Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Origin?
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 57 (249913)
10-07-2005 8:40 PM


While reading some of the threads here on cosmology, astronomy, and the big bang I occasioned on a thought about a possible cause of the big bang.
Assume a universe similar to the one where we exist. There are massive black holes in every galaxy. For some reason the galaxies combine and the black holes combine. Eventually we get down to one black hole. However, there is so much mass in the black hole, such extreme conditions that there comes a point where the environment is too extreme for matter to exist in any form. But the matter is there. The paradox is resolved by the all the matter transferring states to energy.
At that instant, all the mass of existence has become energy in one relatively small place. It has no mass. I can only think of its temperatures as approaching infinity. It, ahem, explodes into space, and some or much of it eventually transitions back into matter. All evidence of the past has been erased. We have arrived.
Has this been thought of and refuted?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-07-2005 9:30 PM bkelly has not replied
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 10-08-2005 12:10 AM bkelly has not replied
 Message 21 by 1.61803, posted 12-29-2005 5:03 PM bkelly has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 57 (249916)
10-07-2005 8:52 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 3 of 57 (249926)
10-07-2005 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bkelly
10-07-2005 8:40 PM


Hi Kelly:
I am very sure you have a long and prosperous career writing science fiction.
OTOH, I see Stephen Hawking lurking in the OP. You could get along just fine as a theoretical physicist too.
Ray
This message has been edited by Herepton, 10-07-2005 09:31 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bkelly, posted 10-07-2005 8:40 PM bkelly has not replied

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


Message 4 of 57 (249952)
10-08-2005 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bkelly
10-07-2005 8:40 PM


Try reading "The Fabric of the Cosmos"
I think this does not align much with the underpinings to the big bang that are derived using general relativity. Those indicate that the bang did not get it's energy from such a source as you suggest but from a "field" in the fabric of spacetime itself.
I was surprised to find that there is a good deal of mathematical developement from general relativity which predicts the nature of the big bang. I'm just not really qualified to comment on it much other than to say that I think your suggestion doesn't fit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bkelly, posted 10-07-2005 8:40 PM bkelly has not replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 5 of 57 (250028)
10-08-2005 10:11 AM


black holes generating new universes
Well, I'm not terribly qualified but your 'theory' sounds a lot like general speculations that black holes generate new universes. Those speculations have been around since quite a while already I believe?
Here's the result of a quick google search:
Our Universe Was Born in a Black Hole, Theory Says | Space

  
evolutionimpaired
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 57 (254157)
10-23-2005 9:01 AM


House built without a carpenter, tools, or material
I'm new here and after finding that i couldn't, without more steps than i chose to use, create a new topic, I decided this topic was as close to what what I wanted to say...here goes.
Creation holes: 1. God created it all. Wow! That sounds pretty far fetched and unscientific. Fix: Science believes in the chance of higher beings on other planets that may not be carbon based and capable of VERY long travel times (even at light speed) without food. Science also believes in a foldable universe with holes for travel. If they can do any of this, why is it only we stupid people that think some higher power could create something from nothing better than 2 colliding rocks?
2. Noah's ark: Lotta critters for one boat. Fix: God is either behind evolution or continues to create today. I personally believe animals evolve, but could not self mutate into exactly what was needed to last even if the world is older than the scientific world believes (which I, a person who isn't convinsed that the Bible tells how old the Earth is, believe it could be billions of years old).
Evolution holes: 1. Where did the rocks and gases come from? Fix: Was always there, but the same can't be said about the species on Earth?
2. Single celled organisms without the brain to know what it needed to survived were lucky enough to gain it, maintain it, pass it on, and all before the creatures died off from the natural threat that created the need for the addaption. After that, mating animals purposely mated with deformed animals of their own species over and over. The deformity happened to be beneficial, successfully passed on enough times to make a sustainable population (even though this rarely happens...It took us over 2000 years of breeding dogs with abnormalities under our control to get what we wanted....we got some more dogs...not ONE hippo, whale, bird, or insect...hmm... Fix: Dunno
Bridge: Evolution happens, but not by will, necessity, not even chance could make it happen, especially with the odds against having a planet that spins, weighs, keeps its distance from the sun, and has all the right gasses and minerals... every thing perfect. I believe God (by whatever name you wish) is real, created the universe, oversees evolution, is just as logical an explanation, and is worshipped as a religion just as "science" is a religion. Theories like the big bang come about because if you feel it sacreligious to your belief in science, you have to come up with an alternate, even though it is less likely to hold water (which lucky for us all appeared by chance). Christians consider evolutionists heretics for their belief in a theory, evolutionists consider Christians ignorant because of their belief in a theory.
How 'bout we say dunno. We feel strongly we are right (no matter what side), but either or both could very well be true and we promise not to burn either side at the stake.
And if it makes it go down easier, evolutionists can believe that beings from a moon of Jupiter (which we don't need to know where they or Jupiter comes from) made everything because they are highly evolved,...but not gods.
evolutionimpaired
BTW: God appeared to eyewitnesses and did miracles seen by multitudes, but since all the witnesses are dead, none of it is accepted for debate. Just because his presence can no longer be proven except through current miracles that are dismissed as crazy stories, does not prove he doesn't exist. Undiscovered species show up constantly and they existed even though no man seen them before. The falling tree doesn't make a sound, but it does make a vibration, even if noone is there.
Does God have to be proven to exist? Nope. It's called faith. Kinda like the faith we have that carbon dating is reliable and constant even during ages of high heat and changing atmospheres of an ancient planet.
Going to bed now. Will view the many condescending opinions of how church brain washed me (kidding, I'm not that defensive, but it does seem the norm for being talked down to once "The Big Guy" is mentioned). With any luck, my cells will recognize my need early and I will evolve into a more smarter feller in da morning.

