Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-19-2019 3:52 PM
124 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 121 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,459 Year: 3,496/19,786 Month: 491/1,087 Week: 81/212 Day: 11/31 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
21222324
25
26Next
Author Topic:   The infinite space of the Universe
twoheadedcat 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3843 days)
Posts: 13
From: Bluesville, Mississippi
Joined: 06-11-2008


Message 361 of 380 (470433)
06-11-2008 6:32 AM


this thread is pretty f'kin infinite.
Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by dawkinsisNOTGod, posted 06-11-2008 6:34 AM twoheadedcat has not yet responded

  
dawkinsisNOTGod 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3843 days)
Posts: 33
From: Lashville, Tennessee
Joined: 06-11-2008


Message 362 of 380 (470436)
06-11-2008 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 361 by twoheadedcat
06-11-2008 6:32 AM


No its not, its 25 pages long. Is this bounded?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by twoheadedcat, posted 06-11-2008 6:32 AM twoheadedcat has not yet responded

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 3604 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 363 of 380 (470438)
06-11-2008 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 359 by dawkinsisNOTGod
06-11-2008 6:26 AM


Re: Multiple Big Bangs
quote:
God only allowed for one big bang as creation is complete. We can only destroy not create in my humble opinion.

If we assume god created an infinite universe, wouldn't he have to be creating it and expanding it constantly?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by dawkinsisNOTGod, posted 06-11-2008 6:26 AM dawkinsisNOTGod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by dawkinsisNOTGod, posted 06-11-2008 6:38 AM Agobot has not yet responded

  
dawkinsisNOTGod 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3843 days)
Posts: 33
From: Lashville, Tennessee
Joined: 06-11-2008


Message 364 of 380 (470440)
06-11-2008 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by Agobot
06-11-2008 6:36 AM


Re: Multiple Big Bangs
God has no rules.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Agobot, posted 06-11-2008 6:36 AM Agobot has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by Father Ted, posted 06-11-2008 6:46 AM dawkinsisNOTGod has responded

  
Father Ted 
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 3843 days)
Posts: 23
Joined: 06-11-2008


Message 365 of 380 (470442)
06-11-2008 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 364 by dawkinsisNOTGod
06-11-2008 6:38 AM


Re: Multiple Big Bangs
A close reading of the first few chapters of the Bible reveals not one, but two different -- and contradictory -- stories of creation. These are from two of the (at least) four traditions that are interweaved in the first books of the Bible, the Priestly and Yahvist traditions, out of the set that includes the Elohist and Deuteronomist traditions. This conclusion is reached by consideration of stylistic elements (for example, the Priestly tradition is heavy on statistics, the Yahvist and Elohist traditions refer to the Deity as "Yahweh" and "Elohim", respectively, and the Deuteronomist tradition is found in the Book of Deuteronomy), and is generally accepted by non-literalist Biblical scholars (for a good introduction to the historical background behind the Bible, see Asimov's Guide to the Bible, both volumes).

Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)
Note that there are "days", "evenings", and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim", which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods". In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good".

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:

Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)
Then, there follows the story of the serpent leading Eve, and Adam, to eat that (unspecified) fruit, and get expelled from the Garden of Eden, whereupon that serpent was ordered to crawl on its belly (no mention of how it moved about before that). The Deity is referred to as "Yahweh" here, and creates plants, animals, and finally Eve for a lonely Adam. Yahweh seems to be trying to fix his creation as he goes, with not too satisfactory results -- his prime interest commits a big no-no (why not simply create a psychological inhibition to eating forbidden fruit? It would probably be more reliable).

Neither tale, it must be said, has much resemblance to the geological record, but in all fairness to the inventors of these tales, the geological record only became clear in the nineteenth century. I am not denying that one can come up with a Bible interpretation that somehow harmonizes these two tales, but such an interpretation would require rejection of the dogma of the literal truth of the Bible -- two contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time.

