Nofear Posted December 27, 2015 Posted December 27, 2015 Mostly an faq. I have said several times on this board that the Big Bang theory does not depend a singularity (which I maintain would be very hard to reconcile with Mormonism). This article discusses a lot of the relevant information. No technical prerequisite needed to understand the article; nor does it address highly speculative ideas like mutiverses. It sticks to observation and general relativity. http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/12/26/ask-ethan-how-big-was-the-universe-when-it-was-first-born/ 1
Robert F. Smith Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 How big was the universe when it started? This assumes that there is a universe (rather than a multiverse) and that it had a start, neither of which is a viable theory. Moreover, such considerations do not even include most of that which composes space-time -- dark energy and dark matter. We don't even know what they are. 1
Nofear Posted December 28, 2015 Author Posted December 28, 2015 I am going to go with somebody didn't bother actually reading the article. Not that I expect or care if anybody changes their preconceptions, just hoping fewer Mormons sound ignorant when talking cosmology.
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 (edited) I hope I don't disappoint you too much - I'm going to risk my already-tenuous unprofessional reputation and tentatively endorse an interesting crank with a vaguely-annoying writing style who argues against this model in favor of the infinite universe briefly mentioned. I've yet to read anything that successfully deals with his argument for why the red-shift is actually a sort of crypto-neo-geocentrism which doesn't actually indicate expansion. It's actually a really interesting perspective and solves a lot of problems, I think. Very compatible with LDS theology, as a bonus. Edited December 28, 2015 by JeremyOrbe-Smith 1
rodheadlee Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 5 hours ago, Nofear said: Mostly an faq. I have said several times on this board that the Big Bang theory does not depend a singularity (which I maintain would be very hard to reconcile with Mormonism). This article discusses a lot of the relevant information. No technical prerequisite needed to understand the article; nor does it address highly speculative ideas like mutiverses. It sticks to observation and general relativity. http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/12/26/ask-ethan-how-big-was-the-universe-when-it-was-first-born/ Thanks for taking the time to post that.
3DOP Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 between a ninth of an inch and eighteen ninths of an inch? I dunno. Just tell us how big if you know.
longview Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 2 hours ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said: I hope I don't disappoint you too much - I'm going to risk my already-tenuous unprofessional reputation and tentatively endorse an interesting crank with a vaguely-annoying writing style who argues against this model in favor of the infinite universe briefly mentioned. I've yet to read anything that successfully deals with his argument for why the red-shift is actually a sort of crypto-neo-geocentrism which doesn't actually indicate expansion. It's actually a really interesting perspective and solves a lot of problems, I think. Very compatible with LDS theology, as a bonus. What an amazing link! Read the WHOLE thing. Supports my ongoing contention that there is NOT just one possible interpretation for any given scientific topic. However this writer does not believe in Gods begetting more Gods, only in evolving life that is eventually interchanged between solar systems, galaxies, clusters, etc. Also does not speak of "spiritual matter" . . . 1
Nofear Posted December 28, 2015 Author Posted December 28, 2015 Indeed, the article was from a purely secular perspective. Our latter day theology demands that the purely secular idea is incomplete. Doesn't make the secular observations incorrect, just that the may need to be some revisions in our interpretations. But, unfortunately all we have is some vague metaphysical description about spirit matter and a few other concepts. Not even enough to give us a seat at the secular table of cosmology. But it does, have enough, to provide Latter-day Saint cosmologists the impetus to look further. Some many Mormons who bother to talk about it say something along line A (which is the most arrogant approach) A) I don't know what you are talking about*, but i know it's wrong. * That expression usually doesn't come straight out but instead the individual naively says things about the theory which it does not say. Far fewer we have who might say B) I think I understand you, but for personal reasons that aren't yet scientific, I feel the model will be revised.
The Nehor Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 5 hours ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said: I hope I don't disappoint you too much - I'm going to risk my already-tenuous unprofessional reputation and tentatively endorse an interesting crank with a vaguely-annoying writing style who argues against this model in favor of the infinite universe briefly mentioned. I've yet to read anything that successfully deals with his argument for why the red-shift is actually a sort of crypto-neo-geocentrism which doesn't actually indicate expansion. It's actually a really interesting perspective and solves a lot of problems, I think. Very compatible with LDS theology, as a bonus. I would avoid quoting that journal. It is a haven for quacks. From Wikipedia: "On January 17, 2014, NASA reported that a martian rock, named "Pinnacle Island", that was not in an Opportunity rover image taken on Sol 3528, "mysteriously" appeared 13 days later in a similar image taken on Sol 3540. One possible explanation, presented by Steven Squyres, principal investigator of the Mars Exploration Rover Mission, was that the rover, in one of its turning motions, flicked the rock from a few feet away and into the new location. In response to the finding, Rhawn Joseph published an article in the Journal of Cosmology on January 17, 2014, concluding that the object is in fact a living organism resembling Apothecia, a large fungus. Rhawn Joseph then filed a writ of mandamus on January 27, 2014 in San Francisco Federal Court, demanding that NASA examine the rock more closely. However, NASA already had examined the rock on January 8, 2014 and confirmed it was a rock with a high sulphur, manganese, and magnesium content. According to Squyres, "We have looked at it with our microscope. It is clearly a rock." On February 14, 2014, NASA released an image showing the location from where the "Pinnacle Island" rock was dislodged by the Opportunity rover." Not only are they quacks but they try to sue real scientific institutions. This is not an isolated incident. They have also declared with no evidence that they have found life in meteoroids and claim they are being suppressed. That the article is in that journal refutes it outright. Anyone who knows anything about the field and wanted to get the word out would have picked a different venue. A horrible self-built website that looks like it came out of the 90s with midi music playing and green text on a pink background would be a more credible platform on which to post your article. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 4 hours ago, longview said: ................................................................... However this writer does not believe in Gods begetting more Gods, only in evolving life that is eventually interchanged between solar systems, galaxies, clusters, etc. ................................................................... . . . Doesn't matter much, since most astrophysicists already accept the existence of advanced sentient beings (who got that way by evolution), whom they term "godlike." The Mormon finite god fits in like a glove. The supernatural need not even come up for discussion.