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2005 10:54 AM evolutionimpaired has not replied
 Message 8 by AdminJar, posted 10-23-2005 12:00 PM evolutionimpaired has not replied
 Message 9 by Gary, posted 10-23-2005 1:01 PM evolutionimpaired has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 7 of 57 (254181)
10-23-2005 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by evolutionimpaired
10-23-2005 9:01 AM


Re: House built without a carpenter, tools, or material
Science believes in the chance of higher beings on other planets that may not be carbon based and capable of VERY long travel times (even at light speed) without food.
Um, no, science doesn't believe this.
The rest of the stuff in your post would be better suited for a bunch of other threads. I suggest that you break your post up into fields - objections to evolution from astronomy should go into an astronomy thread, biological or population arguments should go into a biology thread, and arguments about the Bible should go into a Bible thread.
With any luck, my cells will recognize my need early and I will evolve into a more smarter feller in da morning.
Just to correct a common misunderstanding - individuals never evolve; only populations do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by evolutionimpaired, posted 10-23-2005 9:01 AM evolutionimpaired has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 57 (254190)
10-23-2005 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by evolutionimpaired
10-23-2005 9:01 AM


Welcome to EvC evolutionimpaired
We're glad you decided to join us and look forward to many of your future posts.
A couple points that might help you find your way around are that things here are basically broken down into two areas.
In the Science Forums, for example this thread, you will be expected to work within the scientific method. That means evidence must be such that it could be independantly confirmed by anyone regardless of faith or belief.
Second, we try (although we often fail) to keep discussions on topic. This thread, for example, is on the Big Bang Origin? Things like the Flood or critters or planets simply don't have anything to do with the topic.
At the bottom of this message will be links to other threads that might help make your stay here more enjoyable. I suggest that you start by looking over the Post of the Month forum for some examples of great posts.
Again, Welcome to EvC.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by evolutionimpaired, posted 10-23-2005 9:01 AM evolutionimpaired has not replied

      
    Gary
    Inactive Member


    Message 9 of 57 (254205)
    10-23-2005 1:01 PM
    Reply to: Message 6 by evolutionimpaired
    10-23-2005 9:01 AM


