Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 91 of 273 (471696)
06-17-2008 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Force
06-17-2008 4:44 PM


Re: Finite
Force writes:
If the universe is claimed to be finite then that claim must be based on evidence.
I understand the Bible to teach the universe had a beginning and that it will end in and explosion and the elements will melt with fervent heat.
If I am not mistaken that is the scientific view except some think it might end in a deep freeze.
But our earth should end in a ball of fire before the deep freeze gets here. I think the earths departure is scheduled for about 4 billion years.
From Message 88
Force writes:
Science is more tangible than faith. I also want to mention that if you were a cosmologist you would be surprised by the phenomena you could actually observe that supports the BB.
Why can't I be a creationist and be amazed at the phenomenal things in the universe of which some support the BBT.
One of the most fascinating things I ran across was pangea. I love to watch the division of the continents.
The beautiful pictures from the universe are truly spectacular. The exploding star. This is one magnificent place we have been allowed to live in.
Science may be more tangible to you than faith. But not to me, my Faith comes from experience. (I will leave it at that)
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Force, posted 06-17-2008 4:44 PM Force has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Force, posted 06-17-2008 7:08 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 134 by Agobot, posted 06-20-2008 6:34 AM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 92 of 273 (471707)
06-17-2008 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by cavediver
06-17-2008 5:58 PM


Re: BBT without Inflation
cavediver writes:
Fine, this is an idiotic statement.
Could you please explain?
cavediver writes:
ICANT, you miserably failed that test the other day when you made your comment of standing on the "balloon" and looking up, seeing "nothing". I should have been howling with laughter but I was kicking in frustration that someone who trys to play hardball with the limits of cosmology would reveal himself such a ignorant fool of the subject. I find it deeply insulting given the time and effort invested.
Duh we were talking about standing on the surface of the universe if I remember correctly.
Since there is an absence of ANY THING outside of the universe why would it be stupid to say you would see NO THING if you were standing on the surface of the universe and looked up.
The only thing stupid about it is you could never stand on the surface of the universe in the first place. We are locked in and can't get out. I think that was my point.
Now did you not explain to me how that the universe was self contained and that everything was inside the universe and there was no thing outside the universe?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by cavediver, posted 06-17-2008 5:58 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by lyx2no, posted 06-17-2008 7:52 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 104 by cavediver, posted 06-18-2008 4:49 AM ICANT has replied

Force
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 273 (471708)
06-17-2008 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by ICANT
06-17-2008 6:43 PM


bbt
ICANT,
ICANT writes:
But our earth should end in a ball of fire before the deep freeze gets here. I think the earths departure is scheduled for about 4 billion years.
It is my understanding that you either have a deep freeze or a complete reversal of the universe. The scenario in which the earth burned would be due to a super nova explosion of the sun or galaxies colliding into each other due to the reversal of the universe. The universe is expanding but one day it may start reducing. Anyways.
Science may be more tangible to you than faith. But not to me, my Faith comes from experience. (I will leave it at that)
I understand. The issue is that Science is revealing the Christian Bible to be mythological. Why result revelations to Christianity?
Edited by Force, : edit

Thanks
To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 6:43 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 7:36 PM Force has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 94 of 273 (471715)
06-17-2008 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Force
06-17-2008 7:08 PM


Re:End
Force writes:
It is my understanding that you either have a deep freeze or a collision of galaxies which would end in a complete reversal of the universe. If the earth were to burn it would be due to the sun exploding.
As I understand it the Andromeda-Milky Way collision is to take place in 5 billion years.
The earth will be uninhabitable several billion years prior to that time due to our sun's burning up phase.
The two I was refering too was that the universe will end in a big crunch or all energy will be expended and it become a deep freeze.
Force writes:
The issue is that Science is revealing the Christian Bible to be mythological.
So far my Bible and True Science agree. Evolutionist disagree with my assement and that is OK. They say it is because I don't know what Science says and I say it is because they don't know what the Bible says. Stalemate.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Force, posted 06-17-2008 7:08 PM Force has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by IamJoseph, posted 06-17-2008 9:03 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 103 by cavediver, posted 06-18-2008 4:14 AM ICANT has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 95 of 273 (471718)
06-17-2008 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by ICANT
06-17-2008 7:06 PM


BBT 2.0 Already
Could you please explain?
I explained it in Message 15, in a post titled "Update Your Model."
lyx2no writes:
You do realize that models are adapted as new information comes to light. As we get into troubleshooting our faulty television our hypothesis of the cause of failure evolves. You’re still trying to get up a conversation about what’s wrong with the TV before you’ve even hit it in the side. We've all got the back off and are doing nerd stuff with the horizontal convergence circuit.
You are intentionally disabling the television and claiming that as evidence of the concept of transmission and reception of electromagnetic waves as flawed. Have you a better adjective for that then idiotic?
Duh we were talking about standing on the surface of the universe if I remember correctly.
Since there is an absence of ANY THING outside of the universe why would it be stupid to say you would see NO THING if you were standing on the surface of the universe and looked up.
The only thing stupid about it is you could never stand on the surface of the universe in the first place. We are locked in and can't get out. I think that was my point.
Now did you not explain to me how that the universe was self contained and that everything was inside the universe and there was no thing outside the universe?
It has escaped you again. Please start a new thread on this one. I don't know why I like this topic so much, but I do.
Just a hint: Anything includes up.
Edited by lyx2no, : Spelling.
Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.

