Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9078 total)
568 online now:
AZPaul3, Dredge, kjsimons, nwr, Parasomnium, Phat, Tangle (7 members, 561 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 894,952 Year: 6,064/6,534 Month: 257/650 Week: 27/278 Day: 27/27 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Big Bang Misconception
A.Sphere
Inactive Junior Member


Message 31 of 83 (335619)
07-27-2006 1:25 AM


BB Misconceptions
Hi all! I am new to this thread and this is my first post. Last year I took two sequences of Astrophysics courses as an undergraduate and during one of the early lectures of the first course my professor handed out copies of this article:

Misconceptions about the Big Bang

I always found it to be a good easy read. Anyway, I thought it relevant to the discussion.

Cheers,

A.Sphere


  
Joman
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 83 (342775)
08-23-2006 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by complexPHILOSOPHY
05-02-2006 7:22 AM


quote:
It is not that 'all things are expanding from a point,' rather, all things are moving away from each other as space-time stretches.

If all things are expanding away from each other then, isn't classical physics correct in theorizing that there is such a thing as absolute motion, since the reference is the point of origin. And, wouldn't Einstein be proven wrong in his claim that absolute motion or absolute rest can't ever be determined?
If all things, at levels of existence are expanding in this supernatural manner wouldn't all things be traveling at the same speed?

Joman.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by complexPHILOSOPHY, posted 05-02-2006 7:22 AM complexPHILOSOPHY has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-23-2006 3:07 PM Joman has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 83 (342781)
08-23-2006 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Joman
08-23-2006 2:43 PM


If all things are expanding away from each other then, isn't classical physics correct in theorizing that there is such a thing as absolute motion, since the reference is the point of origin.

If you have a reference, even if it is the point of origin, then it isn't absolute motion, right? Having a reference makes it not absolute, I think.

If all things, at levels of existence are expanding in this supernatural manner wouldn't all things be traveling at the same speed?

No, the speeds of things could change by the things interacting with each other.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Joman, posted 08-23-2006 2:43 PM Joman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Joman, posted 08-23-2006 4:25 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Joman
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 83 (342801)
08-23-2006 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by New Cat's Eye
08-23-2006 3:07 PM


Quotes by Chatholic Scientist.

quote:
If you have a reference, even if it is the point of origin, then it isn't absolute motion, right? Having a reference makes it not absolute, I think.

The point of reference once determined allows the determination of the absolute motion of objects moving relative to it.
Any imagined movement of the point of reference in this particular case wouldn't matter since all expanding objects would share the same motion and any other possible reference point would be outside the realm of our universe and thus, indeterminate.

quote:
No, the speeds of things could change by the things interacting with each other.

If all things are expanding away from a certain point they can never collide. If gravity is proposed as a means of distorting expansion pathways then then the gravity must be considered as able to overcome expansion forces. But, if gravity were so powerful as to overcome expansion in a space that is rarified of matter then it wouldn't have allowed it in the first place since all things were imagined to be in the same (dense) point initially.

Joman.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-23-2006 3:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 08-23-2006 4:34 PM Joman has replied
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-23-2006 5:58 PM Joman has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 35 of 83 (342805)
08-23-2006 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Joman
08-23-2006 4:25 PM


If all things are expanding away from a certain point they can never collide.

Of course they can, and they do. There can also be local motion relative to other local objects as well as objects developing over time.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Joman, posted 08-23-2006 4:25 PM Joman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Joman, posted 08-24-2006 12:51 PM jar has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 83 (342832)
08-23-2006 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Joman
08-23-2006 4:25 PM


The point of reference once determined allows the determination of the absolute motion of objects moving relative to it.

emphasis added

Its my understanding that if the motion is relative to something then it is not absolute. You seem to have contradicted yourself.

If all things are expanding away from a certain point they can never collide.