    Re: House built without a carpenter, tools, or material
    evolutionimpaired writes:
    If they can do any of this, why is it only we stupid people that think some higher power could create something from nothing better than 2 colliding rocks?
    It isn't the higher power I have a problem with. It is the lack of evidence for that higher power.
    I've heard the "2 colliding rocks" argument before. Could you elaborate? It seems like someone is going around telling people that two rocks collided and created the universe. That isn't how it happened at all.
    evolutionimpaired writes:
    And if it makes it go down easier, evolutionists can believe that beings from a moon of Jupiter (which we don't need to know where they or Jupiter comes from) made everything because they are highly evolved,...but not gods.
    evolutionimpaired
    That doesn't seem intellectually satisfying to me. It takes faith, or at least quite a few assumptions, to make a claim like that without evidence. If there were evidence of the existence of these aliens, I would be very happy to acknowledge them. That isn't to say that I don't expect life to exist elsewhere in the universe. I doubt that Earth is the only planet out of trillions that has life, and I don't see any reason to believe that a planet has to have exactly the same qualities Earth does to produce life.
    That said, I'm not going to change my beliefs to something ridiculous or vague just to satisfy people who refuse to think things through in a reasonable manner. I have attempted to come up with a mindset based on critical thought and a reasonable amount of evidence, and I'm not going to throw it all away just to satisfy creationists who ignore a tremendous amount of evidence just to rail against evolution and other phenomena.
    I don't feel that science, or the belief in evolution, is a religion. Religions don't make testable claims and they aren't peer reviewed in a meaningful way. Anyone can come up with any interpretation of holy books they want to. Anyone can come up with their own religion - just look at L. Ron Hubbard. Science is different from religion in that it is a process by which we learn about phenomena in a controlled, testable, repeatable way, without making claims about things that are obviously untestable - like the idea that God created everything in such a way as to leave no evidence of his existence. If evidence is found that refutes some hypothesis or theory, then scientists modify their understanding of the world to fit the new evidence. Religions are not so fast to do the same. The quintessential example is the unwillingness of the Catholic Church to accept heliocentricity, the concept that the planets revolve around the sun. They didn't admit that they were wrong and absolve Galileo until 1992, centuries after his death.
    evolutionimpaired writes:
    Bridge: Evolution happens, but not by will, necessity, not even chance could make it happen, especially with the odds against having a planet that spins, weighs, keeps its distance from the sun, and has all the right gasses and minerals... every thing perfect.
    How do you know that this is the only way things could have turned out? Earth isn't the only planet in our solar system that revolves in a roughly circular orbit. Everything else probably fell into the sun or came up with a stable, highly eccentric orbit. If we lived under different conditions, like on a planet with a methane atmosphere, we would think it quite fortuitous that our planet had so much methane. Life on Earth is adapted to live on Earth - not someplace else. There might be life out there that would be killed if exposed to our oxygen-rich atmosphere. Such creatures would think our planet very inhospitable to life.
    evolutionimpaired writes:
    BTW: God appeared to eyewitnesses and did miracles seen by multitudes, but since all the witnesses are dead, none of it is accepted for debate. Just because his presence can no longer be proven except through current miracles that are dismissed as crazy stories, does not prove he doesn't exist. Undiscovered species show up constantly and they existed even though no man seen them before. The falling tree doesn't make a sound, but it does make a vibration, even if noone is there.
    My problem with the authors of the Bible isn't that they are dead. I'm not prejusticed against the testimony of dead people. Lots of people who are now dead made great contributions. My problem with accepting their stories as truth is that they form the only evidence for the events that they describe, and they were written decades after the events happened. There is plenty of evidence for the destruction of Pompeii to support the written records surrounding that event in history. I find the evidence for things like the miracles of Jesus Christ to be much more flaky. They got all sorts of things mixed up - Jesus' last words, and Judas' death, to name a few. This seems indicative to me of a story that the writer didn't remember very well, and it makes me wonder if he made it all up and then forced himself to believe it over many years, adding miracles as he went along to fulfill various prophecies.
    There is no way to disprove the existence of God. There is also no way to disprove the existence of unicorns. All I want, if someone wants to convince me of the existence of God, is some evidence of his existence. I have seen unlikely things occur, but I've never seen one that can attributed only to supernatural forces. It seems to me much more reasonable to assume that the universe was created by a natural process, since pretty much everything else in the universe can be described by natural processes rather than supernatural forces. Of course, if you have other evidence, you are more than welcome to bring it up.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by evolutionimpaired, posted 10-23-2005 9:01 AM evolutionimpaired has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 10 by AdminJar, posted 10-23-2005 1:09 PM Gary has not replied

      
    AdminJar
    Inactive Member


    Message 10 of 57 (254206)
    10-23-2005 1:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 9 by Gary
    10-23-2005 1:01 PM


    Re: House built without a carpenter, tools, or material
    Please, Let's try to keep this OT and not wander off into evolution or existence of GOD or solar systems or other unrelated topics.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by Gary, posted 10-23-2005 1:01 PM Gary has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 11 by evolutionimpaired, posted 10-23-2005 6:05 PM AdminJar has not replied

      
    evolutionimpaired
    Inactive Member


    Message 11 of 57 (254276)
    10-23-2005 6:05 PM
    Reply to: Message 10 by AdminJar
    10-23-2005 1:09 PM


