Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,648 Year: 4,905/9,624 Month: 253/427 Week: 63/103 Day: 7/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Big Bang and the visible past.
opfresco
Junior Member (Idle past 5302 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 11-16-2009


Message 1 of 89 (535470)
11-16-2009 7:14 AM


I'm a new user so go easy.
Ok. Here we go...I may have some trouble adequately explaining my query. We are able to look to distant stars, galaxies etc and effectively "see the past". Why are there (ignoring technological barriers) events that have occurred that we cannot see i.e. the light has not reached us yet? My query is based on the premise that all matter origated from a singularity. Did this original "explosion" happen at faster than the speed of light?
For the purposes of discussion, I come from a purely scientific standpoint.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 11-16-2009 8:33 AM opfresco has replied
 Message 5 by Yrreg, posted 09-19-2010 5:46 PM opfresco has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13082
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 2 of 89 (535479)
11-16-2009 8:19 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the The Big Bang and the visible past. thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 3 of 89 (535480)
11-16-2009 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by opfresco
11-16-2009 7:14 AM


I'm a new user so go easy.
Welcome!
Why are there (ignoring technological barriers) events that have occurred that we cannot see i.e. the light has not reached us yet? My query is based on the premise that all matter origated from a singularity. Did this original "explosion" happen at faster than the speed of light?
It's a good question. The first thing is that "explosion" is strictly in quote marks. "Expansion" is probably a better word. The galaxies we can't see (or may one day lose sight of) are not travelling away from us at any special speed. The amount of space between the two has increased primarily because space itself is expanding - if the rate of expansion outpaces the speed of light then the light never reaches us. Its a bit like the 'stretching corridor nightmare', no matter how long the light 'runs' it will never reach the door because more and more corridor seems to be made (or the existing corridor is stretched further and further forever (or maybe it'll 'snap' back at some point?).
I should probably note: the more space that seperates two galaxies - the greater the effect, making for cumulative effect where objects seems to be receding faster the further away they are.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by opfresco, posted 11-16-2009 7:14 AM opfresco has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by opfresco, posted 11-17-2009 3:44 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
opfresco
Junior Member (Idle past 5302 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 11-16-2009


Message 4 of 89 (535634)
11-17-2009 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Modulous
11-16-2009 8:33 AM


Think I'm beginning to get this...I've heard different analogies to describe this expansion. Ants on a balloon etc.
Really appreciate you're reply.
Fantastic forum by the way!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 11-16-2009 8:33 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Yrreg
Member (Idle past 5011 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 11-21-2006


Message 5 of 89 (582076)
09-19-2010 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by opfresco
11-16-2009 7:14 AM


A purely scientific background is not the whole picture of existence.
Opfresco writes:
I'm a new user so go easy.
Ok. Here we go...I may have some trouble adequately explaining my query. We are able to look to distant stars, galaxies etc and effectively "see the past". Why are there (ignoring technological barriers) events that have occurred that we cannot see i.e. the light has not reached us yet? My query is based on the premise that all matter origated from a singularity. Did this original "explosion" happen at faster than the speed of light?
For the purposes of discussion, I come from a purely scientific standpoint.
You see, the Big Bang was arrived at by mathematics working on things that can be detected with man made instrumentation.
Now that mathematics took into account what we might call things in the observable (by man's senses) universe, and time and space, to go all the way back to a point which they call the singularity.
At this point scientists who are atheists have censored their intelligence to not go further.
So, if you are an atheist you should not go further with your intelligence.
Yrreg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by opfresco, posted 11-16-2009 7:14 AM opfresco has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Huntard, posted 09-19-2010 5:53 PM Yrreg has not replied
 Message 7 by cavediver, posted 09-19-2010 5:55 PM Yrreg has not replied
 Message 8 by frako, posted 09-19-2010 5:59 PM Yrreg has not replied
 Message 9 by nwr, posted 09-19-2010 6:03 PM Yrreg has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2381 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 6 of 89 (582078)
09-19-2010 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Yrreg
09-19-2010 5:46 PM


Re: A purely scientific background is not the whole picture of existence.
Hello Yrreg, and welcome to EvC!
Yrreg writes:
Now that mathematics took into account what we might call things in the observable (by man's senses) universe, and time and space, to go all the way back to a point which they call the singularity.
Yes.
At this point scientists who are atheists have censored their intelligence to not go further.
No. They can't got further, that's what "singularity" means.
So, if you are an atheist you should not go further with your intelligence.
Even if you're not an atheist, you can't go further.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Yrreg, posted 09-19-2010 5:46 PM Yrreg has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3729 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(2)
Message 7 of 89 (582079)
09-19-2010 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Yrreg
09-19-2010 5:46 PM


