The Big Bang

[Taomon]

The Big Bang Theory is based on the best scientific evidence available to us currently. That isn't faith. That isn't guesswork. No different from treatment for diseases changing as our knowledge grows.

And mathematical equations, astronomical observations beyond our own universe, and astronomical observations of our own galaxy.

Creationism requires nothing but faith in the bible. Faith is fine, but it isn't science.

With this I concur completely.

What I will say is if you read A Brief History of Time, there's nothing in there that can't be viewed consistently with the bible. You know, religion and science aren't mutually exclusive. You just have to know which is which.

And have the humility to admit that some of your beliefs may be wrong or unknowable.

 

[Taomon]

Yes it is important to know what is science and what is not; but it still remains that without proof, to trust what we read and are told re science requires as much faith as does belief in God. Perhaps science requires even more because you have to trust the scant few who have done the research to be telling you the truth of what they have learned. Faith in God requires nothing more than experience of God and/or reasoned observation and it is not necessary for everybody to have the same experience.

WRONG! You can learn science, you can recreate the experiments and you are invited to do so. The Bible does not invite you to search for evidence of God beyond blind faith.

 

[Taomon]

I do not need a theory. Again for the slow, since you have no known center and no known end or edge, you can not prove that the entire Universe is expanding. That is simple logic.

Lets try this another way. A bullet fired from a weapon speeds up as it leaves the weapon and then begins to slow down as it travels x distance. It also may, depending on the weapon rise initially while leaving the barrel and then arch down, or some weapons have a flat trajectory from leaving until gravity brings it down.

Assuming you do NOT know the above , if all you can observe is the projectile during the time it is speeding up, you would not be able to surmise that it will continue to speed up or begin to slow down, but your OBSERVED area would tell you that it is continueing to speed up during the ENTIRE observed period.

Now assuming you have no knowledge on how the medium it is passing through will effect that projectile you could easily surmise it will continue to speed up. In fact you would not be able to tell when it would slow down, if ever.

The "simple" test would tell you it will continue to speed up.

No knowledge of the means the projectile was caused to speed up, no knowledge of how the medium the projectile is passing through will effect the projectile, an observed entire period of the projectile speeding up from start to finish of observation.

Now complicate that with the fact you can not REALLY see the projectile at all, just the effect it's passing has on other objects and the space it is moving through. Again all you observe is something continueing to speed up for the entire observed period. You can not know what exactly the object is, what it is made of, whether it has any internal means to propel itself, how it got going to begin with..... get the idea?

Have you read Einsteins theory of general relativity? Give it a try. Better yet, read Steven Hawkins book.

 

[Foxfyre]

Have you read Einsteins theory of general relativity? Give it a try. Better yet, read Steven Hawkins book.

I read somewhere that Einsteins theory works so long as you are dealing with things increasing. It breaks down, however as things contract and become smaller and smaller. I am nowhere anything near being sufficiently proficient in math to test that hypothesis. Does anybody else know anything about that?

 

[Steerpike]

I read somewhere that Einsteins theory works so long as you are dealing with things increasing. It breaks down, however as things contract and become smaller and smaller. I am nowhere anything near being sufficiently proficient in math to test that hypothesis. Does anybody else know anything about that?

Actually all physics breaks down when you contract far enough, under the Big Bang model - to a point past what's called the Planck Time. But that's an extremely short window of time you're talking about. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, which deals with very small states, like the sub-atomic, are both very succesful but have yet to be integrated. The integration is a big goal in physics today.

 

[Gunny]

I am not sure there is not an alien Disneyland on the dark side of the Moon, but I do know there is no observational evidence for an airless theme park. And there is no evidence for your theory of our expanding Universe actually being a bubble in a contracting Universe. You have heard of "Occam's Razor?" It is the principle that when two or more possible explanations for observation are present, the simplest explanation tends to be correct. And more, the simplest explanation with the most supporting evidence. In our discussion, the simplest theory with the most supporting evidence that explains observation is that we live in a curved four dimensional spacetime that is expanding. Again, we are not talking about just distance between objects. In mathematical physics it is said that the metric of spacetime is expanding. Spacetime is not some absolute thing within which matter resides. Now take a moment with this: it is not that objects move apart in some static fabric of spacetime, rather it is the metric of spacetime itself that changes. It is incorrect to think of the Big Bang (it is a misleading term) as an "explosion." Rather, objects have spacetime expanding between them. There is a special kind of mathematics that describes this called Riemannian Geometry. We say that the expansion of spacetime associated with the Big Bang is intrinsic, whereas the expansion between objects in an explosion is extrinsic. With the expansion of the Universe, it is the metric that defines spacetime that is changing, rather than objects extrinsically moving in space. Consider the three dimensional "raisin bread analogy:" imagine raisins dispersed in unbaked dough. As the dough is heated, it expands and the raisins become farther apart. The expansion between raisins is intrinsic.

