Just Wondering, since someone told me some was caused by left over big bang energy or something...
138393
The TV works off of signals, so if it can't pick up a signal, it gives you static because it can't find any channels. The actual static is just the result of the TV not finding a channel or signal.
397466
Nowhere in the Big Bang theory it says that before it there was nothing. Basically because the big bang theory does not study what caused it and what was before it.\n\nSo your whole statement is wrong from its basis. The thermodynamic laws where not there before the big bang. Matter and energy and laws that govern it are for this universe we live in and experience daily and did not start to apply to only a few fractions of a second after the big bang. \n\nJust an addition for Mr Drummer boy below.\n\nWhen you start going back to far, things become fuzzy. The physical laws we’re all familiar with start to break down under such high energy densities. Really weird stuff starts to happen, like different fundamental forces ceasing to exist and merging with one another.\n\nThanks to work in particle accelerators, which can recreate such high energy densities for brief fractions of a second, we’re starting to get a feel for how physical laws operate under these conditions, and thus, are slowly working our way backwards. But there comes a point where we just don’t have a good enough handle on things to be able to say how things work back to pretty early (10-35 seconds), but things were happening so fast and furiously, there’s still a long ways to go before we can uncover what happened to cause the whole mess.\n\n\nWe only now start to see what was like in the very few fractions of the second after the big bang and there is plenty of evidence in the universe that something like that took place.\n\nOh by the way I cannot believe that you are a physics major and wrote to us that 10 to the minus 43 is .10000000000... which is obviously equal to 0.1 - 10 to the minus 43 is 0.000000000000000000000(42 zeros)1. If you got a physics major I am an astronaut.
358611
It is possible that black holes are the catalyst behind the big crunch, which is the end version of the big bang. Once all of the black holes in existence collect enough matter and energy, they could combine gravitationaly to create one massive black hole that simply repeats the big bang over and over.\n\nBlack holes do not reflect anything, so I don't believe the ignition of the sun was caused by a black hole. \nBlack Hole Info:\n1.They represent matter/energy in its purest form. (All matter and energy is coalesced into one single state of energy)\n\n2.They represent the possible end of our universe.(big crunch)\n\n3.They are the single largest gravitational entity theorized to exist.\n\n4.They are one of the few places that prohibit the propagation of light, so no reflection.\n\n5.The laws of nature at a black hole are completely different from anywhere else in the universe.
591088
no. Have u heard of the big bang theory. If u have not scientist think that the earth was a giant ball of energy in the beggining the when the ball could not hold any more energy it exploded creating the universe and the earth, planet, stars and maybe even people, also creating water making oceans. But remember it is just a theory and they are many other scientific theorys out there about how the earth was created. To find more theories or if u dnt understand do what my source says
594346
For your theory to work some 'thing' must exist before the Big Bang event and in which it could occur. Science has found absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any 'thing' preceded the Big Bang.
617219
A lot of static electricity in the air can cause "dry lightning".  I assume that is what happened.
219528
My current belief is that there was time before time as we know it. Something "had" to exist before the cosmos as we now understand it. The Big Bang wasn't the first, nor the last. In order for that to occur, yes, I believe that it was the result of a black hole to end all black holes reaching its limit. It's a thin, untested theory, but it is what I am with until something better is derived. This is consistent with my answer to your later question. That is I haven't thought about the possibility of one universe existing within another. It is plausible in my mind though and interesting enough to think about it for years to come.
19276
the same thing thats on this side. new matter is not being formed it is just expanding from the force of the big bang all those millions of years ago. Some scientists say the expansion will eventually stop and the universe will collapse onto itself, and then maybe explode again. All theories so in effect we dont know.
79286
No, of course not!!  For all we know, God was behind the Big Bang!
673718
I believe in a comparitively new but very popular theory that Universe creation and destruction are cyclic in nature. Its like the BIG BANG, then BIG CRUNCH, then BIG BANG again and so on.... The energy for the newest big bang event (the one studied by Edwin Hubble), came from the previous big crunch.  The Cosmic Microwave Background, when studied suggests that the radiation at the denser parts of the universe are heavily red shifted. This is an evidence in support of energy being 'old'.
