|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Big Bang Misconception | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
For confirmation, I wish you had looked in a book instead. The problem is, an hour ago I thought the ISBN might have been the barcode. Because I looked it up I now know otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
The Big Bang Theory is NOT about the origin of the universe -- it's primary focus is the development of the universe over time. We measure the Big Bang Theory through numerous different methods (expansion of the CMB, COBE measurements, Doppler-effect and frequency shift of light, etc.) and we can derive certain information based on observations. Too be honest, I dno't know how I feel about the BB. The BB has been popularized and up until recently was the only serious model proposed. This is due, in part, because the Big Bang has been supported by observation with an explanatory power unrivaled to that of other theorems. The premise behind the theory is that life must have begun in singularity. Its otherwise been referred to as 'Planck's time' which is 10 to the -43 seconds after the universe began. If that doesn't speak about the beginning, then I don't what does. Consider singularity as the point in the space-time continuum at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume. Accordingly, space and time have become infinitely distorted. To expound on this, think of an empty hand. What is inside of an empty hand? There is nothing, right? Actually, there are millions of subparticles swirling about. Nevertheless, at the singularity there literally was nothing in the truest sense of the word. This is a distressing truth though that has brought the greatest minds to exhaustion. As compelling as the theory is, it still does not offer any explanation as to why matter exists at all. Conventional wisdom simply cannot account for it. I think the casual and causal inference of man is based on the intuition that something cannot come from absolutely nothing. A pure potentiality cannot, in it’s own right, actualize itself. I think virtually all cosmologists and astrophysicists, whether theistic or atheistic, agree on this point. So, at what point does time, space, and matter become actual? It had to become actual at some point. So the burning question is, how it happened? I don't think we could answer these questions with Newtonian precision, but nonetheless, I think its deserving of a worthy effort. Hawking put it in an interseting way. He said, what's the north of the North Pole. And from what I gathered from that quip, he's essentially saying, we'll never really know either way, so who cares? But I don't think man will be truly satisfied until he knows the answer of his origins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
He said, what's the north of the North Pole. And from what I gathered from that quip, he's essentially saying, we'll never really know either way, so who cares? No, he's saying that the question makes no sense. There is no such notion as "north" at the North Pole in the same way that there is no "before" at the singularity. In the BB model, there was never a moment of "nothing". The universe did not come into being; there was no beginning to the "universe". There is simply a point in the universe where t=0, and all directions from t=0 lead to t>0. The BB is not about origins, it is about what the universe looks like around t=0. If God created the universe, then the BB is no more the point of creation than tomorrow lunch time in Trafalgar Square. He brought the whole universe into being, which includes all time. Which also makes the use of the past tense "created" rather misleading...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Chemistry, 6th edition; Houghton Mifflin 2003 I wonder how accurate we'd expect a chemistry book to be when discussing cosmology. If that quote is in there (and I remain skeptical, as a result of the coincidences outlined above), you should write to them with two complaints: 1: They uplifted at least an entire paragraph from a book that precedes it by fourteen years. Not even a physics or chemistry science book but a general science book. This is simply not acceptable. 2: The information they present does not accurately reflect what the relevant scientists in the appropriate fields have said.
He's right to be leary of such a pernicious theory being taught as fact Fortunately, Hovind's theory of the Big Bang isn't really taught to anyone other than as an instructional aid. That is, rather than talking kids through advanced concepts of 4 dimensional space and the consequences of relativity, we just give them the quick layman's concept.
In any case, perhaps a crusade to correct antiquated theories should be in order. Well, relativity is old now, but if you feel the need to correct it, by all means go ahead. What might be more productive is a crusade against poorly worded text books.
The OP seems peeved that people actually think that the Big Bang was not the product of an energy speck, but the problem lays wholly with the people that print the material. Its not the laymans fault that they didn't know any better. Agreed, but the problem isn't with layman not knowing better, it's with layman thinking that the simplified version they learned about is a sufficient base from which to criticize the theory. I certainly don't feel qualified to have an opinion on the Big Bang, and I've taken the time to read about it in more depth than an average layman.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I wonder how accurate we'd expect a chemistry book to be when discussing cosmology. If memory serves me correctly, the opening section attempted to reconcile early abiotic chemicals and attribute it to nucleofusion in stars some time after the Big Bang. That's probably why it caught my eye. I'd love to give you a more definitive answer, but I have so many quotes that I would never remember where I located them had I not jotted down a referrence.
If that quote is in there (and I remain skeptical, as a result of the coincidences outlined above), you should write to them with two complaints: 1: They uplifted at least an entire paragraph from a book that precedes it by fourteen years. Not even a physics or chemistry science book but a general science book. This is simply not acceptable. 2: The information they present does not accurately reflect what the relevant scientists in the appropriate fields have said. It probably came from the same writers who just tweak it as time goes on. I already explained why chemical evolution was assimilated into cosmology.
