Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang
stretmediq
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 17 (285849)
02-11-2006 2:59 PM


Olber's paradox says that if the cosmos is infinite it could hold an infinite number of stars that according to classical physics must exist in order to maintain a static universe. This because if there were a finite number of stars they would have collapsed in on themselves long ago. The only way for such a thing to be avoided in newtonian cosmology is to assume another gravity source on the other side of the first pulling it in the opposite direction. But that star too would require a gravity source on the other side of it. And likewise that one, and the next and so on as any finite amount of stars will ultimately come to together. The farther back you go space increases so there would be more stars giving off more light so this pheomena can not be explained away by saying the light from distance stars fade over distance. S, if the newtonian theory of gravity is correct and the universe is static the night sky must be filled with light from those stars spreading out in all dierections making the night sky white since stars are scattered in all directions. Since the night sky is black it cannot be static and if it is not static it can only be contracting which means the stars were made separately in the far distant pass which is unlikely or it is expanding which means they were all creates together. If that is true then all the matter in the universe did come from a point-like sigularity and the big bang theory is true.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 02-13-2006 9:57 AM stretmediq has not replied
 Message 4 by cavediver, posted 02-13-2006 1:48 PM stretmediq has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 17 (286099)
02-13-2006 9:46 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
AbE: Rather than a moderator working with the originator to improve the presentation, it felt to me like more would be accomplished if the membership responded.
This message has been edited by Admin, 02-13-2006 09:49 AM

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 17 (286103)
02-13-2006 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by stretmediq
02-11-2006 2:59 PM


quote:
If that is true then all the matter in the universe did come from a point-like sigularity and the big bang theory is true.
This isn't quite correct. First, although Olber's Paradox is a problem for the old Newtonian cosmology, there are all sorts of possible theories to resolve this. One was Fred Hoyle's Steady State Model.
On the other hand, the Big Bang model has been confirmed by all sorts of other measurements (sorry, Fred), and Olber's Paradox is the least of the confirming pieces of evidence for it.
But remember that our current laws of physics do not work at temperatures and densities near the alleged singularity, so who knows what may have been happening during this time -- maybe there wasn't a singularity or an absolute t=0.
It is also unknown how a workable theory of quantum gravity will resolve this issue, as well.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by stretmediq, posted 02-11-2006 2:59 PM stretmediq has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 4 of 17 (286207)
02-13-2006 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by stretmediq
02-11-2006 2:59 PM


First off, we of coure do not consider Newtonian cosmology for even a second. General Relativity is the only contender we have for cosmology at the moment (with a couple of slight variations as unlikely possibilities).
In GR we can have a finite static universe, such as the Einstein Static Universe (ESU). Such a universe is (hyper)spherical in cross-section, which removes any edge problems. This would not suffer from Olber's Paradox, and so the sky could still be dark (though you might want to think about light rays that circumnavigate the universe).
A contracting universe is quite possible for a finite universe... it will have simply finished expanding from an initial singularity, and commenced its inwards collapse back to a singularity. The sky will not remain black as the collapse proceeds.
But overall, what you are suggesting is generally correct. Given most reasonable conditions, the universe has a singularity in its past. What the singularity means is another question, and one for quantum gravity. With the singularity removed, the t=0 point could be smoothed off (like removing the knot in a balloon) or extended such that there is a (potentially infinte) t

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by stretmediq, posted 02-11-2006 2:59 PM stretmediq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 02-13-2006 2:01 PM cavediver has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 5 of 17 (286209)
02-13-2006 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by cavediver
02-13-2006 1:48 PM


A couple of questions
Hi, cavediver! Im quite ignorant in matters of science, but this topic is quite interesting to me and I wanted to know your (and others) opinions on a couple of questions.
1) What are some of the current theories behind the "singularity"? How small (or dense) could it have been? Would it have fit in the palm of my hand?
2) I read that the estimated size of the universe is somewhere in the range of a hundred billion stars per average galaxy and 100 billion galaxies. Is that in line with current thinking? Is there MORE than even that?
An infinite universe would pose some spectacular philosophies and would, to me, be as inconceivable as God! Thats a faith based question, though!

