PDA

View Full Version : Flat universe and the big bang theory



consolidation
03-31-2011, 08:26 PM
On another forum I had a healthy debate with a serial science poster about the big bang and the intial expansion required at 4 times the speed of light etc..
We had debated black/dark matter and energy and the best explanation the science zealot could give is we observe its effects...not actuallly true or proven we do observe effects which cannot be explained without the addition of magic super glue to hold things in place for the current theory and it has become known as dark matter and dark energy...big difference. His rationale was we observed stars long before we could prove what they were...was he referring to those holes in the blanket where light shone? Timing is crucial and truth is realitive to the time it is stated was my only point.
Recently I have been reading the statistical analysis on the probability of the universe being the current flat shape ...it is 10 to the power of 100 more likely to happen without inflation ( another key concept that is observed in our universe) than with it.
Then their is good inflation v bad inflation.....bad inflation where it is more 10 to the power of 15 times more condusive to produce environments that would sustain life.
Good inflation9 the one the current theory uses) is a remote and statistical rareity and is needed to produce a flat shape that we currently live within.

So all this does not make the theory wrong, but it does make it such a fluke that IT BEGGARS BELIEF.

Now combine this with outline of how the big bang began (or at least or current theory)( ps. this next post was deleted by the science mod from another forum as it "read like a comic").

no one "understands" super force... it is an imaginary combination of the four known forces before the universe supposedly expanded at speeds four times the speed of light for a while..another very strange occurance for a scientist to state..However i digress...

super force was invented because science needed a super force source to break free of the black /white hole in the big bang theory...not because of anything else...let us see... there were only four special brothers...strong nuclear, weak nuclear, gravity and magneto....none of these good forces alone had the power to break free of the evil black hole, which by the way (according to current science and the BB theory) didnt exist... but when they combined they formed..tah dah...super force!
This super Force then overcame its single FRW captor and escaped at a speed 4 times faster than light until they decided to slow down a bit,( for no apparent reason)...then the first ever planets whom stragggled too much were gobbled up by the evil black holes and eaten from inside... or worse were they attacked by the equally evil super huge white holes by using the temporal parts of the spacetime metric after tharwting the swartzchild dilemna by continually expanding!( although the universe has been measured as currently slowing down)

Luckily for our intrepid stars the "hawking radiation solution" is expected to eventually render the evil black holes inconsequential by depleting their mass. Our intrepid stars may still avoid the isotropic collapse that spacetime had planned for it. Will the evil oppenheimer plan a stellar collapse to end all our heroic forces hopes as the evil black hole swallow everyhing in their path and pass it to the white hole sigularities for use?... will our star survive the evil whiteholes "string of beads" plan where the evil white hole gang explode separately but in a unexplainable co-ordinated fashion to acheive the GR Exact solution and realising the 'ONE' universe we supposedly seek?..stay tuned for more, although it may take thousands of billons of years before we first see the edge of the evil whiteholes cunning identity...
Will they again control our four heroic forces fates or will our heros again form to become TAH DAH ....SUPER FORCE!

I actually believe BB is our best guess yet, but let's be realistic it is a best fit...as such it's a theory full of holes ( pun intended)

Soapboxmom
03-31-2011, 08:49 PM
I grew up watching Carl Sagan on PBS. I toook Astro Science in high school. I wish he was here today to participate in these debates. He fostered a love of science for which I will ever be grateful. I did go on to major in music and your post brought the incredible music from that series to mind.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nP5Gbm2XKc&NR=1


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSZ55X3X4pk

Soapboxmom

consolidation
03-31-2011, 09:08 PM
great music and vision, thank you! I must watch that series one day.

Now comes the really challenging part ( which I do with a sense of fun and puckness) Those science minded individuals out there I would encourage you to use the laws of permutations to calculate the accumlative statistical likelhood of the big bang being correct noting the few of the many probabilities in the first posting that it needs to be held true. heres a link if you need it.
Probability theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory#Convergence_of_random_variables )

Now having done that (please be civil and scientific ) I ask why is "God just did it" any less remote an idea ?
Ladies and gentlemen start your engines.

Soapboxmom
03-31-2011, 09:56 PM
Perhaps God is the uncaused cause and he just did do it?

Soapboxmom

littleroundman
03-31-2011, 10:25 PM
Wikipedia says: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth) "The age of the Earth is 4.54 BILLION years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%) This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples"

Why is humankind so arrogant as to expect it has a bloody clue what happened or could have happened 4.54 BILLION years ago.

Is there anything wrong with humankind saying "We have no possible way of knowing what happened" and turning its' attention to something that matters ???

I guess that's why non ego driven people refer to it as the Big Bang THEORY.

Whip
03-31-2011, 10:38 PM
I agree LRM. It's funny to watch. There was a documentary ('The Universe' I think which is a pretty good series) on either History or Discovery channels (or both) that stated scientists have narrowed down the big bang theory to like one atom that contained 4 elements and it exploded to create the universe. But they never addressed how this one single solitary atom would have gotten there.

Entertained
04-02-2011, 08:41 AM
consolidated,

You are no doubt referring to the article in Scientific American this month by Paul Steinhardt. He makes a very eloquent case for the defects in Inflation Theory, and in addition points out some of its strengths. Further elaborations on the article can be found at the SciAm web site. Steinhardt’s arguments are not universally accepted, and are in fact a minority view. That does not make them wrong however. Some of the rebuttals to his arguments include that at the moment there is no better theory available that is supported by the preponderance of data (and Steinhardt is trying to develop his own theory, so may not be the most unbiased author). Admittedly, we do not have all of the data necessary to validate inflation theory. COBE and subsequent probes have generated a lot of data in support of inflation, and the mainstream view is still that inflation is the best we’ve got for now. Second, the data show that the observable universe is astoundingly flat as well as astoundingly uniform. It is incredibly unlikely that such a state could arise from the rapid initial conditions of the Big Bang (which is thought of as an explosion, but wasn’t anything of the sort). Inflation is one way of explaining not just the uniformity and flatness, but also a lot of other observational data. Steinhardt points out (correctly IMO) that the current version of inflation theory (not Guth’s original version, but the so-called “new” theory) relies on things that are improbable and has some gaps. His arguments on various individual points appear to have merit, but the individual points do not lead to a new theory (yet??). The situation as I see it is that our present state is incredibly unlikely regardless of how it is modeled. For a model to be able to generate the near-zero values for lack of flatness or nonuniformity, it must be very sensitive to perturbation (which is part of Steinhardt’s argument). The analogy is that it is difficult to accurately distinguish small differences between large quantities – how good of a scale would you need to have in order to differentiate between one billion grams and one billion and one grams? The third rebuttal for Steinhardt’s argument in the anthropic principle. We exist, and if rare events must occur in order for us to exist, then those rare events must have happened in our universe. In many cosmological models, there are an infinity of universes, and thus even rare events occur. While this is not all that satisfying, it is a mathematically consistent argument. 10 to the 100th power is a LOT less than infinity…….