Fortunately, Hovind's theory of the Big Bang isn't really taught to anyone other than as an instructional aid. I think Hovind makes alot of good points, however, for every good observation, he tends to go off on tangents that bear no relation to his orignal premise. As well, he appeals to the layman because he sounds as if he's more than one and he is a good orator and debator. But as I said, he's too antagonistic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
If memory serves me correctly, the opening section attempted to reconcile early abiotic chemicals and attribute it to nucleofusion in stars some time after the Big Bang I appreciate why the early universe is of interest to chemists. However, I doubt that a brief outline of the physics and maths in a chemistry book will need to be highly accurate, and a synopsis so to speak would suffice. As I said, you should write to the authors with the (at least) two points of complaint. We cannot be upset at laymen who don't understand the theory, only at laymen who think they understand it enough to criticize it. And that's not the fault of college text books about chemistry. Most of that blame comes from the likes of Hovind who criticizes the theory as laid down in its simple form (I assume he, and other creationists, don't like tackling the maths) as if that were the real one. In debate parlance it would be a straw man. Why attack a strawman? A good orator can make a strawman defeat look like the real thing, but critical minds will investigate and realize it isn't. Its comparable to me reading a book about gravity saying that 'gravity causes things to drop when you let go' and then me to demonstrate gravity as absurd by pointing to planes, rockets, and baloons.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I doubt that a brief outline of the physics and maths in a chemistry book will need to be highly accurate, and a synopsis so to speak would suffice. It was a brief synopsis. It was a blurb. But even a blurb like that being portrayed as an unassailable fact without corroborating evidence has no place in the book at all. That was my objection to it.
Most of that blame comes from the likes of Hovind who criticizes the theory as laid down in its simple form He is afforded the opportunity to believe as he does. But lets look at it truthfully. If what Hovind was saying was so fantasitically false, then no one would care about his babble. As it is, its more than evident that what he's saying is hitting home to the scientific community. If creationism as a whole was not presenting a problem to secular views, then there would not be propaganda campaign to stop it. I mean, look at Talk Origins. Nearly the entire site is devoted towards the debate, as is this webforum. If it wasn't a problem and if it wasn't based on, at the very least, some merit, then no one would care either way. So its reasonable to assume that what Hovind and the gang are saying has more legitimacy than some would incline.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 865 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
quote: Unbelivable that a person would argue falsehoods = legitimacy. Obviously if a person is arguing in favor of something that would destroy a country economically and therefore militarily if imposed by force as demanded, then resonable people would do what they could to stop it {ABE - by taking it seriously and arguing against it). This message has been edited by anglagard, 05-12-2006 03:23 PM This message has been edited by anglagard, 05-12-2006 03:48 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
If what Hovind was saying was so fantasitically false, then no one would care about his babble. As it is, its more than evident that what he's saying is hitting home to the scientific community The scientific community has never even heard of him. It's only those scientists who are daft enough to hang out at sites like this that know of his existence. I'm a scientist AND a Christian (who attends a church which is 99.8% creationist with a congregation of 500) and I had never heard of him before I came to EvC... though perhaps that says more about me than him...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
It was a brief synopsis. It was a blurb. But even a blurb like that being portrayed as an unassailable fact without corroborating evidence has no place in the book at all. That was my objection to it. That's fine, and it is why I suggested you complain to the publishers. However - not all books are able to go into the evidence for the science that it builds upon, otherwise all books would be massively thick and impossible to read. From a chemistry point of view, saying that the universe came from a big bang is a sufficient grounding to start discussing the ideas behind early chemistry. Why make chemistry students get a physics degree before doing chemistry? If we take that to its absurd levels, you'd need a degree in physics and chemistry before attempting to get qualified in biology. It's left as an exercise for the student to go away and learn about cosmology if they want to learn in more depth, about the chemistry near the big bang.
He is afforded the opportunity to believe as he does. But lets look at it truthfully. If what Hovind was saying was so fantasitically false, then no one would care about his babble. Not true at all. That's like saying that Holocaust deniers must be on to something, they're certainly not fantastically false, because people care about it. Moon-landing hoaxers likewise. There are other reasons people care about what Hovind says. 1. He confirms what other people already believed.2. He is a good orator and very persuasive 3. He allows people to feel smarter than 'scientists' who are 'dumb' 4. He tries to intellectually swindle people (Which people like myself despise). There are four reasons I thought of off the top of my head, none of which are dependent on the truth of what is said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Moon-landing hoaxers likewise. Eh... Whatever. As I stated earlier, Hovind is a bit discourteous and I'm not a big fan, though I'd agree that he's a persuasive orator. But, I guess that's not saying much because so was Hitler. Anyway, you sparked my interset with moon-landing hoaxers. I am not one. However, one argument thay've made has always stuck with me and I can't help to think how one aspect might have legitimate implications. Alright, in the footage that we've all seen, it shows the American flag waving. But space is a vacuum devoid of oxygen. So how is the flag waving in an oxygenless vacuum? Where is wind coming from if 1. There's no oxygen in the first place. 2. Its in a vacuum. This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 05-13-2006 12:35 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 865 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Alright, in the footage that we've all seen, it shows the American flag waving. But space is a vacuum devoid of oxygen. So how is the flag waving in an oxygenless vacuum? Where is wind coming from if 1. There's no oxygen in the first place. 2. Its in a vacuum. Science News | Science Mission Directorate Also covered in Penn & Teller Bullshit! on Showtime This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 05-13-2006 12:35 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5778 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
quote: quote: Teehee
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
If you want to continue talking about Chemistry books and cosmology as well as whether or not having people care about something is some kind of veracity checker, then let me know and we'll continue the discussion.
Edited by Modulous, : totally changed the content, since I wasn't happy at all with it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bob_gray Member (Idle past 5042 days) Posts: 243 From: Virginia Joined: |
quote:I asked because I wanted to look it up. I appreciate you doing the research but I thought I would look in the book as well.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024