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by cavediver, posted 02-13-2006 1:48 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by cavediver, posted 02-13-2006 2:39 PM Phat has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 6 of 17 (286214)
02-13-2006 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Phat
02-13-2006 2:01 PM


Re: A couple of questions
Hi Phat, good to see you over in this neck of the woods
Theories on the singularity are what we call quantum gravity. Gravity is the science of the universe as a whole. Quantum theory is the science of the exceptionally small. So what happens when the entire universe is exceptionally small? QG! It is also highly relevant for the singularities found in black holes.
There are a number of approaches to QG, the two most prominent being String Theory and Loop Gravity... both are still very much in their infancy although they have given potential clues as to the real nature of the singularity.
A typical GR singularity is a region of space-time that has divergent (infinite) curvature. Talking about fitting one into the palm of one's hand is only ever going to lead to confusion and erroneous thinking, so I'll leave that to the horrible popular science accounts! You can have a black hole the size of a tennis ball, but it would be wrong to say that the singularity inside is this small or this big. We usually imagine a singularity as being a point, but this is not always correct. I guess the initial Big Bang singularity of a finite universe is usefully thought of as a point... but that point is the entire universe at that moment, so the concept of holding it is so ill-defined it makes my head hurt
I read that the estimated size of the universe is somewhere in the range of a hundred billion stars per average galaxy and 100 billion galaxies. Is that in line with current thinking? Is there MORE than even that?
That's the size of the observable universe. This is almost certainly the tiniest fraction of the total, but whether the total is infinte or not is an "open" question (ha ha, cosmologist joke).
Yes, an infinite universe is very interesting philosophically, and I am surprised not to have seen questions on this in my short time here. Want to open a thread???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 02-13-2006 2:01 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 02-13-2006 2:59 PM cavediver has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 7 of 17 (286222)
02-13-2006 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by cavediver
02-13-2006 2:39 PM


Re: A couple of questions
cavediver writes:
Yes, an infinite universe is very interesting philosophically, and I am surprised not to have seen questions on this in my short time here. Want to open a thread???
That WOULD be a mind boggling topic, and I dont know if I could participate without some faith-based philosophies...but maybe we could open it in Misc. topics Creation/Evolution....(Although it properly qualifies as a Big Bang/Cosmology topic as well....)
What boggles MY mind is the fact that we as creatures on a small dust speck of a planet can even begin to tackle concepts of such a vast array! It never can hurt to think, however!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by cavediver, posted 02-13-2006 2:39 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by cavediver, posted 02-14-2006 4:47 AM Phat has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 8 of 17 (286355)
02-14-2006 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Phat
02-13-2006 2:59 PM


Re: A couple of questions
I dont know if I could participate without some faith-based philosophies
I know what you mean. But that is what I love about deep physics... it reveals more and more about the character of God. For example, there is a discussion on the site that has recently discussed whether God knows the future. Relativity reveals that time is far more subtle and complex than is generally understood, and to say that God does not know, or chooses not to know the future begs the question of "future from which vantage point in the universe?" Unless God's view on the universe is restricted to a single location with a specified acceleration, the concept of "future" is ill-defined. Thus I conclude that God must reside outside time, if He is to retain any divine-like characteristics...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 02-13-2006 2:59 PM Phat has not replied

  
Bandie8
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 17 (291576)
03-02-2006 6:55 PM