Kindly
There is a spider by the water pipe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 7:06 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 8:38 PM lyx2no has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 96 of 273 (471727)
06-17-2008 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by lyx2no
06-17-2008 7:52 PM


Re: BBT 2.0 Already
Your link is incorrect.
The Message 15 you was refering to where you said:
lyx2no writes:
The density problem has a tendency to make a universe either immediately collapse or so tenuous that nothing ever forms. For all intents and purposes initial conditions that give us a 13.7 billion year old universe and an eight billion year old universe are identical. We certainly couldn't predict such a minor difference in out come.
You gave the density problem of the BBT in your first sentence.
"The density problem has a tendency to make a universe either immediately collapse or so tenuous that nothing ever forms. "
The BBT predicts exactly that. It did so for some 50 years.
Inflation solved that problem in 1981. But inflation has not even reached the theory stage yet. How does it solve anything? I got a lot of notions they don't solve anything.
But if you take away inflation the BBT is a bust.
That alone would falsify any other theory.
So would you like to discuss the problems with the BBT.
You could start with Message 62 and refute what Brandenberger, and Liddle had to say about the flatness problem (density), The horizon problem, the formation of structure problem, and the monopole problem.
Or,
Work on that TV set?
Op's I forgot you already glossed over the density problem as though it did not exist with the BBT.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by lyx2no, posted 06-17-2008 7:52 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by lyx2no, posted 06-17-2008 9:35 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 105 by cavediver, posted 06-18-2008 4:58 AM ICANT has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 97 of 273 (471732)
06-17-2008 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Force
06-17-2008 4:02 PM


Re: Update Your Model
Disagree. You have to conform your thoughts there is not a single hint the uni is not finite, and this is the conclusion of the greatest scientists, maths and sciences.
However, it is clear when the finite premise is factored in the equation, most assumptions about the universe become wrong and end up in very silly premises. You can test this by assuing the uni is finite: what happens then?
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Force, posted 06-17-2008 4:02 PM Force has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Force, posted 06-18-2008 4:28 PM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 98 of 273 (471734)
06-17-2008 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by ICANT
06-17-2008 7:36 PM


Re: Re:End
quote:
As I understand it the Andromeda-Milky Way collision is to take place in 5 billion years.
The earth will be uninhabitable several billion years prior to that time due to our sun's burning up phase.
You are quoting the bible in this assumption the earth will be uninhabitable in 5 B years. This is selective quoting. Some more imagination and you will see that in 5B years, humanity will conquer the known universe, as well as the energy, food and speed factor, control the spacial environment and continue having dominion over all the worlds. The bible says so, as well as recent human prowess.
But first, humanity has to control its own self here on planet earth: this calls for belief via commonly agreed laws - instead of MAD annihilation doctrines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 7:36 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 9:35 PM IamJoseph has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 99 of 273 (471745)
06-17-2008 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by IamJoseph
06-17-2008 9:03 PM


Re:End
IamJoseph writes:
You are quoting the bible in this assumption the earth will be uninhabitable in 5 B years.
In 5 billion years the earth will not exist.
It will be uninhabitale a long time before that.
A quote just for you.
In about 3.5bn years Earth will be so hot that the oceans will evaporate into space.
The final curtain | Astronomy | The Guardian
Sorry IaJ If I was getting my information from the Bible the time would be a lot shorter.
My information comes from the scientific knowledge that the sun is going to burn out and before it does it is going to enlarge to the point the water on earth will evaporate and then the sun will swallow the earth.
There are those who think maybe in about 2 billion years more or less man will get smart enough to direct an astroid at the planet earth and knock it out of it orbit of the sun and be able to survive.
But what happens if it survives and the sun disappears then what?
Plants would have a hard time growing that would make oxygen scarce etc....
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by IamJoseph, posted 06-17-2008 9:03 PM IamJoseph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Rahvin, posted 06-17-2008 10:39 PM ICANT has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 100 of 273 (471746)
06-17-2008 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by ICANT
06-17-2008 8:38 PM


Re: BBT 2.0 Already
Sorry about that. That was my dyslexia kicking in. Numbers are difficult to correct for as the are no rules of order 15, 21: It's all the same to me half the time.
Anyway, I quoted the second paragraph as the relevant one. You've still failed to grasp that debating a 50 year old model with the intent of poking holes in it is not productive. Especially under the guise of "educational".
You gave the density problem of the BBT in your first sentence.
I did so in reference to your claim that:
[According to] the predictions of the standard BBT the universe would only be about 8 billion years old.
, which is crap.
But if you take away inflation the BBT is a bust.
If you take the back wheel off your bicycle you're pretty much screwed to. So don't.