My point is not to discuss random theories. I am merly pointing out the fact that the expanding universe is a theory, and is not supported by real evidence. TO say the ENTIRE universe is expanding, science would have to be able to find the defining lines that represent the ends of said universe.

In each scientifc theory -- the Big Bang and the expanding universe -- there is at least one major flaw that makes both nothing more than speculation based on the limit of Man's intellect and the limit of his ability to observe.

 

[Steerpike]

There's no way you can equate faith in religion with acceptance of scientific theories. They are two completely different things, and anyone who tries to put them on par with one another does a disservice to both of them.

Scientific theory involves observation, explanation, prediction, etc. The universe is observed to be expanding. True, we can only see what is within the boundaries of our technology. We can see that all of that is expanding (and we can see a vast amount these days) and unless we have reason to believe other parts of the universe are behaving differently then we can extrapolate from what we observe. That's what science does. Doesn't mean it's always right, but it's always "scientific."

The Big Bang is an extrapolation from the observed expansion. An interesting thing about the Big Bang is that after the theory was formulated, it was predicted that we should be able to observe certain remnants of a big bang, and later on we actually did observe them. That's a pretty good sign that a theory is on the right track - when it predicts something before we've observed it or before we have the technology to observe it, and later that observation is made and it is shown to be true. Relativity does the same thing.

The Big Bang theory can only take us back to the Planck Time, which I referenced in the post above. After that everything breaks down and what happened or didn't happen is pure speculation.

My grandfather was a southern baptist preacher. Not highly educated, but well-read. He would tell me that if science showed a Big Bang, then it was simply showing how God created things. He knew that science and religion were two different things, and trying to set up an artificial conflict between the two didn't help anyone.

He also knew that religious knowledge comes from faith. Scientific knowledge does not. The pretense that they both come from some kind of equivalent faith stems from insecurity on the part of some religious people, who for some reason that I can't figure out feel like they have to be able to show religion and science on a equal footing in terms of how knowledge is gained in order to make them equal in value. That's nonsense, of course. And religious people who try to do that just make it look like they understand neither religion nor science.

Religious knowledge will never have the same observation strength and scientific rigor of scientific knowledge. By its nature, it cannot. It doesn't mean one is more or less valid as a source of knowing, but it means they're different. And that's why religion doesn't belong in a science class, but in a philosophy or theology class that is equally valuable but located across the hall.

I think it is only a small number of religious people who have enough insecurity with respect to science that they want to transform religion into something it is not, but they seem to be the loudest.

 

[Steerpike]

My point is not to discuss random theories. I am merly pointing out the fact that the expanding universe is a theory, and is not supported by real evidence.

That's just not true GunnyL. You're confusing "proof" and "support." There is good evidence that supports the expanding universe - all evidence based on observations that we are capable of making. Of course we have to extrapolate to the universe at large, but we can see a large portion of it and so far it all jives. You're right that it doesn't "prove" it in an absolute sense, but there is definitely observable physical evidence in "support" of it, and that is one thing that distinguishes science from religion.

 

[Gunny]

That's just not true GunnyL. You're confusing "proof" and "support." There is good evidence that supports the expanding universe - all evidence based on observations that we are capable of making. Of course we have to extrapolate to the universe at large, but we can see a large portion of it and so far it all jives. You're right that it doesn't "prove" it in an absolute sense, but there is definitely observable physical evidence in "support" of it, and that is one thing that distinguishes science from religion.

The basic premise of my argument is very true.

Your statement that the expanding universe is based on evidence we are capable of making is assumptive. That we can see a large portion of the universe is as well. Both require an actual measured universe to state as fact.

Extrapolate = infer = assume.

To address your post previous to this one, it is easy to equate faith in religion with scientific theories of origin. Both attempt to explain the origin of life as we know it, and both require faith in theories.

I am in no way attempting to invalidate science. In fact, just the opposite was being attempted -- invalidating religion with science. I merely am pointing out that religious creation requires no more or less belief than scientific theories of origin do.

 

[Steerpike]

GunnyL:

If you're talking about the point of creation itself, then you're probably right. Physics can't take us that far back. There is no more evidence in science as to what happened at the instant of creation than there is in religion.

But once you move past that, past the Planck time and into expansion of the universe, etc. then there is a lot more physical evidence to support the scientific view of things. That's the nature of science.

As for how far we can see - we're seeing things 13 billion light years away. You expand that in every direction and you're seeing a lot. And all of it is expanding. From a scientific standpoint, you extrapolate from there. You don't start making assumptions that have no basis in observation (i.e. that what we're seeing is some unique local phenomenon).