Laws Of Physics..
Ok , You all seem quite smart and Probably already know these things but i feel i should state them anyways.( please excuse my typos)
There are laws of physics that do prove the Big Bang theory Wrong.
1st Law Of Thermodynamics;
This law states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
So if energy cannot be created or destroyed..then how did this nothingness compact and explode? Also there is the law of conservation of energy which states that energy can be transfered into different forms. This doesn't mean that its being created or destroyed. For example; when you put fuel into your car, most of it gets transfered into work, and some into the exhast thats goes out your pipe etc. It is NOT being destroyed.
2nd Law of thermodynamics;
This law states that everything is breaking down. (simple Terms)
Everything in the world is being degraded. For example ; You clean a room so that its spotless. You leave it for 50 years. you come back in the room to find dust forming and your furniture on the point of breaking. This is a case of entropy ( 2nd law). Heres the problem- evolutionists believe that everything is becoming more and more advanced. but really if you left the room for 50 years and came back to find your ordinary wooden chairs turned into lazy boy recliners would that make much sense to you?? Its absolutley the opposite.
The Conservation of Angular Momentum;
This states that if something is spinning when it explodes, the fragments will be spinning in the same direction. Also angular momentum cannot appear or dissapear.
So if this theoretical big bang did happen, then why are three planets spinning in Retrograde motion?? For those of you who don't know retrograde motion is when something is spinning the oppisite of the way it should be. Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are all spining in retrograde motion. How do evolutionists explain this? they say that cosmic forces acted upon these planets and forced them to stop and start spinning differently. If this was the case the force needed would be ENORMOUS!
Other problems with the theory;
1. Nothingness cannot compact together and decide to explode
2. There was nothing to trigger this explosion.
3. Total Vaccum does not mean density- the theory states that when the nothingness compacted together, it became very dense. this isnt the case. Total Vaccum is the opposite of total density.
this is very brief , and i could have gone more indepth but i am running short on time.. lol gotta go to school!

-Courtney
[Proverbs 3:5- Trust in the Lord with all Thine Heart; and not unto thine own understandings]

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Son Goku, posted 03-02-2006 7:07 PM Bandie8 has not replied
 Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 03-02-2006 7:08 PM Bandie8 has not replied
 Message 12 by cavediver, posted 03-02-2006 8:24 PM Bandie8 has not replied
 Message 13 by Chiroptera, posted 03-03-2006 8:29 AM Bandie8 has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 17 (291579)
03-02-2006 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Bandie8
03-02-2006 6:55 PM


Re: Laws Of Physics..
Bandie8, the laws you have listed do not go against the theory of the Big Bang.
I suggest you read around the threads in this forum as they contain excellent descriptions from many members concerning what the Big Bang is really about.
It is not a statement that "Nothing exploded!". Rather that the universe itself underwent rapid expansion 13.7 billion years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Bandie8, posted 03-02-2006 6:55 PM Bandie8 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 11 of 17 (291580)
03-02-2006 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Bandie8
03-02-2006 6:55 PM


Something no one every thought of !!
Welcome to Evc Bandie. Some people here are pretty smart (others of us are good at pretending).
Regarding your post:
Did it not occur to you that physicists and cosmologists who know a LOT about thermodynamics, the big bang (and general relativity which underlies it) and general physics would know about all the things you've mentioned?
Do you actually think that they aren't aware of these issues? Do you think that if they were real problems for the idea of the big bang that it would still be considered a viable theory?
Others will probably discuss them with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Bandie8, posted 03-02-2006 6:55 PM Bandie8 has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 12 of 17 (291609)
03-02-2006 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Bandie8
03-02-2006 6:55 PM


