Wait are you saying that Jupiter DOSNT pull in comets and asteroids intel they are really close? so Jupiter isn't actually protecting earth from asteroids its just that the orbits of them decay from there natural orbit and get close to Jupiter's? my life is a lie. either that or I'm just really stupid & don't know what I'm talking about... either one works

Actually, he is right. I am currently responding to his answer so... But the thing can be explained by General Relativity.

The only thing I know good about relativity is time dilation that's it XD oh well in still learning.

That is normal. You are learning, everybody does. I will explain Relativity to you if you want. I also need to learn, A LOT. I still have high school and university on my hands. I don't want to sound like some annoying smart-ass, but with this knowledge I have, I am smarter than half of the All the people in my country. I sounded stupid, didn't I? 

Watsisname,
I really appreciate that you want to explain Big Bang theory for me. I watched in the past so many documentaries about it. I have read this post of yours even if I don't believe that something can be created from nothing. I know you are going to tell me that there is energy everywhere. That is true, but, I fell like... I don't know. I don't want to disrespect you.

You can believe God began the universe with the Big Bang if you like -- there is no discrepancy between this idea and with science or observations.

I don't know if you want to tell that observation and science is different from God. It is all the same. As I stated in my post: God is force. That means that God can create something with force. There's a lot of things I want to tell you, But I just fell you aren't interested in that. It's not related to creation or something. Many scientist don't want to mix God with science. That's because they don't have the right knowledge to explain some things.

Do we need to know the why or the how in order to know that something happened?  If I find a giant crater in a desert surrounded by shattered rock fragments, I can be pretty sure something violent happened there, even if I don't know exactly how or why it happened.

You have the rights about some random events. Like this one. But does that also mean that Big Bang is also random? Like, meaning of life would be pointless if you just think you are small as grain of Sand on a beach that is smaller infinite times than the universe?

It happened everywhere! The Big Bang is the expansion of space itself from a small, hot, dense initial state, and it was hot and dense at all points in space.  Everywhere you point, you point at something which participated in the Big Bang

If it happens everywhere, then why are everybody saying that believe in this theory: "At the beginning there was darkness, and then Bang!, Infinite amounts of matter spread across the Universe creating space and time..." I took this from 'the Universe'
Does that mean that there wan no darkness, but instead matter? If it happened everywhere, that means that everywhere universe formed and that there isn't a need for a expansion of galaxies, stars, planets... Only just space around them.
I don't want to talk about Big Bang and creation, because there is a lot of theories.
I want to talk about something, that isn't related to creation, but for creator. I don't know if this question is going to be rude or somehow disrespectful, but: Life is bigger question than we think. 
If something confuses you in this post, I am not surprised lol. But ask if it is.  
I hope we can discuss other things too. Sorry if this somehow was rude and disrespectful...
Didn't know what was the right time to post this.

Actually, he is right. I am currently responding to his answer so... But the thing can be explained by General Relativity.

The only thing I know good about relativity is time dilation that's it XD oh well in still learning.

That is normal. You are learning, everybody does. I will explain Relativity to you if you want. I also need to learn, A LOT. I still have high school and university on my hands. I don't want to sound like some annoying smart-ass, but with this knowledge I have, I am smarter than half of the All the people in my country. I sounded stupid, didn't I? 

No of course not! It's good to share ideas and I'm in the same thing! thing is with me though, I'm shy... & my confidence towards myself is a little low (You probably already know that) so its very rare for me to get into a conversation about space. But even if ones going, I don't feel to relaxed to jump into it. I feel like ill be wrong about everything! & its ok, I can try to figure relativity out on my own. thanks though. But I also have high school on my hands and I wanna learn as much as I can! so I can be accepted into any physics or astronomy program. I would dream of being like Neil Tyson. To much? this is a public forum so I might have gone a little bit private there. But aging thanks for the offer ad just talking. you really are a good man, we need more people like you in our world.    

The only thing I know good about relativity is time dilation that's it XD oh well in still learning.