In all emergent science, data collection and theory proposal, testing, and refinement occur simultaneously. You are correct in saying that inflation and the Big Bang are the best theories we have at the moment. It is also correct to say that there are significant anomalies, pointed out by Steinhardt and many others.

I'll leave the "God Just Did It" part alone.......however, if you are interested, Hawking's lastest book addresses that specific issue.


great music and vision, thank you! I must watch that series one day.

Now comes the really challenging part ( which I do with a sense of fun and puckness) Those science minded individuals out there I would encourage you to use the laws of permutations to calculate the accumlative statistical likelhood of the big bang being correct noting the few of the many probabilities in the first posting that it needs to be held true. heres a link if you need it.
Probability theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory#Convergence_of_random_variables )

Now having done that (please be civil and scientific ) I ask why is "God just did it" any less remote an idea ?
Ladies and gentlemen start your engines.

Entertained
04-02-2011, 08:59 AM
LRM,

With the greatest respect, I think you might be off base. How did you know that ASD was a scam? Well, you relied on observation, data, a theory, and past experience and arrived at a conclusion. Same thing here. The various disciplines that get combined into cosmology are data and theory-driven, like any scientific endeavor. As better data becomes available, theories are adjusted or discarded accordingly. The LHC at CERN is specifically designed to probe high-energy regions in order to answer some very fundamental questions concerning cosmology primarily (note that I did not say "important questions.") Taken another way, how do you KNOW what happened to you yesterday? Regardless of how you might answer that one, I could always hypothesize that earlier today the Flying Spaghetti Monster created you and everything around you, including your memories of yesterday. That means that there was no "yesterday". This theory explains everything about your existence today, and on the face of it, is a perfectly valid theory and you have no basis for rejecting it. However, this theory is not testable, and thus does not fall into the realm of science. However, the BB theory, as well as theories regarding the origin of the solar system, do fall within the class of theories that ARE testable.

As to the comment on "turning attention to things that matter", I would suggest that a great many people said the same thing about quantum mechanics 100 years ago. Of course, today something like $10 trillion of our global economy relies on mankind's ability to understand and harness the principles of quantum mechanics. There'd be no electronics, for starters. I am not sayiing in any way that cosmology has any practical implications, but rejection of basic science doesn't seem like a good idea. IMVHO, the best reasons to intellectually explore the universe are to challenge/expand/stretch our brains, and more importantly to seek to understand where we and everything around us came from. That is the deep question that cosmology seeks to answer. I know a great many people invoke consolidation's "God Just Did It" theory, but certainly that is not the answer for everyone. There's even the variation of "God Did It And Left Clues For Us To Explore" theory......



Wikipedia says: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth) "The age of the Earth is 4.54 BILLION years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%) This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples"

Why is humankind so arrogant as to expect it has a bloody clue what happened or could have happened 4.54 BILLION years ago.

Is there anything wrong with humankind saying "We have no possible way of knowing what happened" and turning its' attention to something that matters ???

I guess that's why non ego driven people refer to it as the Big Bang THEORY.

Entertained
04-02-2011, 09:05 AM
Whip,

There are several theories out there as to how the Big Bang started, or even "what came before the Big Bang", if you are interested. As you might guess, the available data is not voluminous, but what there is can be explained in several ways that are mathematically consistent. Of course, "can be explained" is different than "we know" or "we can prove". This is one of the most active areas of research for cosmology.


I agree LRM. It's funny to watch. There was a documentary ('The Universe' I think which is a pretty good series) on either History or Discovery channels (or both) that stated scientists have narrowed down the big bang theory to like one atom that contained 4 elements and it exploded to create the universe. But they never addressed how this one single solitary atom would have gotten there.

consolidation
04-02-2011, 09:43 AM
Thanks for the input every one!

it is always interesting to hear views and perhaps gleen some new info on the subject.
The "god did it" proposal usually elicits some very interesting replies no matter what the subject in science is.

I honestly believe that science v faith is a false dichotomy. Both can co-exist in my opinion, however I realise it is just one mans opinon.

This particular theory is of great interest to me and I am alway happy to learn from those with more rounded backgrounds on the issue.

Dear Entertained, great name! I have to admit to having read a lot of Hawking's works/papers/books/essays as he has a brilliant mind ,but I also find he has a preset agenda and works backwards towards substantiating that agenda, not forward toward truth, correct me if I am mistaken. He does it brilliantly and eloquently it must be said, but the bias really annoys me as it is so obvious that anyone familiar with his work can guess the outcome and be able to summarise the work before you have even read it.

His errors such as the black hole theory never seem to get the same fanfare as his constant statements about God,I sometimes wonder if Preskill ever collected on his bet and why he wasnt lauded, noting he told the world the theory was flawed 30 odd years ago? His statements about God being redundant are not exactly new and were around centuries before he existed and I am not sure why he finds it necessary to fan that particular fire quite so often. I suppose it brings him publicity for new works? Although I would read them even if he didn't find the need to make the rash God statements.

littleroundman
04-02-2011, 10:29 AM
Entertained,

"but rejection of basic science doesn't seem like a good idea" ????

Are you kidding me ???

I am in no way rejecting anything.

It's 4.5 billion years THAT WE KNOW OF.

There are few artifacts that we know of, or which exist in a form which we can recognize as being within our current reality.

Humankind says the first signs of life thus far found show us single cell bacteria existed 3.5 billion years ago.

How do we know that there wasn't at least one whole civilization cycle which existed during the billion years before the bacteria ??

Why would it be "like" anything which exists during humankinds' blip on earths' timeline.

Within our current level of understanding, things could not have simply disappeared and left no trace Within our current level of understanding

We have no idea what could transpire within four and a half billion years.

There's nothing to observe, no data to analyse.Only a modern day interpretation of what few artifacts we have managed to locate.

Humankind can't even agree on the "missing link" theory, and that SUPPOSEDLY happened a mere few million years ago, WE THINK.

Soapboxmom
04-02-2011, 11:34 AM
Man's quest for answers. This brings back fond memories of a college Captsone class I took that focused on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Myth. I wish PBS would rebroadcast that series.

Soapboxmom

Entertained
04-02-2011, 12:57 PM
LRM,

Thanks for the clarification -- my inference of your original post was off-base based on your clarifications. I tend to agree with perhaps a broader restatement of your conjecture -- namely we don't know more than we know(unless I've misinterpreted you again). Of course we don't know with 100% certainty that there was not another cycle of civilization shortly after the formation of the planet (nor for that matter with 100% certainty that Bowdoin doesn't have a fully audited, sufficient external revenue stream that could make ASD legal). However, the data available at the moment suggests otherwise, and while that data only represents a fraction of what could be available over 4.5 billion years, it is voluminous nonetheless. For example, while it's true that mankind's tour on this planet is a blip in geological time, the building blocks of life as we know it at the most fundamental chemical level have been around for a long time (DNA has been positively identified in dinosaur fossils in Montana, for example).