    Re: House built without a carpenter, tools, or material
    I thoguht the whole topic in the thread was giving an opinion on whether the Big Bang could have created a universe or if there is a more cause. I (given a great lack of sleep) found it difficult to discount a Big Bang without the completely illegible run on sentence I posted to state why I see things the way I do.
    Ill just make a short response to the posts after mine and try to consolodate my views to the topic in the future.
    Individual evolution vs population evolution: I'd find it easier to believe a few individuals possessed the rare alterations at different times in the chain that eventually lead to a true species rather than a mass of creatures simultaniously changing in the same way without something violent enough happening to kill them.
    My views under the scope of the scientific method: I believe due to my own experiences and not just based on a book that has seen many changes. If we know matter can't beget matter, something had to be present or created from nothing in a way physics can't explain. Whether we can find an agreable theory on how the Earth got here or not, we still couldn't explain the building blocks. That leaves us with little reason to think that everything couldn't have already just been the way they are. Earth was here, it went through some natural dissasters which killed off many of the animals, including the ones that had always been.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by AdminJar, posted 10-23-2005 1:09 PM AdminJar has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2005 9:31 PM evolutionimpaired has not replied

      
    crashfrog
    Member (Idle past 1466 days)
    Posts: 19762
    From: Silver Spring, MD
    Joined: 03-20-2003


    Message 12 of 57 (254334)
    10-23-2005 9:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 11 by evolutionimpaired
    10-23-2005 6:05 PM


    Re: House built without a carpenter, tools, or material
    Individual evolution vs population evolution: I'd find it easier to believe a few individuals possessed the rare alterations at different times in the chain that eventually lead to a true species rather than a mass of creatures simultaniously changing in the same way without something violent enough happening to kill them.
    You didn't understand what I wrote. What I wrote was "evolution happens to populations, not individuals."
    Not "evolution happens to all the individuals in a population simultaneously." That's not what I said, because that's not what happens.
    Individuals don't evolve. They don't change, except through the normal course of maturation through life stages. They're born with all the adaptations they'll ever have; they don't generate new ones on the fly, on demand.
    You need to look at populations the way biologists do. Imagine a population of ducks, or something. They're all standing there in the barnyard, and they all have their own set of genes. Ok?
    Now, imagine the ducks are gone, or are just there in outline. All you're looking at is the genes. You're looking at a barnyard full of alleles of those genes. Which individual has what allele isn't relevant; what you're looking at is the gene pool of the population, and how many copies of each different allele are sitting there in your barnyard.
    If you could fast forward in time, you would see, for each allele, its number wax or wane, until either that allele was evenly spread throughout the pool to every individual, or it was eliminated from the population. And you would see old alleles turn into new ones, be changed.
    That's evolution, and it's happening to the population, not any of the individuals. Individuals don't evolve, no matter what you've seen in the X-Men.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 11 by evolutionimpaired, posted 10-23-2005 6:05 PM evolutionimpaired has not replied

      
    pit40
    Inactive Member


    Message 13 of 57 (263621)
    11-27-2005 9:19 PM


    Infinitum
    Perhaps the universe is a cyclic event that is a continual rebirth!

    Replies to this message:
     Message 14 by Darkmatic, posted 11-28-2005 1:55 AM pit40 has not replied

      
    Darkmatic
    Inactive Member


    Message 14 of 57 (263659)
    11-28-2005 1:55 AM
    Reply to: Message 13 by pit40
    11-27-2005 9:19 PM


    Re: Infinitum
    Thats another theory , called the big crunch i believe . But since we are accelerating away from the ground zero , unless we start slowing down then that theory cant really hold up .

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by pit40, posted 11-27-2005 9:19 PM pit40 has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 15 by nwr, posted 11-28-2005 7:42 AM Darkmatic has replied

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 15 of 57 (263686)
    11-28-2005 7:42 AM
    Reply to: Message 14 by Darkmatic
    11-28-2005 1:55 AM


    Re: Infinitum
    But since we are accelerating away from the ground zero , ..
    Accelerating? What's the evidence of acceleration?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 14 by Darkmatic, posted 11-28-2005 1:55 AM Darkmatic has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 16 by Darkmatic, posted 11-28-2005 9:44 AM nwr 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