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 (edited) I was aware of all that and more, The Nehor - sorry, I should have put in a longer disclaimer (I did think about it, but decided the fringiness would be obvious if anyone actually clicked on the link). As I said, the guy is a crank, and I don't at all endorse any of his other stuff, particularly his Graham Hancock-style historical writings. But I still think that one article has interesting ideas. I'm interested in the content, not if the person who said it was a wackjob in other areas of life - it's a useful skill to have if one is LDS. Then again, I'm the kind of guy who appreciates Outsider Art, so caveat emptor. Edited December 28, 2015 by JeremyOrbe-Smith
Ahab Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 I see the Big Bang as a hallucination of what we might have thought we were seeing from a certain place in space as everything we now see in the universe got closer to us. Like how any object or collection of object first appears to be a very small thing when it is far far away from where we are when we first see it and then gradually appears to get bigger as it gets closer to us. So before we could see what we now see as the "observable" universe it would have appeared as nothing since we would not have been able to see it until it got close enough for us to see. So what would we have seen before we saw what we can see now which first would have appeared to be nothing until it got close enough for us to see? Would we have seen nothing but empty space or things which are now too far away for us to see now? Imagine yourself standing or floating in one place in space forever while seeing things as they go by to visualize what I am talking about.
thesometimesaint Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 The universe is expanding at an increasing rate. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe
Ahab Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 Appears to be increasing. And appearances can be deceiving. At some point in time what we now see as the observable universe appeared to be very small from where we are observing it now, with it being far far away in the distance, and then gradually it appeared to get bigger and bigger as it got closer to where we are now until it appeared to be all around us. At some later point in time it will start to appear to go past where we are now and then it will appear to get smaller and smaller, with the distance between each object in the observable universe appearing to be closer and closer. I call it the schwoosh effect, although it can take a relatively long time for the observable to get close and then move away.
The Nehor Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 2 hours ago, Ahab said: Appears to be increasing. And appearances can be deceiving. At some point in time what we now see as the observable universe appeared to be very small from where we are observing it now, with it being far far away in the distance, and then gradually it appeared to get bigger and bigger as it got closer to where we are now until it appeared to be all around us. At some later point in time it will start to appear to go past where we are now and then it will appear to get smaller and smaller, with the distance between each object in the observable universe appearing to be closer and closer. I call it the schwoosh effect, although it can take a relatively long time for the observable to get close and then move away. There are so many things wrong with this it is hard to know where to start.
Ahab Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 I suggest that you get into your ship of imagination to imagine being where you would have been able to see what we now refer to as the observable universe when it would have appeared to be the size of a soccer ball. Some people seem to imagine themselves being right there next to it at that size, and I am simply imagining myself being further away, about as far as I am from the furthest thing in it that can be seen today from where we are now.
The Nehor Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 2 minutes ago, Ahab said: I suggest that you get into your ship of imagination to imagine being where you would have been able to see what we now refer to as the observable universe when it would have appeared to be the size of a soccer ball. Some people seem to imagine themselves being right there next to it at that size, and I am simply imagining myself being further away, about as far as I am from the furthest thing in it that can be seen today from where we are now. So you are arguing that our galaxy (or solar system or whatever) was there and the Universe ran into us as it expanded and by happy coincidence we are made up of the same stuff and decided to head off in the same direction and roughly the same speed for some reason?
Ahab Posted December 29, 2015 Posted December 29, 2015 HiNo, I'm just taking into consideration the fact that all of our measurements have been from where we are now (relatively) to the furthest distance we can measure from here to there. All things or collections of things appear small to an observer when the object is off in the distance, and when there is motion they seem to appear either bigger or smaller depending on the direction of motion and relative speed. What we are seeing are galaxies in motion at different speeds and in different directions while we can see only up to a certain distance right now. And the more we will be able to see as we see more in the future the more we will know there is and always will be more of the same things we are already seeing. Including greater and lesser intelligences. 1
The Nehor Posted December 29, 2015 Posted December 29, 2015 5 hours ago, Ahab said: HiNo, I'm just taking into consideration the fact that all of our measurements have been from where we are now (relatively) to the furthest distance we can measure from here to there. All things or collections of things appear small to an observer when the object is off in the distance, and when there is motion they seem to appear either bigger or smaller depending on the direction of motion and relative speed. What we are seeing are galaxies in motion at different speeds and in different directions while we can see only up to a certain distance right now. And the more we will be able to see as we see more in the future the more we will know there is and always will be more of the same things we are already seeing. Including greater and lesser intelligences. Actually if the Universe continues to expand and accelerate as it appears to be doing now eventually (long time by our reckoning) we will not be able to see any other galaxies at all as they grow further and further away so that their light will never reach us. Also things do not appear bigger or smaller depending on direction and speed. Not sure what you can mean by that.
Recommended Posts