Call the direction of the expansion away from the point "y" and direction perpindicular to that "x". Gravity could move objects in the x direction while those objects maintain there momentum in the y direction and this could cause those objects to collide. Once stuff starts colliding, you can imagine this causing other collision causeing others and so on without causeing the expansion to stop.

If gravity is proposed as a means of distorting expansion pathways then then the gravity must be considered as able to overcome expansion forces.

I don't think it has to overcome the expansion force to change the path. If your driving your car straight and start making a turn, you don't have to have any acceleration in the reverse direction. Think of 2 planets expanding on near perpindicular paths being attracted to each other in a direction perpindicular to the direction of expansion. That force of attraction would not have to overcome the expansion force, no?


Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Joman, posted 08-23-2006 4:25 PM Joman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Joman, posted 08-24-2006 2:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Joman
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 83 (342987)
08-24-2006 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by jar
08-23-2006 4:34 PM


Quote by Jar.

quote:
Of course they can, and they do. There can also be local motion relative to other local objects as well as objects developing over time.

It's not an explosion at all that we are talking about. Right?
The dots on a stretched balloon never meet do they?
Now, which ist? The big bang was a explosion of the dynamite kind or it was a expansion of space.

Joman.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 08-23-2006 4:34 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 08-24-2006 12:59 PM Joman has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 38 of 83 (342989)
08-24-2006 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Joman
08-24-2006 12:51 PM


It is an expansion. But as has been pointed out to you, the overall expansion of space has nothing to do with what happens on a local level.

The analogy to a ballon, like all analogies, presents an incomplete picture. There are also local events, and we see them. We can see new stars being formed, old stars dying, things colliding. The univese is dynamic and changing and old, very old.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Joman, posted 08-24-2006 12:51 PM Joman has not replied

  
Joman
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 83 (343006)
08-24-2006 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by New Cat's Eye
08-23-2006 5:58 PM


Quotes by Chatholic Scientist.

quote:
Its my understanding that if the motion is relative to something then it is not absolute. You seem to have contradicted yourself.

The determination of motion relative to any point of absolute rest is an absolute measurement. That's why calibration labs have standards. The argument against classical physics is that there isn't any way to determine absolute motion since no reference point of absolute rest can be determined. my argument is that if the math says that all things came from a single point then that point is the point of absolute rest for the universe in question.

quote:
Call the direction of the expansion away from the point "y" and direction perpindicular to that "x". Gravity could move objects in the x direction while those objects maintain there momentum in the y direction and this could cause those objects to collide. Once stuff starts colliding, you can imagine this causing other collision causeing others and so on without causeing the expansion to stop.

You must include z.
As I have said, if gravity is powerful enough to do as you say then gravity is more powerful than the force of expansion. If that were true, then when all matter was densely packed together it wouldn't have had the ability to expand in the first place.

By the way, i'm not saying that no collisions would ever occur for other reasons. I'm saying that the expansion force of the big bang can't be confused with the force of a dynamic explosion.
The expansion the big banger's are talking about C.S. is one that is expanding even the dimensions of the sub-atomic world. It is supposed to be expanding the dimensions of the wavelength of light since, during the supposed very long trip across space, the space it is linked up with is expanding. But, the yardsticks are expanding also. That is, all frames of reference are expanding.
I argued that if expansion includes all things, then any redshift effect due to expansion would be nulled out and thus hidden. But, because of that the redshift represents something other than expansion of the universe. Now this is problematic. If we assume that the redshift doesn't represent the effect of an expansion force then we would intuitively expect the redshifts to be enormously varied in speed and direction. Which they aren'.
I personally believe that an expansion of space was a real event, although not necessarily a ongoing one. I believe this because the AV Bible says God..."stretcheth forth the heavens."

quote:
I don't think it has to overcome the expansion force to change the path. If your driving your car straight and start making a turn, you don't have to have any acceleration in the reverse direction. Think of 2 planets expanding on near perpindicular paths being attracted to each other in a direction perpindicular to the direction of expansion. That force of attraction would not have to overcome the expansion force, no?