Entertained,

"but rejection of basic science doesn't seem like a good idea" ????

Are you kidding me ???

I am in no way rejecting anything.

It's 4.5 billion years THAT WE KNOW OF.

There are few artifacts that we know of, or which exist in a form which we can recognize as being within our current reality.

Humankind says the first signs of life thus far found show us single cell bacteria existed 3.5 billion years ago.

How do we know that there wasn't at least one whole civilization cycle which existed during the billion years before the bacteria ??

Why would it be "like" anything which exists during humankinds' blip on earths' timeline.

Within our current level of understanding, things could not have simply disappeared and left no trace Within our current level of understanding

We have no idea what could transpire within four and a half billion years.

There's nothing to observe, no data to analyse.Only a modern day interpretation of what few artifacts we have managed to locate.

Humankind can't even agree on the "missing link" theory, and that SUPPOSEDLY happened a mere few million years ago, WE THINK.

littleroundman
04-02-2011, 08:52 PM
I just find it amusing that "humankind" assumes that what exists in our past and in the rest of the universe/s resembles, in any way, the here and now.

For example, I think about 3.5 billion year old fossilized bacteria or the DNA sample found in Montana, and I ask myself what are the mathematical odds of:

a) Finding ANY 3.5 billion year old bacteria
b) Finding ALL 3.5 billion year old bacteria
c) Finding ANYTHING, given the size of the planet and the size of the thus far unexplored areas.

In my tortured mind, it's not inconceivable that 4 billion years ago, there existed a civilization 200 feet under my house. I know with certainty no one in modern times has looked there, so why not ???
Even if they had, what would be the odds they'd be looking for 3.5 billion year old anything, or recognize it if they saw it ????
The sand plain on which I live was only formed around 115,000 years ago, again I wonder what the odds are.

laidback
04-02-2011, 09:19 PM
I just find it amusing that "humankind" assumes that what exists in our past and in the rest of the universe/s resembles, in any way, the here and now.

For example, I think about 3.5 billion year old fossilized bacteria or the DNA sample found in Montana, and I ask myself what are the mathematical odds of:

a) Finding ANY 3.5 billion year old bacteria
b) Finding ALL 3.5 billion year old bacteria
c) Finding ANYTHING, given the size of the planet and the size of the thus far unexplored areas.

In my tortured mind, it's not inconceivable that 4 billion years ago, there existed a civilization 200 feet under my house. I know with certainty no one in modern times has looked there, so why not ???
Even if they had, what would be the odds they'd be looking for 3.5 billion year old anything, or recognize it if they saw it ????
The sand plain on which I live was only formed around 115,000 years ago, again I wonder what the odds are.

LOL, I enjoy seeing and reading various guesses about all manor of things celestial, biological, historical, and/or spiritual, but every time I see the latest and greatest theory about how or what happened, I think about the favorite saying of a supervisor I had years ago," I named my son 'theory' 'cause he didn't work either"...!!!http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/free-happy-smileys-336.gif (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/facebook-smileys.html)

Beacon
01-24-2013, 08:18 PM
I honestly believe that science v faith is a false dichotomy. Both can co-exist in my opinion, however I realise it is just one mans opinon.


An opinion I happen to agree with. so it now isnt one mans opinion.


I have to admit to having read a lot of Hawking's works/papers/books/essays as he has a brilliant mind ,but I also find he has a preset agenda and works backwards towards substantiating that agenda, not forward toward truth, correct me if I am mistaken. He does it brilliantly and eloquently it must be said, but the bias really annoys me as it is so obvious that anyone familiar with his work can guess the outcome and be able to summarise the work before you have even read it.


Because Fermat had a last theorem doesn't mean proving it was not an achievement does it?
I once met Hawking but I couldnt be bothered queing behind him to read what he was typing and perferred to stand in front of him drinking wine and musing about parallel universes in which we didnt believe in parallel universe theory and biouyncers always demanded you wore white socks before they allowed you into a nightclub.


His errors such as the black hole theory never seem to get the same fanfare as his constant statements about God,


I thought his original thought was not black holes but that certain types e.g. quantum BH could evaporate. They got hairy. I agree by the way with the idea of inflation and constant changing of the Hubble constant creating a very "leaky" theory but it is still the best thing Science has ever come up with in terms of a complete theory of everything. I mean other aspects of science are not anywhere near so fundamentally reducible to first principles.

Another element of this discussion was about "arrogance" of trying to find a solution. I would reject that claim. While I respect empirical science, I dont think speculation into things we can not directly measure is not science. Most science isnt so pure as such purists claim it is.

Mongo
06-07-2013, 06:46 PM
Hi Everyone. There are only two possibilities to the universe being here. Either it was designed/created or it is due to random chance/luck. Now before anyone says I'm pushing ID, I'm not. I have no clue what the coorect answer actually is. I'm only saying these are the two logical choices.

NikSam
06-07-2013, 07:13 PM
If you study a development of any chaos or randomness process, there is always a process and outcome of it, not final by there are results in the progression.

Now about Intelligent design of things, is it really intelligent if you think deeply into it?

Intelligent design never explains how that intelligence itself came to existence.
So goes for big bang, power to produce it , and so on.

Some people just cannot take the unknown as a base of the beginning and make fairy tales out of it or trying to explain scientifically something they have no data on.
even though i support scientific approach vs faith and fairy tales.

And no, science and faith cannot co-exist in the same concept, they cancel each other in their teachings.

Mongo
06-07-2013, 07:25 PM
Have you heard of The Goldilocks Theory? Basically the universe is based on forces, and properties being precisely the amount needed for the universe to exist. If the force of gravity was a tiny fraction higher then we would have had a big crunch already. If a tiny fraction smaller matter wouldn't have clumped together. Same goes for dozens of other contants and properties. Now the question is why are they the value that they are.

Logic dictates they are that way because they were made that way, or because chance/luck happened upon the values. There are now other logical possibilities for it. Unknown is not a logical possibility. I flip a coin. It is unknown to you if it is heads or tails, but it is still either heads or tails. The answer is unknown, not the possibilities.

NikSam
06-07-2013, 07:32 PM
Laws of physics came from observation of processes around us, assuming that life and things only possible in this configuration is not right.
Some deep space of universe might have different criteria to support it's own environment.
Assuming that existence and life is only possible in like our own environment cannot apply universally, you just using knowledge of things as they seem to apply to our little place in that universe.

Big crunch as you say is also a process which will have own results.

Mongo
06-07-2013, 08:03 PM
Assuming that existence and life is only possible in like our own environment cannot apply universally, you just using knowledge of things as they seem to apply to our little place in that universe.