644096
The origin of the universe has always been a mysterious event in which the laws of physics appear to break down. Could it be that the big bang was caused by the collision of two parallel universes?\n\n*Riddle of the Big Bang (scroll down 3/4 of page. Running time 7:37)\nhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html\n\n*Dr. Michio Kaku: M-Theory: The Mother of all SuperStrings\nhttp://www.mkaku.org/articles/mtheory_superstrings.shtml\n\n*Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos by M. Kaku\nhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...1988531-0244141\n\nThe strange notion of parallel universes is gaining strength in the scientific community and may solve our most basic questions about the universe, including the origins of the Big Bang itself.\n\n*Parallel Universe \nhttp://search.discovery.com/search?proxystylesheet=sciMain&site=sciContent&client=sciMain&output=xml_no_dtd&filter=p&getfields=*&q=parallel+universe
576036
HahAHaha.  Listen Shawny, these people seriously do NOT know what they are talking about.  But I do, you're talking about lightening without thunder!  Not lightening with thunder but it's so far away you can't hear it.  There is such a thing as lightening with thunder because it's been happening all over here in my area of Texas.\n\nAnd I don't live out in the country, I'm in good ol' Austin.  There's something mysterious surrounding this lightening, not just because there's no thunder, but because you know the lightening is the driving force of the storm and not the other way around.  If that's true, then this lightening must be coming from SPACE.  That's right I said it.  Lightening caused not by the clouds colliding with cold air but by something going on with the Sun.  Anyways, I KNOW this was coming from space because of this one special bolt of lightening that just rocked the house and I'll never forget it.  \n\nIt came down out of the clouds like an anvil, and when it hit the air it's like the air acted like and insulatoragains the electricity and stopped the bolt from coming down anymore.  Well it was THICK at the trunk and it spread out in every direction along the bottom of the clouds, like a ring of electricity or the roots of a tree, causing lightening far out across horizon as far as I could see.  That was just too much energy for me to believe that it was caused by clouds rubbing together, am I right?  Can I get an AMEN?\n\nAnyways, so you know where this lightening is coming from, but what does this have to do with heat lightening?  Well you remember that Earth has a natural electric field right?  Everything that exists from the ground up has a natural electric charge on it.  When the lightening comes in it's basically pulling electrons off of the Earth and pulling energy in.  When these travel through the plasma the air surrounding the bolt is of a way smaller charge and is repelled; this causes the thunder.\n\nSomething is going on in these storms and in Earth's energy fields that allows this energy to be moved easily and with little resistance.  I believe we'll be seeing more of this lightening in the years ahead, you can count on it.  BWahahHAhAhaaa!!!
647015
I believe it. I also believe in the theory, in which, as you may also know, whole cosmos is going to turn back into that extra atom. What I wonder alot, when the expansion of the universe will stop and start to shrink back :=)))
9823
Surely you know the proponants do not have an answer. On the same note, neither can anyone answer (yet) what was there before Big Bang?
303300
Just one doubt about your  theory,how do you know that only one big bang has taken place as you say that a second one is coming up???And tell me how you would accelerate something to the speed of light as the mass would become infinite.\nAnd according to your theory the total energy in the universe will go on increasing.You are stuck in a viscious circle!!!
598945
God could have been the power that started the Big Bang....that put the amoeba on the earth. Evolution can go hand in hand with religious beliefs.
450806
From what I have read, what happened before the big bang has no effect on the universe and therefore can not be theorized about.\n\nOr, as Stephen Hawking said in "A Briefer History of Time"\n\n"All our theories of cosmology are formulated on the assumption that space_time is smooth and nearly flat. That means that all our theories break down at the big bang: a space_time with infinite curvature can hardly be called nearly flat! Thus even if there were events before the big bang, we could not use them to determine what would happen afterward, because predictability would have broken down at the big bang.\n\nCorrespondingly, if, as is the case, we know only what has happened since the big bang, we cannot determine what happened beforehand. As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences and so should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that the big bang was the beginning of time. This means that questions such as who set up the conditions for the big bang are not questions that science addresses."