Thread: Flat universe and the big bang theory

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.

Originally Posted by littleroundman

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.

Originally Posted by littleroundman

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.

Originally Posted by littleroundman

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?

Originally Posted by Mongo

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Edmund129

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
Relativity of simultaneity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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.

Originally Posted by littleroundman

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

Originally Posted by littleroundman

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.

Originally Posted by littleroundman

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.

Originally Posted by NikSam

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?

I wonder.

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by littleroundman

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

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.

Originally Posted by Mongo

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.

Originally Posted by littleroundman

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!!!!

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

Originally Posted by littleroundman

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?

Originally Posted by Mongo

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"

Originally Posted by littleroundman

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

Kinda like Newton's theory of gravitation?

Originally Posted by nomaxim

Kinda like Newton's 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.

Originally Posted by littleroundman

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.

Originally Posted by nomaxim

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.

Originally Posted by nomaxim

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!

Originally Posted by nomaxim

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?

And "theory" was the word used by the OP when he titled the thread:

"Flat universe and the big bang theory"

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=FbxD...cruTEBwRf87I7E

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

Originally Posted by stacy532

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=FbxD...cruTEBwRf87I7E

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.