I'm not talking about life. I'm ttalking about the existence of the universe itself. If the universe doesn't exist then no life of any sort can exist. If no matter of anykind can exist then there is no life. If matter and anti-matter were equal at the start then there would be no universe. Your focus is way too narrow. Do not think of humans or life as we know it. Think in terms of basic fundamental laws. Again the choice is clear. Either these laws and constants were designed or they happened through chance.

The multiverse is one explanation that tries to answer this. All possible laws happen in an infinite number of universes.

NikSam
06-08-2013, 04:21 AM
when what first has to be?
an universe where the some laws might apply or laws for that universe existence ?
or shell-verse where multiverses might exist by some laws ?
or emptiness which we cannot define but perhaps some laws of existence of it and in it exist?

or in narrow mind, what was the first - the chicken or the egg ?
For a little tick a cow is a planet and a farm is the universe, so goes for us with our theories of things we cannot see or apprehend.

It is pointless coming up with scientific theories of the unknown to tie our knowledge to those theories, they just become fairy tales themselves.

There is no end how deep this rabbit hole goes.

Agree that is Unknown and that nobody will ever have the answer and find a peace of mind.
Any possible answer will just bring the infinitive set of new unanswerable questions.

Big Bang does not necessary means the bang, some powers, the beginning, etc.. but a point of time most agreed to study the universe from.

littleroundman
06-08-2013, 07:05 AM
Think in terms of basic fundamental laws.

That is the whole point, isn't it ??

WHOSE laws ?

Humankinds ?

Humankind is constrained by the fact it IS humankind, with all of humankinds' frailties and arrogance.

To quote Napoleon Hill: "What the mind of man can conceive and believe, it can achieve"

What about what the mind of man CANNOT conceive and believe ??

or

"What the mind of man cannot YET conceive and believe"

What would make anyone think "we" (as in humankind) could even begin to "imagine" what is "out there" or what "has happened" much less "KNOW" or even "GUESS" ?

Mongo
06-08-2013, 07:09 AM
Agree that is Unknown and that nobody will ever have the answer and find a peace of mind.
Any possible answer will just bring the infinitive set of new unanswerable questions.



Once again you make the mistake of mixing up knowing an answer vs. knowing the possibilities. They are not the same thing. This is a very basic question on logic. I claim there are two possible logical explanations for the start of THIS universe (no multiverse). It happened because it was designed or created to happen or it happened because of chance luck. I am NOT trying to answer this question and you are correct to say that as of this point in time it is unanswerable. But we can, through logic state the parameters of the possible reasons. Science does this all the time. In fact my questions is a very basic one that physicists have stated numerous times.

What other possibility is there? This is like saying a women is either pregnant or not pregnant. It is unknown which state she is in but those are the two possibilities.

After the start of the universe we can get into things like the Anthropic Principle. Paul Davies's book The Goldilocks Enigma (2006) reviews the current state of the fine tuning debate in detail, and concludes by enumerating the following responses to that debate:

1) The absurd universe: Our universe just happens to be the way it is.
2) The unique universe: There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the Universe being the way it is. Some Theory of Everything will explain why the various features of the Universe must have exactly the values that we see.
3) The multiverse: Multiple universes exist, having all possible combinations of characteristics, and we inevitably find ourselves within a universe that allows us to exist.
4) Intelligent Design: A creator designed the Universe with the purpose of supporting complexity and the emergence of intelligence.
5) The life principle: There is an underlying principle that constrains the Universe to evolve towards life and mind.
6) The self-explaining universe: A closed explanatory or causal loop: "perhaps only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist." This is Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP).
7) The fake universe :We live inside a virtual reality simulation.

Omitted from his book is Lee Smolin's model of cosmological natural selection, also known as "fecund universes," which proposes that universes have "offspring" which are more plentiful if they resemble our universe. But first we have to find out all the possibilities of what started the universe. I say there are only two possibilities. If you think there are more then please state them.

@Littleroundman, this is know knowing what other loaws there are. It is a very basic logical question. Our universe exists because of why. We have no clue but logic confines the question. It is either because it was created to be this way or it just happened to be this way. You r reply is simple evasion of the question. You don't like the choices and know that there are no other choices so you use a fallacy in argument to avoid the question.

NikSam
06-08-2013, 07:49 AM
than you narrowing yourself to what is considered the universe.
A creator concept logically implies the existence of that creator in outside of the universe, therefore only brings more questions.
Any possibilities and theories will still stay as such and should be not taken more seriously as any fairy tale even if it makes sense for some of it's connections to our logic.
Still none of them can explain the True beginning of things, but logically based on something which existed beforehand.

the Unknown will still remain Unknown no matter how hard science will try to explain it.


In any case do you try to solve something nobody ever can on RealScam ?

Mongo
06-08-2013, 08:24 AM
Once again your post is filled with red herring arguments and avoidance of the question.

First off the universe is defined for all of us since it is a wrod in the english vocabulary. There are other words for what your point (multiverse, branes, bubbles etc.) The definition of universe is very clear and your efforts to cloud it is a logical fallacy of argument on your part.

There might be more questions, and in fact most likely be. But that is another logiacl fallacy on your part to try and avoid the question before us. This type of argument is like you refusing to answer my question "What is your name" with a response "If I answer you might ask me where I live so I won't answer".

What is fairy tale about logical choices? This is an association type of logical fallacy. Avoidence of the question and then claiming it is 'fairy tale'.

Listing the possibilites does explain or answer anything. It is just LISTING THE POSSIBILITIES.

Then you finish with a non sequiter. I'm going to borrow a line from the movie Braveheart "Just answer the freanin question".

It is not hard. I and many physicists say there are just two logical options for the universe. You claim this is wrong. So therefore, provide the additional options. No matter what mechanism the universe used for comming into existence it MUST and can ONLY be due to two options. It was designed/created or it happened through luck/chance. There are NO option options possible. If I'm wrong then tell us what other logical option is there?

littleroundman
06-08-2013, 10:52 AM
What are you saying ?

Human "logic" is all there is ??

Scientific "logic" has never been wrong

It's called the big bang THEORY for fun ??

Humans know everything ??

"AT OUR CURRENT LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING" there are only two possible options.

Mongo
06-08-2013, 01:53 PM
What are you saying ?

Human "logic" is all there is ??
Mathmatetics and logic are not human based. Dead or alive, is that human based? A positive or negative charge, is that humna based.



Scientific "logic" has never been wrong

It's called the big bang THEORY for fun ??
This is NOT related to the BBT. Instead of BBT it can be steady state, quasi-steady whatever. My question is based on the an extremely simple question.



Humans know everything ??

"AT OUR CURRENT LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING" there are only two possible options.
Humans don't matter. Any sentient being in any universe will come up with EXACTLY the same question. But at least you admit that there are only two options, even if you incorrectly think there might be more options at some future point in time.

But now that you have leaped over that hurdle we can actually move forward.