That is normal. You are learning, everybody does. I will explain Relativity to you if you want. I also need to learn, A LOT. I still have high school and university on my hands. I don't want to sound like some annoying smart-ass, but with this knowledge I have, I am smarter than half of the All the people in my country. I sounded stupid, didn't I? 

No of course not! It's good to share ideas and I'm in the same thing! thing is with me though, I'm shy... & my confidence towards myself is a little low (You probably already know that) so its very rare for me to get into a conversation about space. But even if ones going, I don't feel to relaxed to jump into it. I feel like ill be wrong about everything! & its ok, I can try to figure relativity out on my own. thanks though. But I also have high school on my hands and I wanna learn as much as I can! so I can be accepted into any physics or astronomy program. I would dream of being like Neil Tyson. To much? this is a public forum so I might have gone a little bit private there. But aging thanks for the offer ad just talking. you really are a good man, we need more people like you in our world.    

Your words are inspiring even more. We are probably the same age, so I understand you. Remeber, don't look at the points and grades. That's not important if you don't understand the thing behind those points. In my school, where I used to go, I loved physics, but that wasn't noticeable since I would be shy to answer some question. Even if I would be quiet, she somehow didn't like me. Do you want to hear one story that will explain that? After that, my reputation in class dropped. And that what happened... I will tell you if you want. (Sounds like clickbait xD)
And about Neil DeGrasse Tyson. You can be even better. Believe me. 

That is normal. You are learning, everybody does. I will explain Relativity to you if you want. I also need to learn, A LOT. I still have high school and university on my hands. I don't want to sound like some annoying smart-ass, but with this knowledge I have, I am smarter than half of the All the people in my country. I sounded stupid, didn't I? 

No of course not! It's good to share ideas and I'm in the same thing! thing is with me though, I'm shy... & my confidence towards myself is a little low (You probably already know that) so its very rare for me to get into a conversation about space. But even if ones going, I don't feel to relaxed to jump into it. I feel like ill be wrong about everything! & its ok, I can try to figure relativity out on my own. thanks though. But I also have high school on my hands and I wanna learn as much as I can! so I can be accepted into any physics or astronomy program. I would dream of being like Neil Tyson. To much? this is a public forum so I might have gone a little bit private there. But aging thanks for the offer ad just talking. you really are a good man, we need more people like you in our world.    

Your words are inspiring even more. We are probably the same age, so I understand you. Remeber, don't look at the points and grades. That's not important if you don't understand the thing behind those points. In my school, where I used to go, I loved physics, but that wasn't noticeable since I would be shy to answer some question. Even if I would be quiet, she somehow didn't like me. Do you want to hear one story that will explain that? After that, my reputation in class dropped. And that what happened... I will tell you if you want. (Sounds like clickbait xD)
And about Neil DeGrasse Tyson. You can be even better. Believe me. 

Thank you so very much for your kind words! You can tell me the story, but not here because its "Science and astronomy Questions" we are both going off topic lol You can send me the story through private message instead. & that's very moving with me being better then Neil... I could be ME! and yes I'm pretty sure we are the same age so thanks for understanding. 

No of course not! It's good to share ideas and I'm in the same thing! thing is with me though, I'm shy... & my confidence towards myself is a little low (You probably already know that) so its very rare for me to get into a conversation about space. But even if ones going, I don't feel to relaxed to jump into it. I feel like ill be wrong about everything! & its ok, I can try to figure relativity out on my own. thanks though. But I also have high school on my hands and I wanna learn as much as I can! so I can be accepted into any physics or astronomy program. I would dream of being like Neil Tyson. To much? this is a public forum so I might have gone a little bit private there. But aging thanks for the offer ad just talking. you really are a good man, we need more people like you in our world.    

Your words are inspiring even more. We are probably the same age, so I understand you. Remeber, don't look at the points and grades. That's not important if you don't understand the thing behind those points. In my school, where I used to go, I loved physics, but that wasn't noticeable since I would be shy to answer some question. Even if I would be quiet, she somehow didn't like me. Do you want to hear one story that will explain that? After that, my reputation in class dropped. And that what happened... I will tell you if you want. (Sounds like clickbait xD)
And about Neil DeGrasse Tyson. You can be even better. Believe me. 

