TED Conversations

RAKESH DWIVEDI

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Understanding BIG BANG , from the law of physics of today, is not achievable.

The laws of physics , just before the big bang , were different . We have evidence of speed , greater than light In the universe . These speed were attained immediately after big bang & lasted for a very short period . There after the laws were concreted , which the nature follows today.

To understand BIG Bang we have to look & understand , the laws prevailing, before the big bang.

Probably there was no third dimension, or gravity, before big bang , & the introduction of the third dimension or the gravity caused the big bang .

Time also came into being after the big bang. As time is understood as the " Distance travelled , divide by speed. The light, which, does not need any medium for travel, was it self not there. Hence There was nothing that travelled . NO travel , no distance covered , no speed hence no time

Topics: big bang
+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Aug 8 2013: Had this discussion with a friends of mine - Several with PHD's in physics,chemistry, They all agreed that science is always evolving and the laws of physics will either be changed or added to match the new discoveries.
    • Aug 8 2013: Well , thanks for the information form the learned. I am only an imaginative person , & was thrilled to get an stamp on my thoughts

      Well about Gravity , My imagination takes me to point , that the movement of galaxy @ 220 K.M. per second could be the force which is providing the gravity.

      The big bang invented light , travel ,time & this travel has resulted in the gravity.
      Pls see my post under gravity in TED
      • Aug 8 2013: Let me go off topic for a minute. keep thinking and imagining but what i wanted to point out that science, math, etc are not a fixed set of knowledge - they grows and sometimes contracts. The method is through arguments backed up by experiments and facts and logic. There will s always be conservative vs the new idea and sometimes the conservatives and right and sometimes the new idea is right -

        Let me give you an example: there was an experiment in climatology in the 1950's. It was accepted as fact and appears in every beginning text book on climatology. Someone has disputed the experiment and the results. He has run experiments and done the math. I have read his papers and I think he is right. It will shake up the science a little bit.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.