I disagree. Firstly, I would like to point out that a true expansion of all things from a point source would be unable to produce any paths pependicular to each other.
So, I'm saying that all effects contrary to such reasoning would be due to non-expansion forces. The biggest wouldn't be gravity (gravity is to weak) but instead, the thermodynamic value of the energy found/or ignited in the point source from which all matter came.

This leads to another critcism. If we postulate an enormous amount of thermo energy at the moment of initial expansion from a point source and say that that is the force that drove all things apart and willy nilly in a secondary way (with repect to expansion forces) then it is obvious that any supposed accretion of atoms and molecules couldn't occur until the thermodynamic situation cools down far more than it is now.
The molecules of a gas under thermo expansive force aren't overcome by the gravity of the molecules.
So, you can see that a huge number of molecules must be somehow packed together densely before enough local gravity effect is unified in it's effect upon local objects of significant mass. Well? If one suppose that the clumping of mass occurred at the initial expansion event then the CMR (cosmic background radiation) is not the signature of that event. For, if it were, then the background radiative residue wouldn't be smooth but, clumpy also...which it is not.

Joman.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-23-2006 5:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by ringo, posted 08-24-2006 2:42 PM Joman has replied
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-24-2006 3:34 PM Joman has replied
 Message 74 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-31-2006 1:28 PM Joman has not replied

  
Eledhan
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 83 (343009)
08-24-2006 2:31 PM


This is pointless...
Discussing what happened supposedly 20 something BILLION years ago?!?!?! What's the point? First, we have absolutely NO idea how physics works in a situation like the proposed "Big Bang", and second, how can we even begin to theorize about something that happened SOOOOO long ago?

However, since these topics seem to be the order of the day around here, I guess it's worth talking about.

In my oppinion, the first logical question to ask someone who advocates any version of the Big Bang would be this: What is the rediculously, tremendously, ludicrously, unimaginable force required to break up all the matter, space, and time? We believe in the existence of black holes, whose gravitational pull can contain even the most energetic known force in the universe (light, or radioactive energy) and yet people insist that there must have been something to cause this space, time, and matter to explode. How could the matter have "exploded"? There's no known force powerfull enough to separate this matter.

However, I would assume that the typical pro-Big Bang response would be that there really was no matter. Well, that's just fine and dandy, because that means that EVERYTHING we see, including the space and time it is located in, came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing. Boy, that kinda sucks the joy out of living, doesn't it?

To say that there was nothing and then a nanosecond later thare is EVERYTHING is so logically ignorant, that I wonder how scientists can even ascribe to it. Where have we ever observed, as a species, something coming from nothing? With the physical laws of our universe, it is impossible. So, how to get around that? Well, I would assume that one might say that the laws of physcis were different back then. Another logically ignorant thing to say. If the laws were different back then, how do we know when they changed? And even more scary, how do we know they won't change again?

I really wish someone would please show me the scientific evidence for the Big Bang Theory, or any other cosmologic origins theory other than Creation. It would be so nice for me to quit disagreeing with every single scientist I run into on the subject of cosmology. But I just can't take the leap of faith that they do, because unless there is a better explanation, I have to believe that there must have been some type of creation event (I won't get into what kind on this thread, since that's not the topic).


Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Chiroptera, posted 08-24-2006 3:02 PM Eledhan has replied
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 08-24-2006 3:38 PM Eledhan has not replied
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-24-2006 3:41 PM Eledhan has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19720
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 41 of 83 (343012)
08-24-2006 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Joman
08-24-2006 2:23 PM


Joman writes:

The determination of motion relative to any point of absolute rest is an absolute measurement. That's why calibration labs have standards.

Not at all.

Measurements are calibrated relative to a standard. There is nothing "absolute" about the standard. The standard can be anything at all, as long as all measurements are made relative to the same standard.