Thank you so very much for your kind words! You can tell me the story, but not here because its "Science and astronomy Questions" we are both going off topic lol You can send me the story through private message instead. & that's very moving with me being better then Neil... I could be ME! and yes I'm pretty sure we are the same age so thanks for understanding. 

I like when I meet people like you. They believe in themselves and doing it's own work. You got that right about being yourself. Don't think that somebody is better than you just because his/her reputation is bigger. And I will send you the story. I am currently writing two post so, yeah!

Wait are you saying that Jupiter DOSNT pull in comets and asteroids intel they are really close? so Jupiter isn't actually protecting earth from asteroids its just that the orbits of them decay from there natural orbit and get close to Jupiter's? my life is a lie. either that or I'm just really stupid & don't know what I'm talking about... either one works

Jupiter does help quite a bit for clearing up the solar system from comets and asteroids that cross its path.  But yeah, think of it less like Jupiter "sucking them in", and more like "getting in the way".

Actually, he is right. I am currently responding to his answer so... But the thing can be explained by General Relativity.

This is my fault as I think I didn't explain this part too clearly, but this has nothing to do with general relativity.  It's totally explainable by classic Newtonian gravity. The image you show represents the curved space-time of general relativity, but what I was referring as a "gravity well" works just as well with Newton.  Technically, this is the "potential well", defined by the gravitational potential energy, and for the space near a big gravitating object like a planet or star, it looks just like a well.  An object going into that gravitational well will gain speed, just like something rolling down a hill, converting potential energy to kinetic.

I really appreciate that you want to explain Big Bang theory for me. I watched in the past so many documentaries about it. I have read this post of yours even if I don't believe that something can be created from nothing. I know you are going to tell me that there is energy everywhere. That is true, but, I fell like... I don't know. I don't want to disrespect you.

It's my pleasure, and you haven't been disrespectful at all.  You're asking great questions and showing a wonderful curiosity for science, and I'm always happy to help people learn about these kinds of things.  

With the Big Bang, I think you're trying to remedy some confusion between what I describe and what you've heard from documentaries and the like.  Be aware though that these documentaries are trying to explain fairly complex concepts in a simple way for a layperson, and a lot gets lost or confused in that translation.  For example, this idea that the Big Bang says "everything came from nothing" is very common but also wrong, or at best, oversimplified to the point of being almost meaningless.  The more accurate description is that matter was synthesized from energy (specifically, chaotic fluctuations in vacuum fields, described by quantum field theory).  If one chooses to describe "vacuum fields" as "nothing", as some scientists do in those documentaries, then it's an accurate but easily misleading statement.  Personally I do not like it very much for this reason.  In academia I have never heard it described as everything coming from nothing.

When I explain things for people here, I eschew oversimplification in favor of more thorough, technical and accurate description, even if it may be more difficult to understand.  I believe I do you better service by not underestimating your intelligence and allowing you to research or ask further questions if something is still unclear.

I don't know if you want to tell that observation and science is different from God. It is all the same. As I stated in my post: God is force. That means that God can create something with force. There's a lot of things I want to tell you, But I just fell you aren't interested in that. It's not related to creation or something. Many scientist don't want to mix God with science. That's because they don't have the right knowledge to explain some things.

It can be very interesting to discuss theology, but if so we should make another thread for it.  Remember the difference between science and theology is in quantifying measurable relationships, and building mathematical models that describe them which make testable predictions.

You have the rights about some random events. Like this one. But does that also mean that Big Bang is also random? Like, meaning of life would be pointless if you just think you are small as grain of Sand on a beach that is smaller infinite times than the universe?

 

We are a small as a grain of sand on the shores of infinity.  That doesn't make our lives necessarily meaningless.  Science does not determine for you where you draw meaning from.  It only tells you what is consistent with observation and experiment.  The individual decides where meaning comes from.  One may choose theology to derive meaning for life. I draw meaning from the experience of being alive, exploring, learning new knowledge and skills, and meeting people.

The role of randomness in the universe is interesting.  The existence and habitability of Earth is the result of stochastic events.  The vacuum fluctuations in the early universe, that led to variations in the density which eventually collapsed to form galactic clusters, are random.  Does this knowledge give me an existential crisis about the meaning of my life?  Not at all.