Kindly
There is a spider by the water pipe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 8:38 PM ICANT has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 101 of 273 (471749)
06-17-2008 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by tesla
06-17-2008 2:49 PM


Re: Why 137?
It is a jeer, as you call it, but it is not an empty one. That would be a waste of a post.
137 is the combination to the programable bicycle locks of every quantum physicist in the world. That your method of exploring the Universe does not lead to that being the combination to your bicycle lock makes it inferior to that of the QM's if "understanding" is to be used in anything but the poetic sense.

Kindly
There is a spider by the water pipe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by tesla, posted 06-17-2008 2:49 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by tesla, posted 06-30-2008 5:11 PM lyx2no has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 102 of 273 (471753)
06-17-2008 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by ICANT
06-17-2008 9:35 PM


Re: Re:End
There are those who think maybe in about 2 billion years more or less man will get smart enough to direct an astroid at the planet earth and knock it out of it orbit of the sun and be able to survive.
I swear I'm still laughing so hard at that I can barely type!
An asteroid impact would have an effect on the Earth nearly as bad as the Sun becoming a supergiant and swallowing the planet - a total extinction event.
In fact, without even doing any math, I would surmise that an impact forceful enough to throw the Earth out of orbit would at the very least result in fragmenting the planet, causing it to re-coalesce over a few million years, like when the moon was formed.
To save the Earth from the Sun's heat, we'll shoot it with the freaking Death Star!
Oh, that's rich... Moving planets isn't exactly like playing pool, and you're talking about shooting a freaking .45 at the 8 ball!
Assuming humanity survives long enough, hopefully we'll figure out a way to get off of this rock and into space long before the Sun starts to run low on nuclear fuel. Honestly, if our species is still around in 2 billion years and we're still on Earth, we'll deserve extinction.
Okay, enough of the off-topic discussion...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 9:35 PM ICANT has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 103 of 273 (471765)
06-18-2008 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by ICANT
06-17-2008 7:36 PM


Re: Re:End
So far my Bible and True Science agree. Evolutionist disagree with my assement and that is OK. They say it is because I don't know what Science says and I say it is because they don't know what the Bible says. Stalemate.
But you are also saying that Buz does not know what the Bible says and that Ray Martinez does not know what the Bible says So which of you has the correct story?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 7:36 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2008 6:13 AM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 104 of 273 (471770)
06-18-2008 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by ICANT
06-17-2008 7:06 PM


Re: BBT without Inflation
Could you please explain?
The Big bang is a classical theory - it will have shortcoming because of this - it is GUARANTEED to have shortcomings. If it has validity, it should agree with observation to a very strong degree in the classical domain. Problems will be seen in the quantum domain (i.e. in the very early moments, and effects of those early momemts carried forward into the classical regime). This is EXACTLY what we see. The Big Bang model of cosmology will be modified as we gain a deeper understanding of quantum gravity. Inflation is a leap ahead into this regime, where we are guessing at the overall coarse effect of some loosely understood quantum gravity mechanics. The coarse effect has good observational evidence. But inflation will not be the only modification. We have already seen Dark Energy, and there will be much more to come.
But BBT as the classical limit is one of the most solid theories around. That it has issues in the claassical limit is not a problem but a PREDICTION. The issues are what we use as sign posts to the deeper quantum theory. Inflation is one (evidence-backed) possibility. If inflation proves to be incorrect, then all that means is that we have the wrong quantum correction, and we must search further.
Duh we were talking about standing on the surface of the universe if I remember correctly.
Yes, "Duh" is the operative expletive:
ICANT writes:
No, when they use the balloon they are talking about the ants crawling around on the outside surface of the balloon. I never did get it. I kept thinking if I was there and look up it would be blank.
Since there is an absence of ANY THING outside of the universe why would it be stupid to say you would see NO THING if you were standing on the surface of the universe and looked up.
When you can answer this for yourself, you will have understood...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 7:06 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2008 7:33 AM cavediver has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 105 of 273 (471772)
06-18-2008 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by ICANT
06-17-2008 8:38 PM


Re: BBT 2.0 Already
Inflation solved that problem in 1981. But inflation has not even reached the theory stage yet. How does it solve anything? I got a lot of notions they don't solve anything.
Do you delight in being an idiot, or does it upset you?
How does it solve anything?
You mean, you don't know, despite all your reading?
I got a lot of notions they don't solve anything.
So once again, ICANT, someone who ponders about seeing nothing as he gazes up off the 2d balloon analogy, claims to have a far better understanding of all of this than the entire cosmological community. Are you claiming that every cosmologist is self-deluded, stupid, and just hoping, praying that inflation wil save them from the disaster of the Big Bang theory? Perhaps you'd care to explain your critique of inflation? Your own words would be nice. And please explain the evidence we have for inflation, if not caused by inflation? And please explain ALL of the evidence for the Big Bang, if it is not actually caused by the Big bang, as you are so desperate to believe.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 8:38 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2008 8:19 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