What does it mean that the universe was created/designed or it came about through luck/chance.

Contrary to popular belief our universe being created doesn't mean it is a God that did it. According to Einstein's General Relativity theory there exists black holes, singularities and white holes. Some physicists have psotualted that white holes or singularites are really other universes as the matter leaving our universe is ejected into a different universe. It has also been postulated that way in the future a sufficiently advanced race can create a black hole by focusing enough energy at a point in spacetime and creating a tear that leads to a black hole.

Now let's do a hypothetical. Say way off in the future a race from this universe actually creates a black hole and the singularity in that black hole is the big bang for a new universe. If that universe ends up having sentient life and they ask if there was a creator would they be correct if they answered "yes" to that question? If not, why not?

Edmund129
06-08-2013, 06:00 PM
Why is the speed of light the ultimate speed limit of the universe? Seems somewhat arbitrary that the maximum speed limit is 186,282.396 miles per second in a vacuum. Just asking... Could it be the entire universe is caught in some sort of massive black hole so big it isn't obvious that we are in one. But there being a speed of light limit seems to suggest something is jerking the strings somewhere.

littleroundman
06-08-2013, 08:42 PM
But at least you admit that there are only two options, even if you incorrectly think there might be more options at some future point in time.

Gosh,

I haven't seen that tactic used since my high school debating class.

I am NOT saying there are only two options.

What I AM saying is we don't know and can't know how many options there are because we are constrained by the fact we are humans

We can theorize, we can speculate and we can pontificate, BUT, until we know all there is to know, we CANNOT declare anything to be absolute.

NikSam
06-08-2013, 09:23 PM
Agree with LRM

Mongo how about an option it was never created, but existed all the time, just passing through infinite number of transformation processes? Enough headaches for you ?

let the unknown alone, possibilities can vary to the limits of human imagination.

littleroundman
06-08-2013, 10:20 PM
I wonder.

Is ∞ infinity an abstract concept or a mathematical reality ??

ProfHenryHiggins
06-08-2013, 10:30 PM
Both, I would say, LRM. Abstract, in that like quarks it is exceedingly hard to observe directly. Real, in that it appears quite often in formulas describing physical things - as a break point, or paired with a negatve infinity to cancel out and remain hidden at the macroscopic level.

Mongo
06-08-2013, 11:38 PM
"AT OUR CURRENT LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING" there are only two possible options.


Gosh,

I haven't seen that tactic used since my high school debating class.

I am NOT saying there are only two options.

Not a tactic at all. You were the one that wrote the first line.



What I AM saying is we don't know and can't know how many options there are because we are constrained by the fact we are humans

We can theorize, we can speculate and we can pontificate, BUT, until we know all there is to know, we CANNOT declare anything to be absolute.
Until we know all there is to know we can't declare anything? Stop the presses and fire all the physicists.

The real reason you refuse to accept it is because you don't like the choices. A designed universe offends you and random chance means we are a fluke. But don't worry you are not alone. Many hope there is another option and fight off reality. BTW I have no clue why you are afraid to admit this. Physicists like Hawkings, Penrose, Smolin and many others have already said what I have laid out here.


Agree with LRM

Mongo how about an option it was never created, but existed all the time, just passing through infinite number of transformation processes? Enough headaches for you ?

let the unknown alone, possibilities can vary to the limits of human imagination.

Not at all you just described the luck/chance side. "Passing through infinite ..." means it eventually hits a set of laws where sentient life exist. This perfectly describes the luck/chance option.

I noticed that neither wanted to answer my question on if an advanced civ creates a black hole that starts a BB, that has life are they correct to say there was a creator?

littleroundman
06-09-2013, 12:42 AM
HeHe,

You know I relish the opportunities provided by engaging in discussion with the "Mongos" of this world

Without fail, within one or two pages, "Mongos" has reverted to the ad hominem " A designed universe offends you and random chance means we are a fluke" arguments" as if he/she has the slightest idea what "offends me"

Actually, "Mongo" on the contrary.

I look at commonly accepted known "facts" like the oldest known meteorite fragments found on earth being approximately 4.5 BILLION years old and the oldest so far known evidence of "life" being Microbial mats of coexisting bacteria and archaea dated at being around 3.5 BILLION years old, and I am filled with wonder and awe.

Given the surface area of the planet, what are the chances, would you estimate of finding 4.5 BILLION year old meteorite "fragments" much less being able to say with any certainty there are not some 5.5 BILLION years old only a short distance away.

As for the chances of finding 3.5 BILLION year old bacteria, forget about it.

Pick a man made structure/s, Mongo.

Any size or shape you like.

Then tell us with any certainty what will remain of it/them in a BILLION years.

Then try for 4.5 BILLION years.

For goodness. sakes, Mongo, we are STILL finding previously undiscovered Egyptian artifacts today, and we KNOW approximately where they are and the Egyptian civilization was only around four or five THOUSAND years ago.

It's all right to say you simply don't know, Mongo.

Non of us will hold it against you.

Mongo
06-20-2013, 02:42 PM
Pick a man made structure/s, Mongo.

Any size or shape you like.

Then tell us with any certainty what will remain of it/them in a BILLION years.

Then try for 4.5 BILLION years.

For goodness. sakes, Mongo, we are STILL finding previously undiscovered Egyptian artifacts today, and we KNOW approximately where they are and the Egyptian civilization was only around four or five THOUSAND years ago.

It's all right to say you simply don't know, Mongo.

Non of us will hold it against you.

Who is talking about man made structures? Or are you saying the universe is man-made? Why do you go off on these tangents?

But if you want to know what the Earth's surface will look like in 100 million years that can be done fairly easily with computer models based on tectonics. They have models that show what the Milky Way will look like in a few billion years after the collission with Andronama. So we do know or at least predict some things.

But as usual this is NOT waht the question is. The question is about the PAST. What were the causes for the BB.

Now I'm going to post this link to show you that while you try to evade the question, actual physicists don't. Why Some Scientists Embrace the 'Multiverse' | RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/18/why_some_scientists_embrace_the_multiverse_118852. html)

Here are some nice quotes:
"Paul Davies, professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University: "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly."

"After all, with an infinite number of universes, a universe with parameters friendly to intelligent life is more likely to arise somewhere by chance."

Either there is a multiverse or there is not. Now since our universe exists we know for a fact that at least this one does exist. Now there is only the possibility that more exist or that they don't. There are NO OTHER OPTIONS and no matter how long you want to wait this will never change. We either exist in a single universe or a multi-verse.

Now since all these very smart people aren't afraid of stating this simple fact why should you be? The universe is either designed or is here by chance. (single universe or multi-verse, or a single that is here by chance).

And please stop with the silly and non-relevant comparrisons to man made stuff. I'm referring to the universe itself.

littleroundman
06-20-2013, 05:16 PM
Yeah, yeah, again with the verbal gymnastics.