Does that mean that there wan no darkness, but instead matter? If it happened everywhere, that means that everywhere universe formed and that there isn't a need for a expansion of galaxies, stars, planets... Only just space around them.

Yeah, this is an example of the confusion from popular-level explanations of the Big Bang.  Often you'll hear it described as something like "at first there was darkness/nothing, and then this tiny point exploded, spewing matter outward which eventually formed galaxies and stuff."  This description can be very misleading.  I'll give you a more accurate one:

Before the Big Bang, we have no idea what things were like.  We only understand what happened immediately after it.  At the first moment we can describe, which is tiny fractions of a second later, there was no matter (it was too hot for even the fundamental particles).  It was also dark, because electromagnetism had not yet separated from the unified forces.  Not only was there no light, there was not even the ability for there to be light!  As the universe expanded and cooled, the fundamental forces separated, matter (and antimatter) were generated from the energy of vacuum fluctuations.  If this seems totally crazy to you (and it is crazy), then you may enjoy reading about pair production.  I also talk about it here.  Creation of matter from the vacuum is a real thing that you can do in the lab.

Then most of the matter and antimatter annihilated, and the universe was a hot (and very bright!) sea of particles and radiation.  There is a very good understanding of the events in this whole timeline, which you can also read about in more detail here.  Also note that we can only directly observe the events back to the recombination (370,000 years after Big Bang), because before then the universe was opaque.  However, the details of what happened before then are predictable from physics, and they have testable implications for things like the abundances of elements and how quickly structures formed, the sizes of the fluctuations in the CMB, and so forth.

This "explosion of stuff" came not from a point, but from every point.  This is really un-intuitive!  The universe right now might be infinite in size (not the observable part which is finite, but everything beyond that), and yet even with that infinity it is expanding, and was still infinite in size at the Big Bang!  What expands is not the size of the universe in the sense of it being a sphere inside of some exterior space, but the scale of space itself, dragging the stuff along with it.

For a visual analogy, I like to think of the universe as being a grid, with galaxies being located at the intersections of the grid lines.  The way the expansion works is not that the galaxies move across the grid away from some center point, but that the grid itself expands, so the squares everywhere get bigger, and the galaxies at their intersections get farther away from each other.  This is a little bit of a simplification, because the expansion actually only happens at large scales (larger than galactic clusters). Individual nearby galaxies, and everything within them, is bound together and do not expand with the rest of the universe.

I don't want to talk about Big Bang and creation, because there is a lot of theories.

Creation is one thing (theology), while the Big Bang is another (a scientific model).

There are lots of scientific conjectures about what started the Big Bang, but the Big Bang as a description of how the universe evolved from a hot and dense early state (especially in the framework of the Lambda-CDM model) is the standard model of cosmology that all astronomers are using. You're welcome to propose another model if you think it better agrees with observations!

Watsisname, so big bang 2.0?

Universe rips apart quarks, eventually universe fills with so many quarks it collapses?

I'm still not sure.  This interplay of concepts gets very tricky! 

First, the notion that quarks are not separable comes from a principle called "color confinement", which says that as a quark pair is pulled apart, instead of obtaining two unbound quarks, you instead get two bound pairs of quarks.  The animations on the wikipedia page can be helpful for visualization, while the details involve weird quantum chromodynamics like color force and flux tubes.

However, this is all in the context of the standard physics of flat, static space-time.  I have no idea if or how it would work differently when the "force separating them" is the dark-energy driven, exponential expansion of space itself in a Big Rip, which brings the cosmological horizon closer.  At the same time, the expansion by that point has also brought all the other baryons beyond the horizon.  Each is the center of its own observable universe containing only it!  So the matter density of a particular volume is really, really low, and basically dark energy dominated.  So my intuition here is rather that the expansion continues.  But I really don't know.  I could be totally wrong.

