Kelli Posted December 30, 2006 Share Posted December 30, 2006 So tonight my family and the kids from next door were all playing Apples To Apples together... If you don't know what Apples To Apples is, basically it's a game where each player gets a hand of cards with words on each of them, and one player at a time you pick a card from another pile containing definition words. You pick the card in your hand that most closely (or most hilariously) fits the definition word chosen. The player who picked also gets to choose (judge) which person's card fits the definition word the best. Tonight I had the word "Aged" or "Old, Ancient, Mature" The only two cards given to me that really fit well were "Universe" and "Gravity." To the dismay of everyone except my very intelligent wife, I chose "Gravity" because, as I explained, the universe, however it was formed, was formed within a set of laws, and gravity was one of those laws. Hence, gravity existed before the universe existed. "Great observation!" my wife says. Of course it didn't hurt that Gravity was her card, LOL. Just curious as to others thoughts on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted December 30, 2006 Share Posted December 30, 2006 I think they both formed at the same time. If they formed at all, and the universe hasn't always just been here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulQ Posted December 30, 2006 Share Posted December 30, 2006 I see no reason why either Gravity nor the matter and energy that make up the universe need a point in time when they came into existence, though the matter and energy that makes up the universe is in a constant state of change. To me, it is quite likely that both gravity and the matter and energy that make up the universe exist infinitely, thus needing no "Beginning." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted December 30, 2006 Share Posted December 30, 2006 If I remember way back to my basic science classes... the Universe came first. At the instant of the BB all the four forces, gravity, weak and strong forces, and electromagnetism, were one unified force. As the Universe expanded they split up. Remember that we're talking billionths of a trillionth of a second here, or some fraction of a second that's almost too small to comprehend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Friendly Misanthrope Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 If I remember way back to my basic science classes... the Universe came first. At the instant of the BB all the four forces, gravity, weak and strong forces, and electromagnetism, were one unified force. As the Universe expanded they split up. Remember that we're talking billionths of a trillionth of a second here, or some fraction of a second that's almost too small to comprehend. Yes, what you say does fit the current generally accepted model. See here for the source of my synopsis below: Big Bang Expansion and the Fundamental Forces In a nutshell, in the immense temperatures found (approx. 10^32 degrees C, damn that be HOT!) extremely close to zero time, the four fundemental forces exhibited symmetry, meaning they were indistinguishable from one another. Within the first 10^-40 sec after the big bang, the grand unification (the unification of electromagnetism, strong, and weak forces) and gravitational forces broke symmetry as the universe rapidly cooled and expanded. The universe continued to cool and expand rapidly, such that by about 10^-12 sec, all four fundemental forces had broke symmetry and differentiated. For an analogies for symmetry breaking, see info from the same site Hyperphysics(a treasure trove of physics info) at the middle of this page: Breaking Symmetry Analogies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelli Posted December 31, 2006 Author Share Posted December 31, 2006 Interesting. I'm no scientist nor do I play one on the radio or TV. I must confess I haven't studied the various theories of how the universe began very deeply. It never really interested me much. Not that I don't appreciate or put stock in science, it's just not my cup of tea and isn't really relevant to me one way or the other. Even if it were proven that the earth was only 12,000 years old (not a chance!), it would not make me run out and become a fundie again. I have other reasons for what I do and don't believe. I did think my thoughts on it were profound however, LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Friendly Misanthrope Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Even if it were proven that the earth was only 12,000 years old (not a chance!), it would not make me run out and become a fundie again. Blasphemer! The earth is only 6000 years old! Behold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Laurier Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Gravity predates the universe, Gravity is a property of mass, and the singularity that eventualy became the universe, must have had mass. The big bang is the event where the singularity overcame gravity and caused the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Gravity predates the universe,Gravity is a property of mass, and the singularity that eventualy became the universe, must have had mass. The big bang is the event where the singularity overcame gravity and caused the universe. That's an interesting idea, but all the physics books I've read (all 3 of them) said that gravity precipitated out after the BB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverclear5 Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 interesting discussion. I should point out that the big bang thing is all a bit up for discussion. Essentially we almost certainly know what happened after the first miniscule amount of time. We're still examining what happened before that. I suspect for now its best to continue your card game rather than waiting for an answer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 interesting discussion. I should point out that the big bang thing is all a bit up for discussion. Essentially we almost certainly know what happened after the first miniscule amount of time. We're still examining what happened before that. I suspect for now its best to continue your card game rather than waiting for an answer! Check out Susskind Bubble collision maybe ? http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=12021 Multiverses What about M-theory? I was watching that the other night on the Science channel and I feel asleep during a commercial! Dang-it! I was wanting to know about that without having to actually read about it. It went from waves to strings and now to membranes. I guess I'll have to go googleing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valgeir Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 I would say that gravity came into existence at the same moment as matter- whether that was immediately at the birth of the universe or later, I don't know. So that's really the question, when did matter begin to exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts