2006-09-08 19:24:30 · 15 answers · asked by John G 5 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
"size" i dont know how that concept could be explained without space to contain the object(star), star??
think of a point; it doesnt have a size since it doesnt have any dimensions
2006-09-08 21:26:44 · answer #1 · answered by NeedMedicalHelp!! 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Big Bang was not the result of an exploding star. The first stars didn't begin to form until some 1-billion years after the Big Bang. Pretty hard to wrap your head around this, but science has so far been totally unable to determine what, if anything, the Big Bang came from. It's like there was no universe, then there was.
2006-09-09 02:44:19 · answer #2 · answered by Chug-a-Lug 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If the universe were infinite there would be no space between stars in the sky. At some point in an infinite universe there would logistically have to be a star and that light would eventually be seen on earth just like every other star resulting in one big lit sky at night.
2006-09-09 02:29:10 · answer #3 · answered by sndprssr 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Nothing exploded in the normal sense. Rather, all the matter in the universe expanded from a single point. That initial time when expansion occurred is called the Big Bang. All the matter that existed then is all the matter that exists now.
2006-09-09 02:31:27 · answer #4 · answered by dreaming1998 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it was not a star that started the big bang it would seem to have been a 'quantum vacuum fluctuation'. where the stuff that formed the universe appeared from nothing. this is apparently fully explainable by quantum theory, by theory i don't mean the creationist bastardisation of the word, i mean a set of linked ideas and concepts that can be used to test hypothesis, questions like where do we come from. quantum theory is the most successful theory ever developed, it has been tested time and time again and hasn't failed. if you want more info type in, "quantum vacuum fluctuations" into yahoo search.
2006-09-09 02:40:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In a Universe, homogeneous and isotropic, the location where the big bang occurred is not important, because. according to the General Relativity Theory, any object that you consider, is in a given moment in the center of the Universe. If in another given moment, the whole mass of the Universe was concentrated as energy, mostly photons, in a point whose dimensions couldn't be quantifiable, for there was nothing to compare with
2006-09-09 02:42:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
i don't think it was a star that exploded. imho, the biggest weakness of the big bang theory is that it doesn't account for what was before it. (along with all the weak evidence to "prove" it.) if there was a star there, then there was a universe (consisting of a star) before the big bang, and the big bang didn't create it. also, i dunno where you got that information, but when a star collapses, it creates a black hole, not a universe.
2006-09-09 02:27:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Big Bang initiated from a singularity.. A dot in nothingness.
2006-09-09 02:29:29 · answer #8 · answered by MyStIcTrE3 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just as undefineable as the current universe.
(The 'size' you mention, must be related to something. If it was 'just a very small point with high mass or energy', that wouldn't say anything... Small compared to WHAT?)
2006-09-09 02:25:45 · answer #9 · answered by · 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Infinitely big of course.
2006-09-09 08:13:51 · answer #10 · answered by vaivagabundo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