|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The expanding Universe and Galactic collisions | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
So the singularity is, and always was until it decided to expand? How's that? There is no "decide," just as there was no "cause." The universe has always been expanding. For as long as time existed, it has been expanding. When time = 0, "cause" is meaningless, because time itself doesn't exist as we know it. You're trying to apply the human linear experience of time, where we move steadily from past to future, to the point at which there was nothing but present. It's comparing apples to oranges. The singularity existed for only a single point of time. We can say it was infinite, because time really had no meaning when t=0, but it also existed only for an instant, because as soon as t=0.0000...1, the universe was already expanding. Think of the expansion of the dimension we call time as the very movement of time we experience. As the dimension expands with the others, we move further into the future. When you go all the way back to when t=0, all of our words, "before," "after," "eternal," all become useless. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Spektical writes:
Now, you are wandering into a whole new realm of physics that is still in its infancy. The only people who have even attempted to answer this question are string theorists. Even then, only a hand full seem to be able to explain this without having their heads explode. So the singularity is, and always was until it decided to expand? How's that? Look, you can pick up some books to read about these things, you can even apply to one of your local colleges and take some classes, you can wait for science to progress further before getting some more layman explanations, or you can do what the creationists do and proclaim "goddunit". The choice is yours. My question to you is is the BB still not sitting well with you or are you ready to admit that you will need further research and study before having an opinion on it? Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Humans seem to sit better with explainable and definable origins rather than unexplainable, undefinable (or controllable) origins. And this also fits quite nicely with allowing humans to explain their origin...thus creating a theory
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
# where did the singularity come from? # was the singularity the uncaused first cause? I'm sorry but not at all sure that those have any meaning.
# why do people always ask "who created God" hypothetically yet seem unable to address "how did the singularity originate"? Because there is evidence that the singularity existed, and we simply do not yet know enough to address the second part of the question, how it came about. There are people working on the question though.
Humans seem to sit better with explainable and definable origins rather than unexplainable, undefinable (or controllable) origins. Huh? What does that even mean?
And this also fits quite nicely with allowing humans to explain their origin...thus creating a theory Huh? What does that even mean? The key factor though is that the current models actually carry meaning and content, we actually know more once we study them than we did before. Inserting Goddidit tells us nothing, we learn nothing and we come away no wiser than we began. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
where did the singularity come from? Meaningless question. We have no evidence to suggest that the Universe ever did not exist, and plenty of evidence that it does. And as I said previously, the nature of the singularity means that asking for what "came before" it, or what "caused" it are all meaningless questions. You're asking for the origin of a mathematical curiosity theorized by the extrapolation of observed facts back so far that math breaks down. What's farther North than the North Pole, Phat?
was the singularity the uncaused first cause? The singularity was the state of the universe when time was equal to zero. That is all. It can't have a "cause" because time was zero - "before" zero would have to be negative time, and that doesn't make any sense. We have evidence that the Universe exists, and that the universe existed as the singularity when time=0. Your "uncaused first cause" terminology is meaningless - it's like asking if liquid is a cause.
why do people always ask "who created God" Because we like to point out the foolhardiness of insisting that everything requires a cause in order to invoke a deity, when the deity itself must be uncaused. We aren't agreeing with you that everything needs a cause, Phat, we're taking your logic to it's conclusion to demonstrate that it's nonsense.
yet seem unable to address "how did the singularity originate"? The answer is that the singularity is not a "thing." It's the state of the universe when time = 0, as I've said. It's like asking "what is the origin of solid?" We call it "the singularity" because we don't have much of a way to describe it other than "wow, none of our equations work when there all the dimensions = 0 and all matter/energy is packed into a single point." What you're really asking, Phat, is how the Universe originated. In the earliest state we can describe it, all the way back to T=0, the universe existed as a singularity. It has always existed, for literally all of time.
Humans seem to sit better with explainable and definable origins rather than unexplainable, undefinable (or controllable) origins. Sure. We like to know what's going on. That's why ancient people made stuff up, like Zeus ruling the sky, or Apollo riding his chariot across the sky as the sun...or a Great Flood, 6-day Creationism, etc. "I don't know" is an acceptable response to some questions, Phat, and saying "goddunnit" doesn't simplify anything. It adds an extraneous entity into the equation, and fails to answer the question anyway. What came before the singularity? What caused it? The questions, as I've pointed out, are meaningless because they rely entirely on the perspective of time that we experience, when time is actually just another dimension of space.
And this also fits quite nicely with allowing humans to explain their origin...thus creating a theory No, Phat, that would be "pulling an explanation out of your ass," which is quite a bit different from a Theory. Theories, for example, require evidence. They can be falsified. Using the term in that way is irresponsible. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
why do people always ask "who created God" hypothetically yet seem unable to address "how did the singularity originate"? You've missed out half the argument, being asked "who created God" is what is known as being hoist by your own petard, it goes like this: T: "Nothing can exist without a cause so God exists!"A: "If nothing can exist without a cause, what cause God?" T: "He's magic. It doesn't apply."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spektical Member (Idle past 5977 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
My question to you is is the BB still not sitting well with you or are you ready to admit that you will need further research and study before having an opinion on it? LOL What is this, the Nazi youth camp of physics and astronomy? I accept the BB theory because it makes sense as far as human understanding goes. However, the more we understand about the universe and its nature the more I think the BB will change. Which brings me to the beginning of this thread and WHY I asked the question in the first place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Huh?