First you convince us you have any concept of what could have happened without leaving a trace in the billions of years we know the planet has been here, then perhaps we can talk.

As for "computer models"

Would they be anything like the "computer models" used by weather bureaus all over the world ???

Are "computer models" infallible now ???

Once again, it's called the Big Bang THEORY for a very good reason

Mongo
06-20-2013, 06:12 PM
Yeah, yeah, again with the verbal gymnastics.

First you convince us you have any concept of what could have happened without leaving a trace in the billions of years we know the planet has been here, then perhaps we can talk.



You have so little logic it's amazing. I can flip a coin and ask you what the possibilityies are and you'll still not know or say that they might increase in the future.

And what does your second sentence even mean?

littleroundman
06-20-2013, 07:48 PM
You have so little logic it's amazing. I can flip a coin and ask you what the possibilityies are and you'll still not know or say that they might increase in the future.

And what does your second sentence even mean?

What does YOUR "logic" have to do with not knowing what has happened over the past 4.5 BILLION years ??

You don't know,

I don't know.

You are prepared to guess or rely on computer modelling of what "could" have happened

I'm not.

No need for "logic"

nomaxim
06-20-2013, 07:56 PM
Once again, it's called the Big Bang THEORY for a very good reason
Kinda like Newton's theory of gravitation (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Newton%27s+theory+of+gravitation)?

littleroundman
06-20-2013, 08:08 PM
Kinda like Newton's theory of gravitation (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Newton%27s+theory+of+gravitation)?

Newton himself released his then "Theory of Universal Gravitation" in the 1680s because it was a "theory" at the time.

The Big bang "Theory" may very well go on to become a universally accepted principle in time.

But, as it stands, it is a "theory" at this moment in time.

nomaxim
06-20-2013, 08:20 PM
The Big bang "Theory" may very well go on to become a universally accepted principle in time.

But, as it stands, it is a "theory" at this moment in time.Correct.
The name 'Big Bang Theory' actually comes from the press.
As far a science is concerned it is still a hypothesis.

littleroundman
06-20-2013, 09:39 PM
And "theory" was the word used by the OP when he titled the thread:
"Flat universe and the big bang theory"

okosh
06-20-2013, 09:59 PM
HeHe,

You know I relish the opportunities provided by engaging in discussion with the "Mongos" of this world

Without fail, within one or two pages, "Mongos" has reverted to the ad hominem " A designed universe offends you and random chance means we are a fluke" arguments" as if he/she has the slightest idea what "offends me"


You found a live one there....This should be fun to watch you tear his ridiculous BS to shreds....

POP CORN TIME!!!!

Whip
06-20-2013, 11:10 PM
Correct.
The name 'Big Bang Theory' actually comes from the press.
As far a science is concerned it is still a hypothesis.

and a damn funny show.

Beacon
10-01-2013, 07:35 AM
I claim there are two possible logical explanations for the start of THIS universe (no multiverse).

those being 1 Created or 2. happened by chance
this is very along the lines of greek logic on which mathematics and much of "western "science is grounded

But in the case of 2 we might have a problem since what does "happened by chance" mean?
We know in the Shrodinger's Cat analogy that the idea of logical opposites e.g. a live cat or a dead cat
don't sit well with probablity theory in which the cat is some sort of not black or white live or dead cat but a fuzz of greyness. The concept of causality is also tested here.

also "chance" and "happened" may presuppose laws of chance or probability as well as laws of physics. It may well be that no such laws exits and the physics we have arrived at is only an approximation. we know Newton's Law aer sufficient to explain gravity as a cosmological whole but we also know them to be wrong. Likewise the Bohr model of the atom, and later models all became "refined". Sadly the "refinements" of BB cosmology e.g. inflation seem very blunt instruments.

To go back to the idea of civilization before 4.5 billion years. I would consider this very unlikely as the during the Hadean Period File:Geologic Clock with events and periods.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geologic_Clock_with_events_and_periods.svg)
there was no water on earth and is was fairly much all volcano.

We know it is this old AFAIK based on four dating techniques dendrochronology extending in to fossilised trees which go to millions of years , the geological column, radiometric dating and I think therewas some use of Moon crater impacts

As for the BB and flat universe again ther are two or three pieces of evidence.
1.We can explain how all the other stuff came from Hydrogen and Helium but the original universe is not much different today with a 3:1 Hydrogen to Helium ratio making up almost everything ( of normal matter). The physics for the Early BB explain how the H/He ration came to be.

2. the observed Universe seems to be basically flat

3. the rate of expansion can be measured and theories fit this

4. the cosmic Microwave Background ( see 2) suggests an even spread of matter. Yes I accept that the Sun has most of the matter in the solar system and galaxies have more matter than the space between them but on a grand scale I mean. a bit like saying we know ther are clumops of salt or icebergs but on a grand scale water and salt are fairly evenly spread ( alright I know they arent and some oceans are fresher and some saltier but the universe isnt saltier or at least we assume it isnt that is called homiogenity and yes it is an assumption!)

5. the other assumption isotropism that the universe is the same in all directions takes into account the "laws" ( yes I know above I suggest they might not exist but for the purpose of this point they do) of physics are the same everywhere and we don't for example have inverse cube gravity or an electron having a double negative charge in some exotic corner of the universe)

Anyway some interesting points raised

Beacon
10-01-2013, 07:37 AM
Correct.
The name 'Big Bang Theory' actually comes from the press.
As far a science is concerned it is still a hypothesis.

Actually AFAIK it was coined by Fred Hoyle who was an opponent of the BB theory and proposed a Steady State Theory. I think in an interview he said something like "People want you to assume the a Big Bang caused it all..." and the phrase stuck!

Beacon
10-01-2013, 07:46 AM
Either there is a multiverse or there is not. Now since our universe exists we know for a fact that at least this one does exist. Now there is only the possibility that more exist or that they don't. There are NO OTHER OPTIONS and no matter how long you want to wait this will never change. We either exist in a single universe or a multi-verse.


Or other universes could have existed and now do not exist.
your dichotomy might also assumes time flows at the same rate in different universes. Since "we exist" assumes a "now" which has a one-to-one correspondence with a "now" in another universe.
Also even if they exist how do we know they do if we have no way of measuring anything about other universes?

So it appears there ARE other options but even with two options they exploration of them as options may be impossible or pointless.

Beacon
10-01-2013, 08:01 AM
Why is the speed of light the ultimate speed limit of the universe?


good question. It is an assumption that it is since assuming it isnt violates a principle of relativity.

We can observe things travelling faster than light e.g. a beam from a lighthouse sweeping along a distant cloud could "sweep over" the cloud faster then light if the cloud is far enough away. The think is we can send information faster then light and electro magnetic radiation does not travel faster than c.
Also there is no cosmological medium or "ether" like sound travelling through water or air. Light ( in empty space - and yes I know it isnt empty from a quantum point of view but for this argument it is) travels in all directions at the same speed.

