Universe Race

Nothing tavels fater then the speed of light within the Big Bang theory (with or without inflation). Space itself is expanding. There is no need for fudge factors or special exceptions. If you don't understand how that can be, may it's because (as you have amplely demonstrated in that thread) you are not qualified to understand it. Sorry.

Hi Son, But there is such an origin story. It just happened. Proof, we are here.I got past the point of T=O with my statement of having to make assumptions. You are welcome to accept the assumptions that have to be made to get the smaller than a pea sized universe to exist if you want to. I am not convinced those assumptions are correct. I have not been asking where the minature universe got to wherever it was. I did try to find out the location. If it was in time, space or imaginary time.
Then I tried to find out what caused it to start expanding.The answer to all of these is the same as when I asked in the other thread where it came from.Nobody knows, science does not say. Therefore it must be assumed, the minature universe was there and it started to expand. Because it is here and we are here. Therefore it had to happen it was inevitable. So if it is verified please explain:
Space is presently expanding at the speed of light. That would mean that when space began to expand it had to be expanding at the speed of light as there would be no way to speed it up. Correct me if this is wrong. Here cavedover said:

quote:

---

And the expansion occurs immeasurably faster than the speed of light

---

Everything I find on the faster than the speed of light says it can't happen.If that is the case then the BBT is wrong. Without the added fudge factor of Inflation.cavediver also says:

quote:

---

The almsot perfectly uniform distribution of energy across the Universe simply becomes less and less dense as space expands.

---

If expansion is almost perfectly uniform doesn't that mean the universe would be round?If expansion is almost perfectly uniform, why are there so many clumps and big empty spaces?My big question in Message 194

quote:

---

If space is expanding between every quarks & leptons at light speed, how did anything get together to form anything?

---

God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Saying, "We don't know how the universe originated," is not the same as saying, "The universe had no origination."Saying, "We don't know what happened before T=10^-43," is not the same as saying, "Nothing happened before T=10^-43." It is also not the same as saying, "Nothing existed before T=10^-43."I stand as amazed as I think everyone else is at your ability to derive erroneous conclusions from "We don't know." Once again, just in case it wasn't clear, "We don't know what happened before T=10^-43," does not mean, "The universe wasn't there before T=10^-43." For some strange reason known only to you, and perhaps even you don't know, you keep saying this over and over again despite everyone telling you it is wrong. Some parts of our universe are retreating from each other at the speed of light and faster, but only because they are so far apart that there is much space between them, and a great deal of space expanding at a relatively slow rate adds up across the distance. But space is not expanding at the speed of light.There was a theorized period during the early universe when space did expand at a huge rate often described in popularizations as being faster than the speed of light, but I'm guessing that Son Goku and Cavediver would tell us that it's not really meaningful to describe it that way. Only if during inflation two adjacent points in space became separated by more than 186,282 miles just a second later would this seem to be true in my view. Suffice to say that space was expanding then at a much greater rate than it is expanding today. Maybe Cavediver and Son Goku will comment on this. Everything you find about matter and energy says they can't travel faster than the speed of light. Space/time, the very backdrop upon which matter and energy play out their dance, has no such restriction. Once again, space is not expanding at light speed. In fact, space is expanding so slowly now that gravitational attraction has no problem keeping matter in close proximity. It is only distantly separated objects where the gravity between them is weak that the slow expansion of space creates increasing distance between them.--Percy

You don't know, and you refuse to make any assumptions, and are simply waiting for the "facts". The thing is, you'll never know, and if somehow we did figure out with "undeniable" scientific proof I guarantee you it is not the true way. It is simply the evil one clouding your fragile human mind with convincing lies. If you rely totally on your senses and logic you will play right into his hands. Stop trying to make human reason equal with God. Accept that there are things that will not and can not be explained, except through Him. Think with your heart. In the biggest of pictures, science is nothing but an organized system of ignorance. This will all be clear to every one of us when the time comes.

This is a science thread. Your religious Luddite ramblings are inappropriate here.If you'd like to have your "human intelligence is flawed so we can't make any determinations about the world" position demolished, feel free to start a new thread.

I would hardly call it a rambling. It was clear and coherent. Nor am I opposed to technological progression, within moral reason. Otherwise, I wouldn't be on a computer. Technology has brought many good things to humanity, such as medicines. So please soften your know-it-all tone. Being an atheist doesn't require being a smug asshole, although that can be hard to determine from these forums.I hardly think my view would be demolished. But making a thread about it would be pointless, since all the arguments presented to me would follow in the "Well, I can say that a pink unicorn is behind you and using your theist logic you can't prove me wrong, but by using our holy sacred science you can prove me wrong", vein.I am not against science, as I said it had brought us many wondrous things, that is why I clarified saying "in the biggest of pictures", as in, when the end comes, you will know how foolish it is to take it as a determining factor to whether there is a creator or not.Yes, this was off topic, and I apologize. I shall refrain from doing such things in the future.Edited by McCartlennstarrison, : No reason given.Edited by McCartlennstarrison, : No reason given.

