Big Bang

[bluebell]

This thread reminds me why I have a degree in History.

Edited August 21, 2013 by bluebell

[trim]

As long as we are on the topic of cosmology, I found it interesting or funny really that the discussion of the history and reliability of science inevitably includes the mention of a flat earth and that "flat earthers" is even used as a derogatory term toward some groups.  Ironically, cosmologists (Lawrence Krauss for instance) are excited that the long quest for data from the cosmos has essentially established the fact that the universe is flat.  I know that "flat" in a cosmological sense is very different from two dimensional, but I can't help but smirk when I realize that man has proven that the earth is round and the universe is flat.

Edited August 22, 2013 by trim

[Closet Doubter]

Scientific Method Step 1: Ask a Question

Scientific Method Step 2: Make Observations and Conduct Background Research

Scientific Method Step 3: Propose a Hypothesis

Scientific Method Step 4: Design an Experiment to Test the Hypothesis

Scientific Method Step 5: Test the Hypothesis

Scientific Method Step 6: Accept or Reject the Hypothesis

Revise a Rejected Hypothesis (return to step 3) or Draw Conclusions (Accepted)

Scientists proposed the hypothesis and the experiment to test the hypothesis.  The Hubble space telescope was the instrument for gathering the data to test the hypothesis (Hubble was the name of the scientist that proposed the Big Bang Theory).  A good friend was involved in the design of the Hubbles guidance system and has stayed in contact with the scientists that gather and analyze the data.  A few years ago, he told me the Big Bang Theory is dead.  The data related to the rate of expansion and contraction of the universe collected by the telescope was completely different than what they would have seen if the big bang had been an actual event.  I don't beleive teachings about the earth only being 13,000 years old but I also don't beleive the Big Bang actually occurred.  The data reinforces my lack of belief in the big bang.

[The Nehor]

There is no sanity, thats for sure! Whether theres an edge or not we cannot at this time know. What is for certain though is that we havent found any end in sight which creates a lot of problems for big bang theorists because at some point you would be looking at something older than the supposed big bang. Of course though, then they would just push the date back- typical scientific answer, see it all the time in evolutionary theory.

Actually we have found an end (matter has only gone so far out). If we were to find something outside of that it would get dicey of course. Realistically though if there is something else out there we will probably never find it.

One of the other oddities of cosmology is if our predictions turn out to be accurate eventually every other galaxy will be so far away from each other that they will not be visible and if a future civilization were to arise in one they would probably assume their galaxy is the Universe. We are lucky to live in a time where the Universe is still a light show.

Scientists proposed the hypothesis and the experiment to test the hypothesis.  The Hubble space telescope was the instrument for gathering the data to test the hypothesis (Hubble was the name of the scientist that proposed the Big Bang Theory).  A good friend was involved in the design of the Hubbles guidance system and has stayed in contact with the scientists that gather and analyze the data.  A few years ago, he told me the Big Bang Theory is dead.  The data related to the rate of expansion and contraction of the universe collected by the telescope was completely different than what they would have seen if the big bang had been an actual event.  I don't beleive teachings about the earth only being 13,000 years old but I also don't beleive the Big Bang actually occurred.  The data reinforces my lack of belief in the big bang.

What data? All you have is vague hearsay. I do not believe it. Scientists are almost all eager to make the next big discovery that will put their name in the history books and your friend is telling you these scientists are sitting on that discovery? Why? Or is this guy like the ubiquitous kid in elementary school in my generation who claimed to have a friend or an uncle that worked at Nintendo and was smuggling him prototype games he was not allowed to show us. I know a guy who claims an archaeologist friend of his has found the ark of the covenant and is hiding it to discredit religion instead of using it to make his career and advance his field considerably.

Conspiracies do happen but they happen (as the scriptures say) in order for the participants to get gain and/or glory. They do not work when they are to the detriment of everyone involved.

[Rob Osborn]

Actually we have found an end (matter has only gone so far out). If we were to find something outside of that it would get dicey of course. Realistically though if there is something else out there we will probably never find it.