Re: Laws Of Physics..
Hi Bandie8, welcome to EvC
The trouble with the stuff you've posted is that it all sounds so reasonable. You could spend most of your life without ever meeting a real scientist who specialises in cosmology and relativity, and get away with these "sound bite" attacks on the big bang. Most people would think you sound very clever and knowledgable, and might say "oh well, so much for the big bang".
The trouble is, one day you might meet a real scientist who actually knows something about these subjects in great depth, and this scientist might be really mean and laugh long and hard at the stupidity of the things you are saying... he might gather his scientist friends round, and they would all be rolling on the ground, tears streaming down their faces...
Well, today you have met two real cosmologists on this forum. I don't know about Son Goku, but I'm not mean (having known SG for a while, I don't think he's mean either) So I'll simply say that the person who taught you these things is doing you a huge disservice becasue he is making you say stupid, non-sensical things, that may sound reasonable and clever, but are in actual fact complete gobbledigook. I'm a Christian and I get the sense you probably are too. I really really don't like it when someone feeds a fellow Christian garbage like this. It makes me quite angry.
Now you may not believe in the big bang, and that is fine. But please please please do not make yourself look stupid by quoting someone else's idiotic nonsense. Let them take the flak, not you. If you believe in a literal Genesis creation, just leave it at that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Bandie8, posted 03-02-2006 6:55 PM Bandie8 has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 17 (291733)
03-03-2006 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Bandie8
03-02-2006 6:55 PM


Re: Laws Of Physics..
quote:
1st Law Of Thermodynamics;
This law states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
Big Bang does not claim that energy was created or destroyed.
-
quote:
2nd Law of thermodynamics;
This law states that everything is breaking down. (simple Terms)
Big Bang does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
-
quote:
The Conservation of Angular Momentum;
This states that if something is spinning when it explodes, the fragments will be spinning in the same direction. Also angular momentum cannot appear or dissapear.
My lawn sprinkler is initially motionless. When I turn it on, it starts spinning. So, Conservation of Angular Momentum is violated, no?
-
quote:
Nothingness cannot compact together and decide to explode
Nothing exploded in Big Bang.
-
quote:
There was nothing to trigger this explosion.
There was no explosion.
-
quote:
Total Vaccum does not mean density- the theory states that when the nothingness compacted together, it became very dense. this isnt the case. Total Vaccum is the opposite of total density.
This is Star Trek style gibberish. It means nothing.
-
Your problem is that you do not know what "Big Bang" is or what it referrs to. This thread has a little more information on what Big Bang really is.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Bandie8, posted 03-02-2006 6:55 PM Bandie8 has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 14 of 17 (291770)
03-03-2006 10:40 AM


Preemptive Forum Guidelines Warning
There's nothing very wrong with this thread so far, I just thought I'd try to get ahead of the curve.
Discussion can become repetitive for long timers at any debate board. There will always be newcomers who haven't been exposed to many of the arguments from one side or the other. It is not required nor expected nor is it even reasonable to expect that a newcomer should read a number of threads rebutting his viewpoint before participating. The purpose of this board is debate and discussion, not handing out reading assignments, even for threads at this board (unless it's the current thread - it's always valid to request that someone familiarize themselves with the thread they're contributing to).
Each new YEC member raising an old point deserves the same patience and respect as the first time the point was raised. Anyone who is too weary of rebutting YEC arguments to be willing to take the necessary time should find other topics to contribute to.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by cavediver, posted 03-11-2006 6:16 AM Admin has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 15 of 17 (294222)
03-11-2006 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Admin
03-03-2006 10:40 AM


Re: Preemptive Forum Guidelines Warning
Sorry Percy, meant to reply to this at the time. And here's probably not the place, but the thread's quiet at the moment so I may as well...
I think there are some important points here. Firstly, I am concerned with giving illegitimate questions legitimate answers for fear of giving the original questions some level of credibility. You know where these "problems" were gleaned! That site delivers these problems with "authority" and no little contempt. This has obviously rubbed off on our poster here Simply replying with the basic science just provides a counter-argument, a different view, one that can be ignored, especially as we are dealing with science far beyond the level of most readers including our poster. Before we can discuss the science rationally, my personal view has become that some of that initial contempt and false-authority must be erroded. This has come from many years of dealing with hyper-intelligent but seriously mis-informed school students and Cambridge undergrads. BTW, the worst offender I have had the misfortune of knowing goes by the alias cavediver...
Your thoughts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Admin, posted 03-03-2006 10:40 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Admin, posted 03-11-2006 8:37 AM cavediver has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024