Well, no, there are no assumptions required, except that we can generally trust what we see and make logical inferences based on that (at least in a collective manner, since individuals can always be wrong).From t=10^-40 until today, we have a general idea of what the universe was like and what has been happening. This is not mere assumptions, simply using the laws of physics as we observe them, and comparing our ideas with what we see when we look at the universe around us. This general procedure is good enough to figure out cigarettes can kill people, it's also good enough to flesh out some of the details of the universe since t=10^-40.Before t=10^-40, we know nothing. We cannot make assumptions until we have a theory that will work under the conditions that existed then. If and when we have a theory, we can then, under the assumption of that theory, make predictions of what we should see in the universe around us today. If the predictions don't match observation, then the assumption was wrong and we discard the theory. If the theory regularly predicts phenomena that we actually do see today, then the theory is confirmed, and the theory will no longer be an assumption but a reasonable inference of what the universe was like.But we are not yet at that stage. We know little about the time before t=10^-40, and we really can't make assumptions. Now some scientists may make assumptions on an ad hoc basis to come up with some educated guesses about what the universe was like before t=10^-40, but no one can be expected to accept or trust the assumptions until a real theory is developed.

---

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

Sounds pretty sensible to me.- If you are talking about what occurred before t=10^-40, I wouldn't be so pessimistic. We may come up with a theory that works during this time, and that theory may suggest testable predictions.If you're talking about the question, "How did the universe begin?" then I am inclined to agree with you. I don't think the question is even askable, much less answerable.- Ah. So you've already made up your mind about the truth, have you? Well, I wouldn't recommend just making stuff up as you go along as a regular course of action myself, but good luck with it.-The rest of your post doesn't really touch upon the early universe, except that you obvious feel some sort of emotional distress concerning the topic. Good luck with dealing with that.

---

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

Is any of this an assumption or is this a fact?Should I take you on faith that you've read and interpreted all of the scriptures and are now stating facts about the universe?Are any of the opinions you just gave based on evidence or your own personal belief?The reason I ask is because you make a pretty bold statement about science and post death events and I just wanted to know what kind of credentials you had for making these clams and not stating them as an opinion but stating them as facts?Also if you could provide us 'ignorant' science followers with evidence for "the evil one clouding your fragile human mind with convincing lies" that would be useful too.PS. Not all atheists are assholes but, most are frustrated with people who make claims about the universe that are based on primitive beliefs and expect equal time in educated conversations, such as the ones on this thread that were interupted by a condesending...well, asshole I guess.-Oni

---

All great truths begin as blasphemies

Hi Chiroptera, In my reference to Hawking where he said on page 40: Here: "Cosmology can not predict anything about the universe unless it makes some assumption about the initial conditions."I take that to mean no predictions can be made without those assumptions. Makes no difference where you make assumptions or not. No we add fudge factors to make the predictions match.The first thing that had to be added was inflation.Then there is the biggest fudge factor of all called dark matter.
Which is invisible, can not be detected, makes up most of the universe, yet is accepted as a fact.Without either of these the Big Bang Theory fails.If anyone knows of any information that proves either of these two true please share it.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