If you imagine light travelling at different speeds in empty space then you violate special relativity and simultaneous events might become simultaneous again. You could also chose to violate the OTHER assumption of relativity that whenever you do an experiment you get the same result in other words two different observers see the same thing. the i.e. no privileged reference frames
Special relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_Special_Relativity)
Relativity of simultaneity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity)

you might also consider of Mach's principle: "Local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe."
Mach's principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle)

stacy532
01-11-2016, 02:40 AM
i have been staying up late watching debates on this subject . im not the most religious person but I do believe in a creator . in God
to say that all this we have and what we are happened by some strange accident is preposterous. if thats the case jump out of an airplane and throw every human on the face of the earth off of a cliff and after a few million years see if we evolve and adapt and grow wings.. or how about this light a firecracker on a pile of dirt and see if life just suddenly and accidentally forms due to the explosion. all of this is intelligent design and whether it was done by beings smarter than us or God as we think of him is irrelevant it is not just some dumb accident.. I have watched some great videos . from the arrogant Richard Dawkins to Lawrence Krauss. not one atheist makes a case any stronger than what the religious creationist already have .


great set of videos i watched on does god exist.. in my opinion anyway
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbxD04LWW10&list=PLZkhlQ2q_V4HJL9aDTocruTEBwRf87I7E

Lawrence Krauss & Richard Dawkins - Conversation • July 22, 2015
https://youtu.be/B1doH8xgfgQ

ProfHenryHiggins
01-11-2016, 03:06 AM
i have been staying up late watching debates on this subject . im not the most religious person but I do believe in a creator . in God
to say that all this we have and what we are happened by some strange accident is preposterous. if thats the case jump out of an airplane and throw every human on the face of the earth off of a cliff and after a few million years see if we evolve and adapt and grow wings.. or how about this light a firecracker on a pile of dirt and see if life just suddenly and accidentally forms due to the explosion. all of this is intelligent design and whether it was done by beings smarter than us or God as we think of him is irrelevant it is not just some dumb accident.. I have watched some great videos . from the arrogant Richard Dawkins to Lawrence Krauss. not one atheist makes a case any stronger than what the religious creationist already have .


great set of videos i watched on does god exist.. in my opinion anyway
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbxD04LWW10&list=PLZkhlQ2q_V4HJL9aDTocruTEBwRf87I7E

Lawrence Krauss & Richard Dawkins - Conversation • July 22, 2015
https://youtu.be/B1doH8xgfgQ

And there we have a shining example of what is wrong with American education. In the midst of a thread on physics and cosmology, Stacy mindlessly drops a post about biology and the origin of life, a completely different field of science.
It reminds me of when I had to explain to my news director what the difference between archaeology and paleontology is.

nomaxim
01-11-2016, 03:28 AM
And there we have a shining example of what is wrong with American education. In the midst of a thread on physics and cosmology, Stacy mindlessly drops a post about biology and the origin of life, a completely different field of science.
It reminds me of when I had to explain to my news director what the difference between archaeology and paleontology is.

I run into a lot confusion about archaeology and anthropology myself. Especially in the US where archaeology is considered a sub-field of anthropology.

stacy532
01-12-2016, 02:10 AM
not really the scientist i posted have debates on all the subjects .. i find all of them fascinating and listen to a different one every day .. Lawrence Krauss's has a book or two .. A Universe from Nothing. sorry about the quick post but i just found that there was even a thread about anything remotely close to cosmology and or physics especially when it comes to the universe . hell all my buddies hear the word cosmology and think im talking about cutting hair... lol

the other videos i posted even though its a proof of god playlist he does talk about physics and the universe as well.. im just now hearing different theories on the universe and what it might be shaped like , and questions about if it is expanding or in a flat plane or are we riding on the edge.. just different theories none OF which am in expert on or even remotely will pretend to be ...lol.. sorry for my ignorance but i love to learn new things and these subjects do interest me .

ProfHenryHiggins
01-12-2016, 02:28 AM
Next time, Stacy, create a new thread for what you wish to talk about rathering than necroposting in one about a different set of subjects (and made by a troll at that).

littleroundman
01-12-2016, 02:34 AM
I read articles such as this one and wonder just how arrogant mankind has to be to even think for one moment it "knows" what happens / has happened out "there" much less when it happened.

http://imageshack.com/a/img908/3893/KUeDqh.png

ProfHenryHiggins
01-12-2016, 03:01 AM
Also, I apologize for an error in my previous posting. For some reason I had thought that Edmund129 (the troll) had started this thread, rather than consolidation. The mistake is mine.

E2014T
01-12-2016, 08:27 PM
sorry for my ignorance
You have nothing to apologize for. Your government should be apologizing to you for the state of education in the U.S.

stacy532
01-14-2016, 12:27 AM
You have nothing to apologize for. Your government should be apologizing to you for the state of education in the U.S.
i found that everyone of my employees that ive had the pleasure of coaching and working with over the years that have college degrees have traded most of their common sense in for book knowledge . I guess the job market is just that bad where the degree they went to school for that those jobs are scarce.

I would love to go back to school if we had classes where we learn things of this nature . but I would hate to go to school and then become so arrogant and self absorbed where I felt that any of this knowledge made me better than someone that does not know about these things . .. I guess when some people go to school and memorize more material they somehow become less humble .. I would be thankful and wish to share my knowledge not ridicule or belittle those who are not at the same level..

E2014T
01-14-2016, 06:44 AM
I would love to go back to school if we had classes where we learn things of this nature . but I would hate to go to school and then become so arrogant and self absorbed where I felt that any of this knowledge made me better than someone that does not know about these things
First, find a community college near you and look at the list of classes.
Second, ask the staff there to help you look into getting the financial aid from the federal government to cover the cost of tuition and books.
Third, education doesn't make you arrogant and self-absorbed. It's your decision what type of person you want to be.

littleroundman
01-14-2016, 07:01 AM
i found that everyone of my employees that ive had the pleasure of coaching and working with over the years that have college degrees have traded most of their common sense in for book knowledge . I guess the job market is just that bad where the degree they went to school for that those jobs are scarce.

I would love to go back to school if we had classes where we learn things of this nature . but I would hate to go to school and then become so arrogant and self absorbed where I felt that any of this knowledge made me better than someone that does not know about these things . .. I guess when some people go to school and memorize more material they somehow become less humble .. I would be thankful and wish to share my knowledge not ridicule or belittle those who are not at the same level..

And all of that has WHAT to do with the state of education in the USA ??

Burying your head in the sand or turning the discussion into an ad hominem attack on the person/s pointing out the shortcomings in the system while the rest of the world leaves your country in its' dust, education wise, is part of the problem, not part of a solution.

Beacon
01-19-2016, 06:05 PM
I read articles such as this one and wonder just how arrogant mankind has to be to even think for one moment it "knows" what happens / has happened out "there" much less when it happened.


