Donnyp said:
By saying Time didn't exist before the universe is saying that time IS relative and has meaning.
I see no contradiction. Time is relative, it is a fact we have shown by experimentation to be true. The GPS system stands as practical application of time being relative. Accuracy down the the few meters that we have today would be impossible without Einsteins equations.
But what you mean by 'time has meaning' I have no idea of. Time is a property of space. It has no inherent meaning. In order for something to have meaning there must be a thinking mind that defines the meaning.
Then when you said the universe continued to cool down further After a few hundred thousand years seems wrong to me. I'd say more like a few Million to a Hundred million years.
Quotes? Proof? Evidence? Or is it just a gut feeling?
For example,
Ivanchik, A.V.; Potekhin, A.Y.; Varshalovich, D.A. (1999). "The Fine-Structure Constant: A New Observational Limit on Its Cosmological Variation and Some Theoretical Consequences". Astronomy and Astrophysics 343: 459.
states that according to their calculations, it took the universe 379 000 years to cool enough for atomic matter to form. Several other sources agree.
But to say this is the way matter acts is to say matter acts on its own.
To say matter acts on it's own is to imply that matter has some kind of will. Incorrect. Matter is matter and is subject to physical laws of the universe. The very nature of the universe dictates how matter behaves.
To say this compression of all matter was "Natural" (i'm using it Loosely) is to say that there was no divine hand in this.
And at what point did I deny the possible presense of divinity in this chain of events?
All the Big Bang theory states is that a divinity is, strictly speaking, not required once the initial state of Time = 0 has been achieved. Loosely interpreted, the theory states that 'if a god did it, this is how he/she/it did it'. But the theory itself neither presupposes nor denies the existance of a god figure.
If we took everything on earth including the earth itself and broke it down to its prime elements then compressed it could we get it down to the size of a Needle tip or smaller?
Easily. You see, matter is extremely loose. On a hydrogen atom, if the proton nucleus was the size of a grape, the electron would be a few hundred meters out. Now, such a mixture of matter and energy packed so densely would be extremely hot, possibly so much that matter would in fact break down and be converted to energy. And since there isn't an upper limit to possible temperature, you could compress that point of matter further and further. This would simply result in more and more matter being converted into energy and the temperature of the point rising extremely rapidly. You could even compress it all into the smallest possible lenght (Planck Lenght, cubed.) As in 1.616252(81)×10^−35 meters, cubed. Normally, the largest amount of energy that can be contained in this volume is around 1x10^-6 grams worth. Since Earth weighs quite a lot more than that, the matter would collapse upon itself, forming a black hole.
But nothing in physics makes it impossible. So yes, we could collapse and compress Earth into a tiny, tiny volume.
Maybe a Single Molecule or atom. When we have problems making Hydrogen Helium and oxygen and compacting them to fit in a Tank of compressed gas.
This is a problem of machinery and energy. Example, we haven't even harnessed the power of the sun. Every second the sun lets loose more energy than what humanity has used up to this point troughout it's entire history. Our failiure to reproduce something does not make it impossible; it simply points to our current limitations.
Seems a little "chaotic" to me.
Opinions are of no worth in matters of science.
To say this is how it happened and is definite without having 100% feasible knowledge of the event seems loose to me
As I said before in another post, in science all knowledge is provisional. That is why we call explanations 'theories' instead of 'truths'. But theories are constructed from facts, and we know for a fact quite a lot of things.
Understand, in science nothing can be definitively proven, only disproven. Like...say sun rising from the east. That is 'simply a theory'. One day we just might see sun rise from the west, thus invalidating it. Knowing what we know of Earth's rotation it is quite unlikely, but since we cannot know the future we can never fully discount the possibility.
That is the way it is with the Big Bang theory. Some day, we might find something that disproves the theory. But that would not make the facts disappear, it would simple mean we would need a new explanation for them. And certainly, anyone can suggest a better theory to explain the facts, thus replacing the Big Bang theory. But no one has yet managed this and it simply shows how well the Big bang theory fits the available data.
And as anyone with half a brain knows Matter Cannot be created OR destroyed only altered. If thats true then We have the same amount of Hydrogen and helium as we did in the start.
No, we have roughly the same amount of total energy as what we began with. Hydrogen is one from of expression that energy takes, as is all matter for that fact.
So then we have to address the fact that all this expansion of the universe is not really expanding and all that emptiness is just that.
Non Sequitur. Just because the total amount of energy in the universe is roughly set, does not meant that energy cannot be compressed, diluted or spread out. Universe expands, hence only the average density of matter and energy becomes lower and lower. Eventually, at the Heat Death of universe around 100 trillion years from now, the average density will be only differentially larger than zero. As in, one infinitely small amount above zero. But since at that point space will have expanded a whole freaking lot more, it isn't that unexpected. You see, by that point the last black holes will have evaporated, matter itself will have decayed and so forth.
Also as an F-Y-I, according to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, empty space does not in fact exist as such. The closer the known the matter content of a volume, the less accurately we know the energy content. Hence, a volume of space that we know to be empty of matter, would definately have non-zero energy content. And additionally since the laws of physics are perfectly fine with small amounts of energy being spontaneously created from nothing (the max being 1x10^-6 grams for 10^-43 seconds), the very fact that space exists there would make the volume non-empty. This stands at the core of Hawkings Radiation concept: A pair of virtual particles (particle and anti-particle) is created, locally creating a concentration of mass and energy. But the total content would be unchanged.
As for energy its just vibration on a atomic/subatomic level or Ionized atoms.
Incorrect. Energy is the amount of work that can be performed by a force, an attribute of objects and systems.