I have no idea why you are replying to me but I am pretty sure I did not say what you are quoting me as saying. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Nope, that was a Taz quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Spektical writes:
You misunderstand me. LOL What is this, the Nazi youth camp of physics and astronomy? You seem like a reasonable person, so I am just trying to give you a nudge toward the right direction. And the right direction is recognizing one's own limits with regard to knowledge and refrain from being opinionated about that which one's own knowledge is lacking. You don't have to accept the BB. In academia, we often come face to face with things which are obvious to others but are not so obvious to us. If you decide further explore the wonderful world of science, sometimes you have to accept that you're not going to know everything. Just remember that my goal isn't to convince you to accept the BB, relativity, or whatnot. You can make up your own mind AFTER you've had sufficient knowledge. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spektical Member (Idle past 5977 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
I agree. I think further study of the constituents of the universe ie. Blackholes, dark matter and gravity will reveal alot of things.
I visit space.com and universe today almost everyday and the new dicoveries I read about are amazingly compelling and stimualting to read.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4579 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
I agree. I think further study of the constituents of the universe ie. Blackholes, dark matter and gravity will reveal alot of things. I visit space.com and universe today almost everyday and the new dicoveries I read about are amazingly compelling and stimualting to read. I'm certainly not a cosmologist or quantum-physicist, but I think as "mere mortals" we'll have to accept that reading websites like those, or reading popular books will not be able to answer some questions as satisfyingly as we would like. Popularizers like Brian Greene and others point this out all the time: the REAL theories are in the complex maths, and nitpicking or pointing out inconsistencies and absurdities on the basis of the "plain English" version is pretty futile. That's an important thing to understand. Like in many scientific areas, we have little choice but to trust the scientific community, and trying to be as well informed as possible to seperate junk from mainstream or at least reasonably assess how much a particular idea is supported or rejected by evidence and consensus. Bottom line: don't get your hopes up too high when it comes to achieving Real Understanding on the basis of anything else but the bare mathematics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Annafan writes:
I think this is a problem that has been plaguing intellectuals and academics of all fields since the beginning of civilization. Forgive my bluntness, but the ordinary folks have always tried to pass themselves off as the "wisemen" by nitpicking the hell out of simplified versions of a specific field. This is also why scientists more often than not are made out to look like fools in a live debate situation. Popularizers like Brian Greene and others point this out all the time: the REAL theories are in the complex maths, and nitpicking or pointing out inconsistencies and absurdities on the basis of the "plain English" version is pretty futile. I once attended a lecture on how quantum computers work. This was a lecture intended for grad students and professors, so the lecturer went into some rather complicated math stuff. To be honest, I was able to follow him the first 20 minutes or so before he lost me. There were, of course, some physics enthusiasts who attended and at the end of the lecture some of them admitted that they were lost the moment the lecturer wrote the first equation on the board. See, at the time, I had taken several quantum mechanics class so I was able to follow the first 20 minutes or so until I started asking myself "how did he get from there to here?" Most of this stuff you just can't explain in plain english. The creationists have made it a popular idea that you could quantify/simplify all of the theories and all of the mathematical concepts down to mere english words. This certainly makes Mister Joe Smith with his high school diploma feel a lot better about himself... Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Coming in rather late here...
I guess the mystery is the fact that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, which goes against our current linear perspective of how the universe works. No, it doesn't, not least because we don't have a 'linear perspective of how the universe works' - I'm not actually sure what you mean by this. Our primary model of how the Universe works is General Relativity, and it is highly non-linear - famously so...
This is why the big bang theory doesn't fit But it does - as others have already said, you can't play hardball with soft terms... 'big bang' is a generic term, and you need to refer to specific General Relativity space-time solutions. You could say that the acceleration doesn't fit with Friedmann-Roberston-Walker (FRW) cosmology, that that we grew up on, and you'd be right. But it is a good fit with Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) space-time... both exhibit 'big bangs', so where's the problem? There is a big mystery as to what is causing the acceleration - not because we cannot think of anything that can do this - but simply that we don't have enough evidence yet to pin down which of several possibilities it could be... many of us are not in the slightest bit surprised by the acceleration and in fact spent plenty of time in the past wondering why there was none!
but basically it hypothesizes a different theory from the BB and one that I think has to do with other universes and strings etc. We have been studying such theories for decades... this is nothing new. And all of them incorporate the major features of the 'big bang' when they come to describing our Universe - good job, as the evidence for the post-singularity comsology of the big bang is rather good
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4579 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
Taz writes: I think this is a problem that has been plaguing intellectuals and academics of all fields since the beginning of civilization. Forgive my bluntness, but the ordinary folks have always tried to pass themselves off as the "wisemen" by nitpicking the hell out of simplified versions of a specific field. This is also why scientists more often than not are made out to look like fools in a live debate situation. I'm reminded of this almost EVERY day when I read through the "reader letters" segment of our local newspaper. Specifically when Global Warming gets debunked by people who base their idea of GW on what the evening news tells/shows, and can't even spell "isobar". Style "september was .5 degrees colder than normal, so where's this Global Warming, again???" Initially I always get this urge to write a response, but then I realise how little it would achieve... What is the saying again? "The more you know, the more you know how little you know."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024