One of the other oddities of cosmology is if our predictions turn out to be accurate eventually every other galaxy will be so far away from each other that they will not be visible and if a future civilization were to arise in one they would probably assume their galaxy is the Universe. We are lucky to live in a time where the Universe is still a light show.

What data? All you have is vague hearsay. I do not believe it. Scientists are almost all eager to make the next big discovery that will put their name in the history books and your friend is telling you these scientists are sitting on that discovery? Why? Or is this guy like the ubiquitous kid in elementary school in my generation who claimed to have a friend or an uncle that worked at Nintendo and was smuggling him prototype games he was not allowed to show us. I know a guy who claims an archaeologist friend of his has found the ark of the covenant and is hiding it to discredit religion instead of using it to make his career and advance his field considerably.

Conspiracies do happen but they happen (as the scriptures say) in order for the participants to get gain and/or glory. They do not work when they are to the detriment of everyone involved.

Could you provide your evidence in photograph form showing an end to space? I think you are bluffing, peove me wrong

[Calm]

Admittedly if a ball left a pitcher's hand at that speed rather strange and cool things would happen:

http://what-if.xkcd.com/1/

Best part is the last sentence.

[The Nehor]

Could you provide your evidence in photograph form showing an end to space? I think you are bluffing, peove me wrong

Sure, just get me a teleporter or FTL ship so I can take my iphone to the edge of the Universe and I will snap you a photo. Sound fair?

You are being silly. Hubble's pictures are as far out as we can see and they have to be processed extensively from the raw data before they mean anything. A few probes are near the edge of our solar system but that is our backyard. No camera has gone far enough to take such a photo and I assume you know that.

Spacetime is also curved so you are not going to see a wall at the edge even if you did get something out further. When they say reality is weird and counterintuitive they meant it. You can try for visualizations and diagrams for it but those are approximations. The math is the closest we can approach the reality.

[The Nehor]

Best part is the last sentence.

Completely agree. Love that guy's writing.

[Rob Osborn]

Sure, just get me a teleporter or FTL ship so I can take my iphone to the edge of the Universe and I will snap you a photo. Sound fair?

You are being silly. Hubble's pictures are as far out as we can see and they have to be processed extensively from the raw data before they mean anything. A few probes are near the edge of our solar system but that is our backyard. No camera has gone far enough to take such a photo and I assume you know that.

Spacetime is also curved so you are not going to see a wall at the edge even if you did get something out further. When they say reality is weird and counterintuitive they meant it. You can try for visualizations and diagrams for it but those are approximations. The math is the closest we can approach the reality.

I got a time machine- bought it used from Napolean, made a few mods to it. Perhaps we can go back to the beginning and shoot a few pics of when the Gods did the groundbreaking.

I am always amazed by the deep space pictures taken of space. Its an actual enigma! Whats baffling however is that even with better telescopes, better strategies, longer exposure sequences all they are showing is that not only does it go on forever, there are also a seemingly endless count to the number of galaxies.

[strappinglad]

What is amazing to me is that cosmologists are constantly revising their theories on the planets and what should be found on them, because of actual observations via real time flybys of the space probes , and yet are so absolutely positive about what happened each nanosecond of an event that supposedly happened 15+ billion years ago.

[boulder257]

And to think, all of this was first theorized and discovered by a Catholic Priest, Georges Lemaitre. Kind of shuts down the whole argument that faith, science, and reason cannot co-exist and compliment one another. In this situations I also think about my signature line, quoted by Pope John Paul II.

[thesometimesaint]

There is no sanity, thats for sure! Whether theres an edge or not we cannot at this time know. What is for certain though is that we havent found any end in sight which creates a lot of problems for big bang theorists because at some point you would be looking at something older than the supposed big bang. Of course though, then they would just push the date back- typical scientific answer, see it all the time in evolutionary theory.

 

It doesn't create problems for the Big Bang. It does however create all types of problems for the young earth creationists.