Given this is another of my academic interests I'll attempt to explain. There is a whole philosophy about knowledge - epistemology and there is how we know about things - ontology. We can go a great deal into this but let me assume you accept what knowledge is and what facts are. So we ontological acquire epistemological awareness i.e. we measure things and those measurements give us a map of what is out there.

When it comes to knowing about the universe as a whole we have little hands on experience. the furthest we got from Earth was when 15 people went about 250,000 miles away back in the early 1970s. since then we have not gone more than about 200 miles off the surface although the numbers that have done that is in the hundreds.
WE have however developed ways of looking at the universe. The electromagnetic spectrum ranges from radio through microwave; infra red; visible light; untraviolet; x ray and gamma rays.
Microwaves are difficult to measure on earth but we have big radio telescopes which stretch across continents. These measure far away sources like neutron stars and black holes. Currently we are building four Big Space telescopes in Infra Red (IRAS was the first) Visible ( the Hibble) UV and x ray (indias astrosat covers much of this)

Anyway we have some assumptions and some things we can measure and from that most of what we "know" about the universe is conjectured. Well to be really fair we have some particle accelerators which show what matter is like at really high energies which equates to the Early Universe but Im getting ahead of myself here but suffice it to say we can measure how matter behaves at energies higher than the center of Stars.


The assumptions - only TWO. It is assumed that the laws of physics always act the same way everywhere in the universe and it is assumed matter is fairly evenly spread the same in all directions ~ homogeneity and isotropism. Now I know you might be on the Earth and think all that space up there is empty but think of throwing salt on a table top and measuring the amount of salt grains under a postage stamp. You would get roughly the same number of grains no matter where you put the stamp if the salt is evenly spread. Similarly galaxies are evenly spread. We can measure this by the way and the number of galaxies in that Hubble Deep Field is one example of doing just that. So maybe a lot of technology but the iead of evenly spread and the law of gravity or electromagnetism working the same everywhere isnt a huge thing to grasp.

Okay there are then some things we can measure. the cosmic Microwave background is one. If we look at the sky in the visible spectrum we see stars. If we look at the Moon is is bright but it had a low glow in infra red because it is giving off heat ( IR is like one of them COPS night vision cameras) If we looked in x ray or higher the sky would be dark but ever few days we would see a bright false at random. these Gamma ray bursters are probably distant super novas. So as we move down the spectrum from ther we see blue stars then red stars then infra red dead stars but suddenly in the microwave range the entire sky becomes bright. Something is coming from every direction we look at the limit of our ability to see. Now this is a remnant of the Big Bang.

Again Im getting ahead of myself but if the universe was expanding it is now cooler than it was this microwave 3 Kelvin in Temperature signature represents about 3000K about 15 thousand million years ago. Before that electrons and protons couldnt stay together because that that temperature ( similar to the surface of our sun) electrons are "boiled off" atoms. all these particles jumped around like a lotto machine. Imagine trying to throw a marble through a lotto machine the size of a country. It would keep hitting balls. Photons likewise hit particles until the particles cooled enough to be bound into atoms. When that happened the Universe allowed light to cross it in all direction and that is the background we see today in every direction we look. The Cosmic Microwave Background CMB It is at the right temperature to convince us particles of matter were evenly spread. evcept when we look in higher detalil ther are slight differences which means ther were tiny clumps of matter where it was a bit denser and that is what formed into galaxies.

Now we can look at Stars today and see they change Hydrogen into Helium so in the past there was a little more Hydrogen and a little less Helium but even today it is still about 3 to 1 in ratio. Hydrogen makes up about 76% of the universe and Helium 25% ( in referring to normal matter here ther is other stuff we cant see but that will take more time to explain) all of the rest Oxygen Gold etc. are less than 1$ of the amount of matter.
Now we can explain how the 3 to 1 Ratio came about using equations and we can verify them using particle accelerators.

Finally we have the cosmological red shift. You may be aware how a siren drops down in pitch as a car passes. the car as it approaches adds its velocity to the wave and as it recedes subtracts it velocity changing the pitch. THe "pitch " of light is frequency or its analogue wavelength. High energy has shorter wavelength and is bluer and lower energy redder. Light also seems bluer as something moves towards us and redder as it moves away. In fact we can see two sides of a rotating galaxy one exhibiting red and the other side blue shift. anyway most things in the universe are red shifted = moving away from us and ther further away they are the faster they are moving away. This suggests ( and this is reasonable but is a very clever conclusion that Hubble made) that the universe itself is expanding. Cosmological REd Shift CRS

Now here is the point to where I jumped. If expansion means cooling then it was hotter in the past.

So if we assume homogeneity and isotropism then
CMB + CRS plus a 3/1 H/HE ratio suggest an origin in a single point in time and space i.e. a Big Bang.

Not alone that but measuring the expansion today ( the so called Hubble Constant which isnt actually constant) we can estimate WHEN that happened.

Thats how we "know" about it.

Beacon
01-19-2016, 06:13 PM
Correct.
The name 'Big Bang Theory' actually comes from the press.
As far a science is concerned it is still a hypothesis.

Actually it is a physicist who coined the phrase. I believe Fred Hoyle A British Radio Astronomer who didnt accept it said he thought the Universe was Steady state and not a "Big Bang" and the phrase stuck.

But when you say it is a theory. Yes like atoms are theories and evolution is a theory and germs are a theory. It is extremly plausable even if based on a few large scale observations. WE could of course be in an infinite universe but if that is the case how come the whole sky isnt bright because eventually in an infinite universe you would reach a star no matter what direction you chose and the light would shine from there to here. SO it stands to reason the universe is finite. Now ever since Hubble's first experiments we have been measuring red shift and the further we look the faster it is. How can you explain that if it is not expanding?

Beacon
01-19-2016, 06:16 PM
And there we have a shining example of what is wrong with American education. In the midst of a thread on physics and cosmology, Stacy mindlessly drops a post about biology and the origin of life, a completely different field of science.
It reminds me of when I had to explain to my news director what the difference between archaeology and paleontology is.

I might add that abiogenesis (the spontaneous creation of life) is not evolution ( the changing of species over time)

slomko
09-06-2016, 03:05 AM
You know, some people believe that the Earth is flat...
kasyno gratis (http://kasynozadarmo.com)

consolidation
07-03-2017, 11:23 PM
I have been trying to catch up and I noted a repeated misnomer appearing.....the word theory seems to have been used differently by different people.....I know it means a good guess in most situations but in Science it has a specific definition and is "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."
I know this can be confusing so I thought it was worthwhile posting.

Lastly please take into account that in 2011 (year of posting) 3 people recieved Nobel prizes for explaining that the Universe was actually speeding up it's expansion (made a few things confusing).., but it 2015 this speeding up was disproved. It is much simpler when it's slowing down !