The first of the two stories is sometimes claimed to be a good match; "Let there be light" supposedly means the Big Bang. But the Big Bang happened well before the Earth even existed. There are other discrepancies. The Sun is almost certainly slightly older than the Earth, and the Moon is as old as the Earth, or a bit younger (from current theories of planetary formation; the time differences are ~100 million years out of 4.6 billion years). The stars have no single age, but have been forming ever since the galaxies came into existence (or even before!); some are older than the Earth, some younger. The order of appearance of various is terribly mixed up. Though blue-green algae are much older than any multicelled animal, the first land plants appear ~400 m.y. ago, as opposed to the first sea animals ~600 m.y. ago. Flowering plants (the most common land plants) appeared about ~120-150 m.y. ago, well after the first land animals appeared, approx 400 m.y. ago. Also, flying animals appear after closely related land animals appear; flying insects after early wingless ones, pterodactyls after proto-dinosaurs, birds after certain small carnivorous dinosaurs, and bats after early placental mammals. Some sea animals are descendants of land animals; consider (partially aquatic) otters, seals and sea lions and walruses, penguins, alligators and crocodiles, and sea turtles and (completely aquatic) whales and dolphins, sea snakes, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and mosasaurs.

The second of the two stated that humanity originated in the Garden of Eden or a garden in Eden (depending on which translation you read). "Eden" turns out to be some marshland near where the Tigris and the Euphrates Rivers flow into the Persian Gulf. And where did humanity actually originate? Charles Darwin proposed Africa because that's where our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees and gorillas, live. This hypothesis turns out to be correct for nearly all of the hominid species, including Homo sapiens. All the earlier hominid species, the Australopithecines and earliest Homo, are found only in Africa; later species, like Homo erectus and Homo sapiens, seem to have originated in Africa and spread to other parts of the world


This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by dawkinsisNOTGod, posted 06-11-2008 6:38 AM dawkinsisNOTGod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by dawkinsisNOTGod, posted 06-11-2008 6:50 AM Father Ted has not yet responded
 Message 368 by lyx2no, posted 06-11-2008 7:18 AM Father Ted has responded
 Message 370 by ICANT, posted 06-11-2008 12:30 PM Father Ted has not yet responded

  
dawkinsisNOTGod 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3843 days)
Posts: 33
From: Lashville, Tennessee
Joined: 06-11-2008


Message 366 of 380 (470443)
06-11-2008 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by Father Ted
06-11-2008 6:46 AM


Re: Multiple Big Bangs
The Devil works in detail i see. The Bible has one true answer, if people want to read it in different ways then that is their folly.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Father Ted, posted 06-11-2008 6:46 AM Father Ted has not yet responded

  
Hiram 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3843 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 06-11-2008


Message 367 of 380 (470444)
06-11-2008 7:01 AM


My mate reckons the bible is boss for skinning up with, just the right denier.
  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2790 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 368 of 380 (470448)
06-11-2008 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by Father Ted
06-11-2008 6:46 AM


Re: Multiple Big Bangs
No, Ted, I didn't get any of that at all.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

There is a spider by the water pipe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Father Ted, posted 06-11-2008 6:46 AM Father Ted has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by Father Ted, posted 06-11-2008 7:26 AM lyx2no has not yet responded

Father Ted 
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 3843 days)
Posts: 23
Joined: 06-11-2008


Message 369 of 380 (470449)
06-11-2008 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 368 by lyx2no
06-11-2008 7:18 AM


Re: Multiple Big Bangs
The Devil is in the detail
This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by lyx2no, posted 06-11-2008 7:18 AM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 370 of 380 (470591)
06-11-2008 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by Father Ted
06-11-2008 6:46 AM


Re: Multiple Big Bangs
Superflurious

Edited by ICANT, : Superflurious


"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 365 by Father Ted, posted 06-11-2008 6:46 AM Father Ted has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 371 of 380 (470601)
06-11-2008 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by ICANT
06-10-2008 8:31 PM


Re: Back Again
So when did the BBT predict inflation?

Never. To my knowldge.

Was it some 50 years or more after the theory?

When there was enough problems with the BBT that it should have been discarded.


Really? What problems are these?

Inflation was not predicted. It was necessary or the BBT was dead. It was an invented add on theory to save a failed theory.