 

As a hypothetical let's claim that there are stars a trillion lights years away. Given the speed of light we will not know anything about them for another 995 billion years.

 

Ask a scientific question and what do you expect but a scientific answer.

[thesometimesaint]

There are variations on the big bang theory that explain the observed expansion of the universe.  The difficulty with the big bang theory in my view is that there is a requirement for nearly infinite density and infinite temperature in an almost infinitely small volume.  It is difficult to imaging how that happens spontaneously.

 

The inflation theories are interesting because they offer a mechanism for creating observable matter and energy as a product of the expansion and they align with observations.  What is interesting about inflation theory is the that they allow for a beginning of space time for our universe without the need for eliminating eternitiy.  They offer a "beginning" to creation without a finite timeline to the creator.

 

We mortal humans are very limited in what we can visualize. Groups of things past about 40 become just a number. Measurements less than about 1/8 of an inch just become fractions, or just a decimal. IE; Pi becomes largely meaningless after 3.1415 yet continues on at least a billion decimal points. We can't visualize infinity.

 

It didn't happen spontaneously, but we just have no way of knowing through science, what if anything happened before it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It doesn't create problems for the Big Bang. It does however create all types of problems for the young earth creationists.

 

As a hypothetical let's claim that there are stars a trillion lights years away. Given the speed of light we will not know anything about them for another 995 billion years.

 

Ask a scientific question and what do you expect but a scientific answer.

So who believes in a young earth? You keep trotting this out like it is some widley held belief amoung members.

[thesometimesaint]

What is amazing to me is that cosmologists are constantly revising their theories on the planets and what should be found on them, because of actual observations via real time flybys of the space probes , and yet are so absolutely positive about what happened each nanosecond of an event that supposedly happened 15+ billion years ago.

 

That's a bit of a misnomer. Science is based on what is observered. If and when we observe something new the theory must be changed or rejected based on that observation.

[thesometimesaint]

So who believes in a young earth? You keep trotting this out like it is some widley held belief amoung members.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

[thesometimesaint]

And to think, all of this was first theorized and discovered by a Catholic Priest, Georges Lemaitre. Kind of shuts down the whole argument that faith, science, and reason cannot co-exist and compliment one another. In this situations I also think about my signature line, quoted by Pope John Paul II.

 

Some of the greatest scientists have been believers. I think that is great.

[The Nehor]

What is amazing to me is that cosmologists are constantly revising their theories on the planets and what should be found on them, because of actual observations via real time flybys of the space probes , and yet are so absolutely positive about what happened each nanosecond of an event that supposedly happened 15+ billion years ago.

This is not surprising. The Big Bang was much simpler. There wasn't that much in the way of different kinds of stuff back then. When dealing with planets you are dealing with the debris of supernova to figure out the concentration of heavy elements. They are much more complicated. The Big Bang is simple. You deal with subatomic particles, matter and antimatter, Hydrogen and later Helium. Helium was the densest element in existence before the first stars burned over to start creating heavier elements. No star creates anything denser then iron before it explodes (and the explosion creates heavier elements).

You also overestimate how "absolutely positive" everyone is. The reason we are building supercolliders and simulations and experiments is to see if everything works the way we think it does.

There are lots of fun questions still out there so we should not pretend there is some stifling orthodoxy in place. What is going on inside gas giants? What are they made of at the inaccessible core? We can figure it out for stars through the light and particles they emit but gas giants do not give us that. We have theories but no way to test so far. What is dark energy? Dark matter? These are placeholders. We have detected "something" but are unsure of their properties.

There are always some science deniers out there that will argue against the math underlying the Universe but they are idiots whose actions are inconsistent with their beliefs. While arguing that quantum theory is wrong they happily use GPS oblivious to the fact that if it were false GPS systems simply would not work. They come up with harebrained, inconsistent, and illogical theories to battle consensus they are unequpped to even understand. They are like the LDS church critic who read a section of the D&C, a webpage about Joseph Smith, and a children's rendition of the Book of Mormon and imagine they are now able to discredit the LDS church. The only people they can impress are those equally ignorant.

