Gggg102:


Alan guth's big bang happens after the expansion of the singularity.

In late 1979, a Stanford physics postdoc named Alan Guth offered an explanation for the explosive force behind the Big Bang. Guth’s intellectual leap stemmed from theories in particle physics, which held that at extremely high energies — far higher than could ever be reached in a laboratory — a special state of matter would turn gravity upside down, rendering it a repulsive rather than an attractive force

Butterflyleo:

Key words (IF AND COULD)

Gggg102:



and they do believe.


could implies possibility. so it CAN happen.

assumption doesn't imply possibility.

Such a superposition, however, has not been considered in the standard formulation of quantum mechanics since the theory always assumes a definite causal order between events,"

Butterflyleo:


This is English bro.



The expansion of the singularity IS THE BIG BANG

Gggg102:


https://www.google.com/url?q=https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-big-bang-wasnt-the-beginning-after-all-81844b973333&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjZu5yvoL3aAhWSUlAKHVusCLwQFjAHegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3d4_8PJfB-R25W70kG2TAp

In late 1979, a Stanford physics postdoc named Alan Guth offered an explanation for the explosive force behind the Big Bang. Guth’s intellectual leap stemmed from theories in particle physics, which held that at extremely high energies — far higher than could ever be reached in a laboratory — a special state of matter would turn gravity upside down, rendering it a repulsive rather than an attractive force

Butterflyleo:


He said so and then in trying to explain why this inflation would even occur after the bang he had to make reference to what triggered the bang and thus he said



This was the only plausible explanation to what could have made inflation possible

Butterflyleo:
Wirinet my quote is below and be mindful of the use of the word ABOUT.



You now said I am lying yet said it is 29.78km/sec

By approximation isn't 29.78km/sec ABOUT 30km/sec?

Every other thing you said is rubbish especially when NASA also says you are saying rubbish.

From the screengrab from NASA.GOV it says the escape velocity is 7miles per sec and when converted is about 11km/sec so who is lying now?

I am sure in your ignorance you saw 40000km per hr and thought it was 42km/sec yet NASA says its 11km/sec

Please stop deliberately lying

wirinet:


What are you now yapping about? You claim the escape velocity of the earth from the solar system is lower than the velocity the earth is travelling around the sun, and should fly of from orbiting the solar system.
I corrected you that the escape velocity of the earth is 42.1km/s as against the velocity of the earth velocity of 29.78km/s and you now started yapping about escape velocity of objects from earths gravity being 11km/s.

It seems you do not understand the difference between the earth's escape velocity and the sun's escape velocity.
I am really tired of senseless arguments.

Gggg102:



Alan Guth's big bang does not occur at the singularity.

Alan Guth's big bang was caused by the inflation.

Alan Guth made no mention of singularity.

Gggg102:
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/01/12/q-a-did-inflation-happen-befor/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjWhsjIpL3aAhXHUlAKHYPAAxoQFjAAegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw1bT1L6owpABSozr1oYxi8b

Butterflyleo:


Ogbeni the big bang is the inflation of the singularity

Butterflyleo:


Where did you get this nonsense you are typiñg? I compared the escape velocity or orbital velocity OF A SPACE ROCKET from the earth and the size of the space rocket to the earth and also compared the orbital velocity of the earth to the sun and also the size of the earth to the sun and showed that the escape velocity of a space rocket with a much smaller size to the earth, wen also comparing the earth to the sun per size is much lower than that of the earths orbital velocity.

If you do not understand then do not type. Na by force to tyoe when you are completely lost?

You are typing senselessly and still claiming right.

The orbital velocity of the earth Is about 30km/sec and the orbital velocity of a space rocket is 11km/sec .

When now comparing the size of a space rocket to the earth and the size of the earth to the sun you discover that even though the space rocket is much smaller by comparison, it easily breaks free at 11km/sec while the earth cannot achieve this at about 2 and half that velocity despite being much bigger by comparison

Butterflyleo:

Butterflyleo:

Butterflyleo:


Ogbeni the big bang is the inflation of the singularity

wirinet:


It seems pride is preventing from learning or accepting your ignorance. Escape velocity has nothing to do with size. If you can throw a stone above 11km/s, it will escape the earths gravity. If you project the same stone from the earths orbit at 42.1km/s, it will escape the sun's gravity. Viking 2, a probe the size of a small bus that was launched in 1979 is about escaping the sun's gravity now.

At a distance of 117 AU (1.75×1010 km) from the Sun as of March 17, 2018,[6] Voyager 2 is the fourth of five spacecraft to achieve the escape velocity that will allow them to leave the Solar System. The probe was moving at a velocity of 15.4 km/s (55,000 km/h) relative to the Sun as of December 2014 and is traveling through the heliosheath.[6][7] Upon reaching interstellar space, Voyager 2 is expected to provide the first direct measurements of the density and temperature of the interstellar plasma.[8]

Gggg102:



last explanation I'm giving on this.




when the big bang theory was first proposed, the bang was said to have happened at the singularity. however there were problems with the theory.