In a broad sort of way, yes. I have "made up my mind" that there is a creator, for many reasons I shouldn't go into for fear of being punched by an admin.In a specific sort of way, no. I too submit the answer of "I don't know", because I am not so foolish as to assume I know the exact methods or nature of the Lord. Of course I feel emotional distress. Not toward the topic, because in my opinion the big bang is an accurate description of what God caused to take place. I do however feel emotional distress toward those in here who do not follow God, for I am concerned about the fate of their eternal soul. Is it not natural for one to care about others? If you are talking about the big bang, then it's fact. If you are talking about my post, then of course it is an assumption. It is uncertain speculation. Something I wish many worshipers of the physical would share. God forbid! My main point in all this was to say that you shouldn't be so cocksure about ANYTHING! I don't see how you could peg me to be one of those arrogant know-it-all religious fanatics who think that their own personal view of God is the only correct one. I have the same stance toward the physical world. Things aren't always what they seem, friend. Personal belief. And the specifics of my beliefs aren't set in stone. There are so many possibilities. I am not making a statement of facts. It is speculation conveyed in a confident manner. I am confident in the words of Jesus the Christ, and I chose to speak confidently. I am in no way saying that THIS IS THE WAY IT IS. For as many that blaspheme with science, twice as many blaspheme with distorted religion. The road to hell is paved with preachers. So if it seems like I am making a declaration of fact, just know that there is uncertainty in there. Only God knows the facts. Brother, I didn't call you ignorant. I called science ignorant in relation to God's words. The evidence is all around you, but you refuse to see with your eyes. If only the truth was as simple as human logic... Did you not read what I actually typed? I said atheism does NOT require bad manners, but looking at a lot of the atheists on here, that can be hard to see. The prime example of this behavior is Taz, who resorts to hurtful jokes and sarcasm even when unprovoked. And to your comment that you just directed towards me personally. Tell me, did I resort to such childish behavior in my posts? I don't think so. You are just proving my point. I did nothing to provoke a personal insult like that, aside from you disagreeing with my beliefs, and your frustration from making assumptions about my beliefs. I'll admit, I shouldn't have used the word "asshole", and I shouldn't have lumped a group of people together. That comment was 99% directed towards Taz. From seeing many of his posts on here, it boggles my mind that he isn't permanently banned. Isn't there rules about how to treat other people here?------------------------------------------Anyway, in conclusion ICANT, your attempt to shine light upon the darkness of those who do not believe is ill-fated. Science has gotten so far, and just because it hasn't got to the point of answering what the universe was before t=10-40, doesn't mean it never will. And just because it hasn't yet doesn't prove that any divine being had a cause in it's creation (according to them, which is the main point you are trying to make, is it not?). And no one is making any assumptions out to be fact, for that goes against the very nature of science. Nothing is glaringly wrong or "fudged" with what has been scientifically verified up to this point.Anyway, it is impossible to prove/disprove God by these means, which was probably God's intention, since if we could verify his existence through evaluation of the physical then there would be no point in the concept of faith. Perhaps we could one day verify, and with that discovery, Christ would return. That's just random speculation though.I said "in conclusion", because all the falsely accused "problems of the big bang" that you have brought forth have been explained to you in detail, multiple times, and all your attempts to show that the universe has a creator have been smashed, which is unavoidable here. I'm sure anymore "fudge factors" you could think of could easily be explained to you, but you would first need extensive knowledge in the subject to really understand what is being said. Otherwise you wouldn't understand, and would keep insisting that there are problems with the theory, which has already happened many times. Maybe you should look for the answers outside of these forums? I don't really see how you could possibly milk this thread out anymore than it has been.Edited by McCartlennstarrison, : No reason given.Edited by McCartlennstarrison, : No reason given.

Sure. This is just like predicting where the planets will appear in the night sky. In order to calculate their positions, we use the theory that they revolve about the sun in ellipses according to Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion. But we need to input certain initial conditions in order to make these calculations, namely, the eccentricity of each orbit, their semi-major axes, how much the orbits are tilted with respect to the ecliptic, and so forth. Keplar's Laws do not give us these parameters -- they must be figured out based on how we see them move now; one they are figured out, then they can be input into the theories to predict where they will be in the future.The fact that these need to be input by hand does not mean that the planets do not orbit the sun in Keplerian orbits. In fact, that we can come up with a set of parameters for the orbits that work for known positions in the past is itself confirmation of the existence of Keplerian orbits. And, of course, we continue to test the theory of Keplerian orbits by computing future positions of the planets.This is like the parameters that go into Big Bang. Our physical theories do not give us the values of these parameters; they must be figured out by what we see. But the fact that a set of parameters can be found that does lead to what we see today is itself a indication that the theories are correct. And, in fact, using these parameters cosmologists can predict phenomena that were not used to figure out the parameters. In other words, the theories with the parameters inputted then lead to predictions that can be checked.Just like Keplerian orbits.- No, we use some observations to determine the correct values of some of the parameters; then predictions are made and compared with observation.Sometimes the parameters need to be fine tuned -- that is like all areas of science -- as more observations come in, the theory may need to be tweaked a bit. You aren't criticizing Big Bang here -- you are citicizing the science that produces vaccines for your kids and the computer at which you are sitting. I'mnot sure why you accept that this same procedure allows us to build computers and send satelites into orbit but can't be used to find out about the early universe.

---

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

That is the origin story of Frank, the fictional sterotypical atheist. It is not the explanation offered by the big bang theory. So please cut the nonsense. Cavediver was being loose with his words. Something which he already explained. Space didn't really expand faster than light, that's just a nice way of intuiting it. Really the distances between galaxies increase in way that makes it look as if they are moving faster than light. Think of it as the universe manufacturing distance. That unfortunately is too difficult to explain and takes a semester long course in graduate cosmology. Not because it is too "mind-bending" or something, it's simply very involved. Sort of like asking to see Windows XP's source code. Basically it is related to how densities scale with increasing distance. The expansion doesn't really overcome the formation of structures like galaxies.

The Big Bang does not require inflation (assuming you are talking about what is usually called inflation). Inflation is a possible extension of the Big Bang Theory.As for Dark Matter it has been detected. See here:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week238.htmlThis is quite an old article, but explains things well. By now the bullet cluster is looking more and more like it is dark matter.

Hi Mc, Did I miss finding where someone discovered dark matter and explained what it was?I read where Milgrom's Model explains the problems of super clusters and large voids without the use of dark matter.But I don't know anything I am just a Bible thumper.If I google problems with the Big Bang I get a lot of places to visit one of those places has this: You find theseHereHave all of these been solved without adjustable parameters?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."