[Questing Beast]

Nehor is talking about absolutely me. The saving "grace" is that I know, that I know, practically nothing about almost everything, and that even the most intelligent and advanced scientist is, for all practical comparative purposes, no different. Yet we keep asking "why?" and looking for ways to get answers. No other sentient creatures do this but us.

 

"God" Is so far beyond comprehension that the only way I can comprehend "God" even having enough interest to notice our species at all, is to believe, with faith, that our minds are part of "God's" mind, given personality/uniqueness, and intended to communicate back to "God In Total" what it is like to be an egocentric universe continually expanding outward seeking for the Origin of our sapience. In that process we become closer to the kind of thinker that "God Is", and morph, like an embryo, into a child who will grow up to become a soul mate....

[thesometimesaint]

Nehor is talking about absolutely me. The saving "grace" is that I know, that I know, practically nothing about almost everything, and that even the most intelligent and advanced scientist is, for all practical comparative purposes, no different. Yet we keep asking "why?" and looking for ways to get answers. No other sentient creatures do this but us.

 

"God" Is so far beyond comprehension that the only way I can comprehend "God" even having enough interest to notice our species at all, is to believe, with faith, that our minds are part of "God's" mind, given personality/uniqueness, and intended to communicate back to "God In Total" what it is like to be an egocentric universe continually expanding outward seeking for the Origin of our sapience. In that process we become closer to the kind of thinker that "God Is", and morph, like an embryo, into a child who will grow up to become a soul mate....

 

My knowledge is but a thimble in the vast oceans of my ignorance.

[Rob Osborn]

It doesn't create problems for the Big Bang. It does however create all types of problems for the young earth creationists.

 

As a hypothetical let's claim that there are stars a trillion lights years away. Given the speed of light we will not know anything about them for another 995 billion years.

 

Ask a scientific question and what do you expect but a scientific answer.

I am not a YEC, they have their own hurdles to get over. I believe in a relatively short history of the earth since life has been dying but as for how old the earth is, not sure. As for the universe, who can know, we have no optical device strong enough to detect the size of the universe. Nor can we be anywhere close to understanding the eternal nature of matter and energy- they dont just pop into existance from nothing. Theology gives us more clues on these matters than sciwnce is able to produce.

[Questing Beast]

My knowledge is but a thimble in the vast oceans of my ignorance.

That resonates....

[Questing Beast]

I am not a YEC, they have their own hurdles to get over. I believe in a relatively short history of the earth since life has been dying but as for how old the earth is, not sure. As for the universe, who can know, we have no optical device strong enough to detect the size of the universe. Nor can we be anywhere close to understanding the eternal nature of matter and energy- they dont just pop into existance from nothing. Theology gives us more clues on these matters than sciwnce is able to produce.

Explain this odd disconnect, if you can: how can "life have been dying a relatively short time", and the earth be millions of years old? What are fossils except the solidified remains of DEAD things?...

[The Nehor]

I am not a YEC, they have their own hurdles to get over. I believe in a relatively short history of the earth since life has been dying but as for how old the earth is, not sure. As for the universe, who can know, we have no optical device strong enough to detect the size of the universe. Nor can we be anywhere close to understanding the eternal nature of matter and energy- they dont just pop into existance from nothing. Theology gives us more clues on these matters than sciwnce is able to produce.

Please do not pit theology and science against each other as if it is some kind of contest as to which can explain more. It always turns into an attempt to demean one or the other and always ends up demeaning both.

[Rob Osborn]

Please do not pit theology and science against each other as if it is some kind of contest as to which can explain more. It always turns into an attempt to demean one or the other and always ends up demeaning both.

I am just stating that when it comes to the "eternal nature of matter and energy" that we are probably best served to look at it froma  theologic standpoint rather than from what science has to say. Religious texts explain more about the nature of elements and the universe in the concept of time than does science texts.