Alan Guth came up with the inflation theory to solve this problem. in this inflation theory, after the expansion of the singularity and inflation occurs which led to another round of expansion; the new big bang. Alan's new model solved the problem of the old model. but the new model suggested that we can't know what exactly happened between the first expansion(old bang) and the inflation because the laws of physics were not in place. in the new theory, we can't know if there was actually a singularity for sure because we cannot go back beyond the inflation which would have happened 1*10^-36 seconds after the inflation if it actually happened. because our laws of physics started at the inflation. the theories of relativity used as the basis of the old theory did not take into account quantum mechanics.


also the big bang wasn't even an explosion. it was an expansion.
the term big bang was created as a derogatory term by an opposing scientist to the theory.

if you look at everything together (including the singularity which cannot be investigated using our laws of physics) in Alan's theory we have:

expansion(singularity/old big bang)- inflation- expansion(new big bang).
which eventually led to us.

again the old big bang occurs beyond our laws of physics so we can't investigate it. it is a possibility that is not necessary in Alan's model.

Alan's model can do without the singularity and he doesn't even mention it in his paper. leaving the expansion after the inflation as the big bang.

Butterflyleo:


This was why I told you that Alan Guth in an attempt to explain the cause of the inflation said AN IMMENSE ENERGY SOURCE CAUSED THIS INFLATION TO OCCUR as that was the only thing capable of reversing gravity as theorised in particle physics.

This was applied by NASA in their diagram.

Gggg102:



where did he say this?

In late 1979, a Stanford physics postdoc named Alan Guth offered an explanation for the explosive force behind the Big Bang. Guth’s intellectual leap stemmed from theories in particle physics, which held that at extremely high energies — far higher than could ever be reached in a laboratory — a special state of matter would turn gravity upside down, rendering it a repulsive rather than an attractive force

Butterflyleo:


I do on think you read the OP. The big bang is not a reality. It is a hypothesis and you cannot throw a hypothesis as a reality when it is unfounded.

What you are referring to is what we call LUCK. Luck cannot produce a synchronized order in such a manner as I stated in the OP. The chances of that happening so perfectly is as good as zero. Or are you going to tell me that somehow the universe got it right at the first try despite all the chaos scientists claimed existed back then?

keentola:
The first time? scientifically time did not exist in the beginning of the universe. moreover, it could have been happening for repeatedly before big bang happened

Butterflyleo:


Assumptions!

Unless you wish to also assume there were many singularities back then and if this were to be the case why do we not have other universes which emerged from these other singularities no matter how warped they may be or deformed?

And what I said was FIRST TRY and not FIRST TIME.

Butterflyleo:


1.Now you have crossed into the realm of science fiction. My OP does not deal with science fiction but is strictly on pure verifiable science.

2.You are now assuming!

3.Science clearly says that our universe began from a singularity which was impacted by an extraodinary amount of energy which is unknown and never seen before or after it. FULL STOP.

4.No randomness involved in this singularity and the energy which impacted it.

5.You are now desperately shooting blanks.

Gggg102:



first cause god is also an assumption.

you made your assumption, he made his assumption.

2nd Proof. Argument from Final Causality

It is obvious in everything without intelligence that there is what architects and industrial designers called the ordering of structure to function. All the planning is the adaptation of a means to an end, the end in unintelligent things being hearing or seeing or being green coloured.
Only an intelligence can use means to gain an end, for the end must be known in the first place and the relationship of the means to the end clearly seen. This order we find in things requires a final ultimate cause or the problem is recreated. This final uncreated, uncaused and unplanned Cause is God.

Butterflyleo:


From my OP



Was a problem created with the appearance of our universe? What we began to see rather was order which brought about scientific laws to back them up.

We also see relationship of the means to the end.

Only an intelligence can use means to gain an end.

Did unntelligence cause this?

Gggg102:




or it could happen by chance. by an unintelligent creating force.

2nd Proof. Argument from Final Causality

It is obvious in everything without intelligence that there is what architects and industrial designers called the ordering of structure to function. All the planning is the adaptation of a means to an end, the end in unintelligent things being hearing or seeing or being green coloured.
Only an intelligence can use means to gain an end, for the end must be known in the first place and the relationship of the means to the end clearly seen. This order we find in things requires a final ultimate cause or the problem is recreated. This final uncreated, uncaused and unplanned Cause is God.

Butterflyleo:


Read what you responded to again


Was a problem created with the appearance of our universe?

What we began to see rather was order which brought about scientific laws to back them up.

We also see relationship of the means to the end.

Only an intelligence can use means to gain an end.

Did unntelligence cause this?

Gggg102:



again it could.

the unintelligence could cause order by a stroke of luck.

Butterflyleo:


I do not think you understood what you read. We have been down this road before

Gggg102:



when we were down this road before, you circled around it by saying chaos began after the big bang.

I told you that it was because our science does not investigate before the big bang. science began after the big bang.

I told you my 'outside earth magnet ' was outside the universe before science began. so the randomness can still happen.

you said that it was an assumption and I had entered the realm of science fiction. since the randomness happened after science.

then I told you that since the magnet is outside science, and is a science fiction assumption because science cannot cover it, then first cause god is also a science fiction assumption for the same reason.