You can choose any point in space and you'll find that all points in space are moving away from it.
There is no "fixed point". The same is true for every point.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Joman, posted 08-24-2006 2:23 PM Joman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Joman, posted 08-24-2006 4:16 PM ringo has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 83 (343013)
08-24-2006 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Eledhan
08-24-2006 2:31 PM


Re: This is pointless...
quote:
What's the point?

Some people are curious.

-

quote:
First, we have absolutely NO idea how physics works in a situation like the proposed "Big Bang"...

True. When we go back far enough, the densities and temperatures are high enough that we know that our present laws of physics won't work. That is why people are working on ideas of quantum gravity, string theory, and so forth, so that we will have a theory of physics that will allow us to understand the universe even further back in time.

-

quote:
second, how can we even begin to theorize about something that happened SOOOOO long ago?

Like anything else in science: you use the known laws of physics to determine what the universe would look like if the ideas were true, and then check to see if the universe is actually like that. If the model predicts a very different universe from what we see, then you conclude that your model needs to be fixed or even discarded. If the universe looks pretty much like what is predicted, then we can conclude that you might be on the right track.

-

quote:
In my oppinion, the first logical question to ask someone who advocates any version of the Big Bang would be this: What is the rediculously, tremendously, ludicrously, unimaginable force required to break up all the matter, space, and time?

There is no such force. The universe used to be in a very hot, very dense state. Space expanded. It was the way things were.

-

quote:
yet people insist that there must have been something to cause this space, time, and matter to explode.

Some people insist on this. Scientists who study cosmology don't, since there was no "explosion".

-

quote:
However, I would assume that the typical pro-Big Bang response would be that there really was no matter.

I suspect that this assumption is wrong.

-

quote:
To say that there was nothing and then a nanosecond later thare is EVERYTHING is so logically ignorant, that I wonder how scientists can even ascribe to it.

First, no scientist says this. Second, even if they did, it is not "logically ignorant".

-

quote:
I really wish someone would please show me the scientific evidence for the Big Bang Theory....

The red shift of distant galaxies that increases with the distance of the distant galaxy from ours; the Cosmic Microwave Background; the ratio of hydrogen to helium that we observe in the universe.

-

quote:
It would be so nice for me to quit disagreeing with every single scientist I run into on the subject of cosmology.

I bet they would think it would be nice, too.

-

quote:
But I just can't take the leap of faith that they do...

Why don't you have them explain the evidence that they have, and why it supports their views?

-

quote:
I have to believe that there must have been some type of creation event

I don't believe there was a creation "event", at least in any reasonable sense of the word "event". I get the impression most cosmologists don't believe in a creation "event", either, but I may be wrong on this.


"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Eledhan, posted 08-24-2006 2:31 PM Eledhan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Eledhan, posted 08-29-2006 8:44 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 83 (343018)
08-24-2006 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Joman
08-24-2006 2:23 PM


my argument is that if the math says that all things came from a single point then that point is the point of absolute rest for the universe in question.

I don't think we can determine the actual point of the singularity, though. Also, doesn't putting that point as the point of absolute rest assume that the expansion is equal in all directions? Does it have to be?

But anyways, lets assume that your argument is correct and that the point can be used as a point of absolute rest.

msg 32 writes:

If all things are expanding away from each other then, isn't classical physics correct in theorizing that there is such a thing as absolute motion, since the reference is the point of origin.

What does classical physics say is the consequence of the existence of absolute motion? We would still have relative motion to deal with, no?

msg 32 writes:

And, wouldn't Einstein be proven wrong in his claim that absolute motion or absolute rest can't ever be determined?

Does calling the point of singularity a point of absulte rest allow us to actually determine the absolute motion of something? What is it then? Einstein could still be correct that we can't determine the absolute motion, even if we say that it is theoretically possible, I don't know.

if gravity is powerful enough to do as you say then gravity is more powerful than the force of expansion.

That's not true. It would have to be more powerful if the force was in the opposite direction of expansion, but if the force was in a direction perpindicular, or closer, to the same direction, then it would not have to be more powerful.