 

[Gunny]

GunnyL:

If you're talking about the point of creation itself, then you're probably right. Physics can't take us that far back. There is no more evidence in science as to what happened at the instant of creation than there is in religion.

But once you move past that, past the Planck time and into expansion of the universe, etc. then there is a lot more physical evidence to support the scientific view of things. That's the nature of science.

As for how far we can see - we're seeing things 13 billion light years away. You expand that in every direction and you're seeing a lot. And all of it is expanding. From a scientific standpoint, you extrapolate from there. You don't start making assumptions that have no basis in observation (i.e. that what we're seeing is some unique local phenomenon).

I have not argued that once I move past the point where Man can explain within the limit of Man's intellect those things he can observe that science is incorrect. That is pretty-much what science is.

What would you say the percentage is that 13 billion light years is in comparision to infinite?

 

[Steerpike]

What would you say the percentage is that 13 billion light years is in comparision to infinite?

I don't expect that the universe is "infinite." Doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint, or based on what we observe.

Some scientists estimated it was about 156-billion light years across, but that was highly speculate near as I can tell.

It is possible that the universe is finite but has no edge or center.

 

[Taomon]

I read somewhere that Einsteins theory works so long as you are dealing with things increasing. It breaks down, however as things contract and become smaller and smaller. I am nowhere anything near being sufficiently proficient in math to test that hypothesis. Does anybody else know anything about that?

Ironically enough, the Hindu Vedic medicine actually discusses quantum mechanics. On a quantum level energy vibrates - quantum fluctuations - and that the faster vibrations become matter. The string theory also discusses this.

If you find a smart enough mathematician, I am sure they will discuss it with you. Try the local college.

 

[Taomon]

Actually all physics breaks down when you contract far enough, under the Big Bang model - to a point past what's called the Planck Time. But that's an extremely short window of time you're talking about. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, which deals with very small states, like the sub-atomic, are both very succesful but have yet to be integrated. The integration is a big goal in physics today.

Check out the writings of Deepak Chopra.

 

[Gunny]

I don't expect that the universe is "infinite." Doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint, or based on what we observe.

Some scientists estimated it was about 156-billion light years across, but that was highly speculate near as I can tell.

It is possible that the universe is finite but has no edge or center.

If the universe is finite, it would have to have both a center and circumference; otherwise, it could not be defined.

I'd say that 156 billion light years theory is arbitrary speculation. What could possibly be the basis for that assumption?

 

[Steerpike]

If the universe is finite, it would have to have both a center and circumference; otherwise, it could not be defined.

I'd say that 156 billion light years theory is arbitrary speculation. What could possibly be the basis for that assumption?

Your first point is false. I can try to find you a link to some physics sites if you want to dig into an explanation of it. If not, suffice it to say that it isn't the case that a finite universe has to have a center or edges, and there are physics models of the universe that show how it can be done. I'll look for a decent link to some explanation if you like.

As for point two, I think what they did was look at the rate of expansion and also at some previously estimated age of the universe, and then just made an assumption that rate of expansion was static and went from there. It was interesting, but at that point you're building too many unknowns into the exercise to have more than just an academic exercise.

 

[Steerpike]

Here's a link to a teaching site. Not sure it's too helpful, but it has some basic information:

http://universe.sonoma.edu/activities/no_edges.html

Here's another:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

And a last one:

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/bigbang.html

They look at least moderately helpful. The stuff that really gets in-depth on this issue is way to heavily laden with mathematics.

 

[Steerpike]

Check out the writings of Deepak Chopra.

I've read some of it, I think. It's interesting. Re-interpreting ancient knowledge as correlating with modern quantum physics, etc. is a pretty interesting thing to read about, but a lot of it, as near as I can tell, relies on hindsight interpretation given modern physics knowledge. It's not so much any kind of proof that people understood these things before, though who knows.

 

[Gunny]

Your first point is false. I can try to find you a link to some physics sites if you want to dig into an explanation of it. If not, suffice it to say that it isn't the case that a finite universe has to have a center or edges, and there are physics models of the universe that show how it can be done. I'll look for a decent link to some explanation if you like.

That defies physical law, and the definition of "finite."

fi·nite

1. having bounds or limits; not infinite; measurable.
2. Mathematics. a. (of a set of elements) capable of being completely counted.
b. not infinite or infinitesimal.
c. not zero.

3. subject to limitations or conditions, as of space, time, circumstances, or the laws of nature: man's finite existence on earth.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/finite

As for point two, I think what they did was look at the rate of expansion and also at some previously estimated age of the universe, and then just made an assumption that rate of expansion was static and went from there. It was interesting, but at that point you're building too many unknowns into the exercise to have more than just an academic exercise.

What I've been saying throughout this thread.

 

[Steerpike]

That defies physical law, and the definition of "finite."

No, it doesn't. It's counter-intertuitive, perhaps. Did you check the links?