Re: A purely scientific background is not the whole picture of existence.
At this point scientists who are atheists have censored their intelligence to not go further.
That's right. When I was in full-time cosmological research, as an evangelical Christian I had a huge advantage over my atheist colleagues, and I made many discoveries that they were simply unable to comprehend. All major discoveries in pre-big-bang physics have been made by Christians. No Jews, mind. Never Jews.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Yrreg, posted 09-19-2010 5:46 PM Yrreg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 09-19-2010 6:07 PM cavediver has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 8 of 89 (582082)
09-19-2010 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Yrreg
09-19-2010 5:46 PM


Re: A purely scientific background is not the whole picture of existence.
So, if you are an atheist you should not go further with your intelligence.
well you can hypothesise but whitout data you cant conclude much so thats why we build things like the hadron colider so we can get some data which can help us to understand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Yrreg, posted 09-19-2010 5:46 PM Yrreg has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6421
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 9 of 89 (582083)
09-19-2010 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Yrreg
09-19-2010 5:46 PM


Re: A purely scientific background is not the whole picture of existence.
Yrreg writes:
At this point scientists who are atheists have censored their intelligence to not go further.
Of course not.
The science only takes you so far. But you are not prevented from going beyond that, so there is no censorship. It's just that it is no longer science. It is speculation.
Oh, and some scientists do speculate about such things. But they understand that it is speculation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Yrreg, posted 09-19-2010 5:46 PM Yrreg has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34064
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 10 of 89 (582084)
09-19-2010 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by cavediver
09-19-2010 5:55 PM


Re: A purely scientific background is not the whole picture of existence.
Wouldn't a Hindu be able to discover things further in the past than a Christian?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by cavediver, posted 09-19-2010 5:55 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-19-2010 6:23 PM jar has not replied
 Message 15 by Omnivorous, posted 09-21-2010 11:21 AM jar has not replied
 Message 78 by RCS, posted 10-02-2010 2:04 AM jar has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4504
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 11 of 89 (582087)
09-19-2010 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by jar
09-19-2010 6:07 PM


Re: A purely scientific background is not the whole picture of existence.
Well, as a Baby-Boomer back in the '60s and '70s, I could see all the way back before the beginning AND the outside from the inside.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 09-19-2010 6:07 PM jar has not replied

  
Yrreg
Member (Idle past 5011 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 11-21-2006


Message 12 of 89 (582281)
09-20-2010 5:15 PM


Is that attitude intelligent, not to go further than the big bang?
Is that attitude intelligent, not to go further than the big bang?
Suppose you ask yourself the question that point that is the big bang, mathematics reached to that point, but your mind is not all mathematics is it?
That is what you have encapsulated your mind if you cannot think any further than you can do so with mathematics.
That is self-censorship.
And censorship is not an intelligent attitude in anything that has to do with more knowledge.
Yrreg

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by frako, posted 09-20-2010 5:19 PM Yrreg has not replied
 Message 14 by Blue Jay, posted 09-21-2010 11:04 AM Yrreg has not replied
 Message 21 by cavediver, posted 09-22-2010 3:49 AM Yrreg has not replied
 Message 30 by Phat, posted 09-22-2010 10:41 AM Yrreg has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 13 of 89 (582284)
09-20-2010 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Yrreg
09-20-2010 5:15 PM


Re: Is that attitude intelligent, not to go further than the big bang?
dude did you read any of the replies above

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Yrreg, posted 09-20-2010 5:15 PM Yrreg has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2784 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 14 of 89 (582428)
09-21-2010 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Yrreg
09-20-2010 5:15 PM


Re: Is that attitude intelligent, not to go further than the big bang?
Hi, Yrreg.
Yrreg writes:
Suppose you ask yourself the question that point that is the big bang, mathematics reached to that point, but your mind is not all mathematics is it?
That is what you have encapsulated your mind if you cannot think any further than you can do so with mathematics.
In many ways, mathematics is more reliable than anything else your brain does, so the part of your brain that doesn't think mathematically is going to be generally much less helpful than the part that does.
-----
Yrreg writes:
And censorship is not an intelligent attitude in anything that has to do with more knowledge.
Right, because the search for knowledge is improved substantially by indiscriminately incorporating all the crap that comes out of human brains.
Edited by Bluejay, : "does" instead of "is"
Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Yrreg, posted 09-20-2010 5:15 PM Yrreg has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 15 of 89 (582434)
09-21-2010 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by jar
09-19-2010 6:07 PM


Re: A purely scientific background is not the whole picture of existence.
If I had realized the cosmological preeminence of my shamanic powers, I'd never have let them lapse.

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello
Real things always push back.
-William James

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 09-19-2010 6:07 PM jar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024