No. Not at all. Where do you get this stuff from?

BB theory is based mainly on the following three things -

1) Observed ongoing expansion of the universe.
2) Abundance of light elements as is both observed and predicted as a logical consequence of BB theory.
3) Predicted existence, and specific measurable value, of the CMB. This again is a necessary and logical consequence of BB theory

From this we conclude that the universe has evolved (and continues to evolve) from a very hot, very dense, very small prior state.
This is the main conclusion of BB.
Inflation (or lack of it) changes none of the above.
If any of the 3 things listed above had been found to be wrong or significantly different BB theory would indeed be in trouble. However none of these have been found to be wrong or significantly different. Thus this problem you speak of seems to be non-existant.

It was an invented add on theory to save a failed theory

Failed theory? On what basis had BB been refuted? On what basis had the verified predictions of BB been shown to be invalid?

Inflation is indeed an add-on but it replaces an evidenceless assumption regarding the original BB theory rather than anything at all key to BB theory as a wwhole. The rate of expansion has little or nothing to do with any of the things listed above and on which BBT is ultimately based.
It was indeed initially assumed that the rate of expansion was constant. However this was an assumption not based on any evidence.
As it turns out if the rate of expansion had been constant we would expect things to be much more uniform than they are observed to be. Inflation was thus proposed to explain the "clumpiness" of the observed universe.

COBE, WMAP etc. have since largely verified inflatiionary theory and it is now part of the established BB model.

I am still not sure why you think any of this is a hige problem for BB theory?
In your bizzarre quest to find fault with the theory (I still do not understand why your theistic position is so hostile to the evolution of the universe as described by BBT?) you seem to have leapt upon a non-argument.
Have you ever read any popular science books on the BB? The first Three Minutes etc. "The Big Bang" by Simon Singh is particularly accessible book on the subject detailing the history of the various competing theories regarding the universe and the discoveries involved in the eventual conclusion. If you are going to persist in discussing these topics you really should familiarise yourself with the subject in a bit more detail.

Or do you fear that if you read a convincing book on the subject you might be tempted over to the dark side........? ;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by ICANT, posted 06-10-2008 8:31 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by lyx2no, posted 06-11-2008 2:50 PM Straggler has responded
 Message 379 by ICANT, posted 06-12-2008 12:59 AM Straggler has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2790 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 372 of 380 (470619)
06-11-2008 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by Straggler
06-11-2008 1:08 PM


Re: Back Again
The June 7-13, 2008 NewScientist has an article on inflation becoming Ptolemaic — wheels within wheels. I've not had time to read it yet, but it should prove interesting.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

There is a spider by the water pipe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Straggler, posted 06-11-2008 1:08 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by Straggler, posted 06-11-2008 5:08 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 373 of 380 (470649)
06-11-2008 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by lyx2no
06-11-2008 2:50 PM


Inflation
I shall look out for it!!

As I understand it the main prediction of inflationary theory is gravitational waves of a very specific nature.

http://scitizen.com/stories/Cosmology/2007/02/Gravitational-waves-from-the-Big-Bang/

However it seems that this has recently been called into question as a viable means of verification on the grounds that the same phenomenon can be produced by other means.

I would be interested to hear if anybody knows the latest thinking on this issue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by lyx2no, posted 06-11-2008 2:50 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-11-2008 5:15 PM Straggler has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 374 of 380 (470651)
06-11-2008 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by Straggler
06-11-2008 5:08 PM


Re: Inflation
I think he's talking about THIS ARTICLE.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Straggler, posted 06-11-2008 5:08 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by lyx2no, posted 06-11-2008 9:56 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Agobot
Member (Idle past 3604 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 375 of 380 (470662)
06-11-2008 7:33 PM


Singularity
What does the BBT say about the existence of Singularity? If it has infinite density, isn't its size going to equal 0(i.e. non-existent)? Or do we rely on E=mc^2 that matter is just another state/form of energy?
If the singularity has infinitely small dimensions, why would 10 to the minus 33 seconds later, the resultant universe have very distinct and defined dimensions?

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.


  
RewPrev1
...
21222324
25
26Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019