Sorry, but I can't believe you that. Otherwise you wouldn't say:
spontaneously detonate into a hyper-massive fireball
Explosions are violent, uncontrolled, destructive things.
The Big Bang was an expansion, not a explosion with a "hayper-massive fireball"
Hyper-massive is simply a description of size. Surely you don't think that an event spawning something the size of the universe would take place in a tiny area. As to explosions, they are all of the above, otherwise things wouldn't be destroyed by them. And for the picky among you, one, the "expansion" would still be hyper-massive, and two, it would be "exploding" outward. Don't be grammatical nit-pickers.
How were those original, supposedly explosive elements formed if the big bang made everything?
Explosive elements?(btw, the theory says that there was a singularity that expanded, so there was something before the Big Bang...)
Again, picky. But either way, where did the original elements and/or singularity come from??? That is the point here!
WTF?
NOT ACCEPTABLE!!! Please don't ruin this discussion.
During the early phases of the Big Bang, nucleosynthesis of hydrogen nuclei resulted in the production of hydrogen-1 (protonium, 1H) and helium-4 (4He), as well as a smaller amount of deuterium (2H) and very minuscule amounts (on the order of 10â�'10) of lithium and beryllium. Even smaller amounts of boron may have been produced in the Big Bang, since it has been observed in some very old stars, while carbon has not.[9] It is generally agreed that no heavier elements than boron were produced in the Big Bang. As a result, the primordial abundance of atoms (or ions) consisted of roughly 75% 1H, 25% 4He, and 0.01% deuterium, with only tiny traces of lithium, beryllium, and perhaps boron.[10] Subsequent enrichment of galactic halos occurred due to stellar nucleosynthesis and supernova nucleosynthesis.
Still doesn't answer where the original source materials came from.
maybe the collision of two p-branes.
Har dee har har. Not.
So, either the mass that became the universe was there in hyper-dense form, it came from nowhere, or it was created. In the first case, the mass would have been so closely packed that individual particles would have violated their Rosche limits, which defines the point at which no more mass can be present in a given space. This would have caused them to instantly and violently annihilate themselves, which means they cease to exist, period. Second and third cases, mass from nowhere: impossible, unless you are a miracle worker, like God.
The first one is possible given time is at 0 and that matter/energy can not be created or destroyed. The first one also does not violate the Roche limit which you incorrectly define.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Roche%27s+limits
First of all, where did that hyper-dense piece of mass at time=0 come from? As far as the Roche limits, I read the definition you linked to, and my statement does not contradict it. From the definition:
The shortest distance at which a satellite not held together by any force other than its own gravity can orbit another celestial body without being torn apart by the tidal force between them.
This is true on all levels, from galactic to sub-atomic. The "tidal forces" are a product of the individual electromagnetic field of a given mass. A simple demonstration is that you cannot put two marbles into the space occupied by one at the same time. When two masses come into close contact, there is electromagnetic interaction; but if they are forced into direct contact by an outside force, the Roche limits violate and the result is the instantaneous conversion of both masses into energy. There is currently research and development being done into using this very process to create power in fusion reactors.
There is a hypothesis based on M theory where two membranes collided depositing energy from one to the other resulting in the singularity.
So where did the membranes come from? Sooner or later, you will still reach that "first domino" point.
We are talking about the creation of those pre-existing materials!
That's not possible.
Why? The question here is the creation of the universe and its origins. That includes the pre-existing materials used in the supposed Big Bang. Therefore, it is not only possible, it is the case at hand.
No, it is the fusion. If we were debating in person, I would give you more detail, but on the forum I won't because I don't want to be labeled a terrorist for talking about nuclear weapon mechanics. Sorry.
I find your answer laughable.
Discretion is the better part of valor. The government has been known to monitor internet activity like this, and I'm not taking any chances. This is not an excuse, this is not paranoia; this is simply a precaution. If that rankles you, well, can't help you there.
where did you suddenly get stars just microseconds after the creation of the universe?
We didn't, it took several hundred million years before the first stars could form.
The theory says that most elements up to Boron were created in the Big Bang, which was supposed to be over very quickly (like, seconds), but some of those same elements were supposedly created by the stars millions of years later. That spells inconsistency.
hydrogen and helium are stable by themselves; they won't fuse with anything unless forced, like in a particle accelerator.
As they were masses together by gravity and became denser and thus hotter, with that heat they eventually entered into fusion.
The force of gravity is not nearly strong enough to violate the Roche limit and induce fusion. If it were, stable mass would be the exception, not the rule.
But where did all of that come from??
This was your second question, we don't know for sure is the answer. Care to next make a God of the gaps argument for me to refute?
Correction: YOU don't know for sure. I, on the other hand, believe the story of Creation as presented in the Bible. With it, there are no gaps. God created. Period. Proceed to HiStory of man.
It may be as simple as true nothing being an unstable state that could not exist, thus something had to exist.
If that were true, it would be impossible to operate a vacuum chamber or have any empty space. Additionally, that would require something to come from nothing, which you agreed with me is impossible.
People couldn't comprehend the Earth being round until Columbus proved it.
Columbus wasn't the one who proved this. The earth being round was knowledge readily found in encyclopedias for nearly a thousand years prior to his voyage.
Check your history. People were executed for saying the Earth was round before it was proven.
Either way, as you travel back through the history of this chain of events you will still eventually reach the beginning, the proverbial first domino, and at that point there will have to be something outside the Big Bang, outside the universe and time and space and dimensionality and everything else, that made that first domino, that laid the foundations, and that started the chain reaction. How will you explain the original creation of that first something out of the absolute deepest nothing there has ever been without there being a Supreme Being, God, that exists completely detached all origin and reality as our minds can comprehend?
I don't even attempt to at this point. Though I think it's absurd that it had to be a supreme being or any being for that matter.
Why is it absurd? Ockham's Razor dictates that the simplest answer is the most likely. Which is more complicated here: undefined forces coming together to make a hyper-dense piece of mass that survives violating the Roche limit and suddenly expends at an almost infinite rate, multiplies its own mass, forms complex structures like stars and planets, which grow increasingly complex systems of their own, and then by the way you get life with it too, or, "In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth." Period. Next verse. And if you want to argue the laws of science point, Who created and established them for the universe to run on in the first place?
It's not an increasingly unlikely theory, it's the current leading theory. Statements like this and others that you have made only reinforce my statement that you full of crap when you claim to know what your talking about. As for you being the son of someone who works for NASA I really couldn't care less, other statements that you've made here already show just how ignorant you are. At least I hope it's just ignorance.
If it's not increasingly unlikely, how come so many respected scientists have abandoned it in recent times? As to the rest of your comment, ignorance is relative. Compared to me, a toddler is ignorant. Compared to Einstein, I'm ignorant. But I at least try to learn as much as I can. From the sound of your posts here, you only learn what fits your preconceived notions of the world that have been reinforced by public education and liberal teachers. Could it be that you hope I'm the ignorant one here because if I'm not that means your theory is wrong and that you are the ignorant one here? Why don't you research the Creationist standpoint as presented by those who can explain it better than myself and then decide what you believe before criticizing me for having the opposite view?
