Locked in a safe.

[jackripped]

Originally Posted by Admiral Donutz

Perhaps, sadly I don't have access to my highschool books anymore so I can't check to see what the wrote.

l dont either, but, l do remember the class where l first learndededed it !
And l remember what was taught, basically what lve already posted.
Its not about scientific detail and accuracy in primary school or even high school , its about opening young peoples minds to possibilities and exploring other options for a solution.
That lesson teaches so much more than people realize.
It teaches kids, to explore new options, rather than accept the traditional answer, its my generation, the generation before mine, and pretty much all generations after, that really think outside the box.Go science.