It's the coolest question I've been asked in a very long time.  I'd like to pass it on to a professional cosmologist when I'm able, but frankly I doubt they'll have a confident answer either.  Even among cosmologists the Big Rip is kind of an outlier idea that most don't deal with very rigorously, let alone combining with quantum chromodynamics. :p

The past few pages have somehow reminded me of an old dream I had and a Celestia addon I made inspired by it.

So, just for fun, beginning at the moment this post is posted, the Earth no longer has an Obliquity of 23.4392911 degrees to the Ecliptic. It is, from now on until it gradually moves away due to natural forces, 79.91963239 degrees to the ecliptic. For the sake of everyone surviving and maintaining constant telecommunications, the Earth does not suffer uber quakes or uber volcanoes, and all satellites and the ISS except the Moon are also moved accordingly. Yes the Magnetic field also moves accordingly, being glued to the Earth and all. The transformation takes place across 10 seconds.

What happens during the next 72 hours in society, and to the weather for the next week (7 days)? How long will it take for the weather patterns to settle into the new status quo? How long might it take for the equatorial ice belt to form, if there is any? How different might life be 1 year from now? 10 years? 100? And finally, what impact might this have on the Global Warming trends?

And how will everyone react on social media?  

I can start us off by saying at least how everyone reacts during the first 10 seconds:

Screaming.  At over 600km/s.  :shock:

Yeah, I meant to imply that Newtons Third Law would be temporarily disabled for everyone and everything on Earth as part of keeping people alive. I probably should've clarified that. Oops.

Hey everybody, I just have a simple question for anybody. does darkness actually exists? and if it does, would it have mass? me and my buddy Marko S. where discussing it in private messages and we where wondering what you people think? Many thanks  

Darkness as in "lack of light"?  Not in the universe today.  Even if you remove all the light from stars, space is filled with photons left over from the CMB.  All matter also emits electromagnetic radiation, even when very cold, so you cannot make a container filled with darkness, though you might be able to make it not contain any light of visible wavelengths. 

One might think a black hole's event horizon is perfectly dark, but it actually does emits light (part of the Hawking radiation) at a very low temperature (so very long wavelength photons).  The inside of a black hole is also not dark -- light from the outside universe falls into it.

So no matter what you do you will always find at least a little bit of light everywhere, and there is no perfect darkness.  (That sounds emotionally uplifting I guess?)

As for mass, light has mass according to E=mc^2 (or more correctly, it has momentum p = E/c, where E is the photon's energy and c is the speed of light.)  Photons actually gravitate a little bit because momentum is a source of gravitation in general relativity!  But darkness would not have mass, unless you want to get into really weird stuff like quantum mechanics, vacuum energy, and a cosmological constant, but let's stay away from those for now.

Darkness as in "lack of light"?  Not in the universe today.  Even if you remove all the light from stars, space is filled with photons left over from the CMB.  All matter also emits electromagnetic radiation, even when very cold, so you cannot make a container filled with darkness, though you might be able to make it not contain any light of visible wavelengths. 

One might think a black hole's event horizon is perfectly dark, but it actually does emits light (part of the Hawking radiation) at a very low temperature (so very long wavelength photons).  The inside of a black hole is also not dark -- light from the outside universe falls into it.

So no matter what you do you will always find at least a little bit of light everywhere, and there is no perfect darkness.  (That sounds emotionally uplifting I guess?)

As for mass, light has mass according to E=mc^2 (or more correctly, it has momentum p = E/c, where E is the photon's energy and c is the speed of light.)  Photons actually gravitate a little bit because momentum is a source of gravitation in general relativity!  But darkness would not have mass, unless you want to get into really weird stuff like quantum mechanics, vacuum energy, and a cosmological constant, but let's stay away from those for now.

WOW! your very intelligent! this answers my question really well, thank you! but I'm a little bit concerned about the black hole part. You said that a black hole's event horizon actually do emit very long wavelengths of light correct? far as I know black hole's bend space to where its escape velocity is more then 1.0 C (more then the speed of light). and nothing travels faster then light right? So these long wavelengths of light... how do they emit away from the event horizon?     

how do they emit away from the event horizon?  

They are emitted just outside of the event horizon.  At the horizon and just beyond the horizon there is no escape, but just outside of it light can still escape.