I'm saying that the expansion force of the big bang can't be confused with the force of a dynamic explosion.

Yeah, a lot of us are saying that, although it is a common misconception. Its not like a bomb went off.

The expansion the big banger's are talking about C.S. is one that is expanding even the dimensions of the sub-atomic world. It is supposed to be expanding the dimensions of the wavelength of light since, during the supposed very long trip across space, the space it is linked up with is expanding. But, the yardsticks are expanding also. That is, all frames of reference are expanding.

I don't think that is the expansion that they are talking about. Can you provide a source for this claim?

I looked at the link in Message 31, look at this line from it, under the Is Brooklyn Expanding? section:

quote:
People often assume that as space expands, everything in it expands as well. But this is not true.

I argued that if expansion includes all things

Well, we're gonna have to get past that part before moving on.

I personally believe that an expansion of space was a real event, although not necessarily a ongoing one.

Not only is it ongoing, but the rate is increasing.

If we postulate an enormous amount of thermo energy at the moment of initial expansion from a point source and say that that is the force that drove all things apart and willy nilly in a secondary way (with repect to expansion forces) then it is obvious that any supposed accretion of atoms and molecules couldn't occur until the thermodynamic situation cools down far more than it is now.

That isn't obvious to me. Why do you say that we aren't cool enough yet?

So, you can see that a huge number of molecules must be somehow packed together densely before enough local gravity effect is unified in it's effect upon local objects of significant mass.

Well, when fusion starts kicking in, shit goes haywire, yeah?

Well? If one suppose that the clumping of mass occurred at the initial expansion event then the CMR (cosmic background radiation) is not the signature of that event. For, if it were, then the background radiative residue wouldn't be smooth but, clumpy also...which it is not.

I don't suppose that the clumping of mass occurred at the initial expansion event, it was some time after that.

Quotes by Chatholic Scientist.

instead of using [quote'] you can use [qs'] for shaded quotes and you can put [qs=whoever'] to have there name in the shaded quote, but you'll have to take out the apostrophies ' I used [qs=msg 32'] above where it says:

msg 32 writes:

at the bottom right of a message is a button called "peek" that will show you how everything was typed in so you can see the formatting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Joman, posted 08-24-2006 2:23 PM Joman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Joman, posted 08-25-2006 2:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20948
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 44 of 83 (343021)
08-24-2006 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Eledhan
08-24-2006 2:31 PM


Re: This is pointless...
Hi Eledhan,

Everything you say is true. There's really no point in studying anything from long ago. Even 10 years ago is too much, so 20 billion years ago is really ridiculous!

You're absolutely right that we have no idea about any of the physics of the Big Bang. The necessary forces are obviously too unimaginably large, and as you say, so much matter could never explode anyway.

And you're right on about something coming from nothing, clearly a very logically ignorant idea. Casimir, schmasimir, it's all hooey. The physicists who think they're observing those virtual particles probably banged their heads on a virtual mass spectrometer or something, that's how you explain that. They were seeing stars and they thought they were particles!

It was a brilliant stroke to ask for the scientific evidence for the Big Bang, because obviously it doesn't exist. If there was really any such evidence you would already know about it, because someone like you would never make bold assertions out of ignorance. Just who do these physicists think they're trying to fool anyway. You weren't born yesterday!

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Eledhan, posted 08-24-2006 2:31 PM Eledhan has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 83 (343023)
08-24-2006 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Eledhan
08-24-2006 2:31 PM


Re: This is pointless...
Discussing what happened supposedly 20 something BILLION years ago?!?!?! What's the point?

Maybe I don't have anything better to do :o

how can we even begin to theorize about something that happened SOOOOO long ago?

I have to believe that there must have been some type of creation event

Well hold it....how can we even begin to theorize about something that happened SOOOOO long ago?

Also, what's the point?


Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Eledhan, posted 08-24-2006 2:31 PM Eledhan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Eledhan, posted 08-29-2006 8:38 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022