Started By
Message
re: Do you accept the notion of the Big Bang as the origin of our universe?
Posted on 1/5/18 at 11:33 am to Jazzbo Depew
Posted on 1/5/18 at 11:33 am to Jazzbo Depew
quote:
Bernadette is hot !
Dat rack, doe
1
Posted on 1/5/18 at 11:38 am to DavidTheGnome
Obviously no one knows for sure but it's a logical deduction based the fact that 2 fundamental forces: gravity and expansion due to heat are known to exist and are basically polar opposites of each other. In other words I can easily see that the expanded universe eventually begins to contract again due to gravity and over billions of years once again concentrates into an infinite mass that at some point explodes again due to heat of expansion forming yet another expanding universe, etc.
Posted on 1/5/18 at 12:12 pm to Arksulli
My bad. I should have said the Big Bang Theory can never be proven.
I'm not going to argue the definition of "fact."
I'm not going to argue the definition of "fact."
Posted on 1/5/18 at 12:13 pm to GurleyGirl
quote:
Obviously no one knows for sure but it's a logical deduction based the fact that 2 fundamental forces: gravity and expansion due to heat are known to exist and are basically polar opposites of each other. In other words I can easily see that the expanded universe eventually begins to contract again due to gravity and over billions of years once again concentrates into an infinite mass that at some point explodes again due to heat of expansion forming yet another expanding universe, etc.
That is an interesting idea, and one I tend to lean towards as well. Eventually the Universe will go through a Heat Death where all the stars are burned out and no new ones are being formed. With no heat being generated gravity slowly causing the Universe to contract until we get another Big Bang.
Posted on 1/5/18 at 12:45 pm to Perfect Circle
quote:
I should have said the Big Bang Theory can never be proven.
But it can and is being proven. The recent discovery of gravity waves and the cosmic microwave background radiation has confirmed Alan Guth's Inflation Model which is a critical part of the Big Bang Theory.
This isn't the only evidence, however. Here's a fun worksheet that details evidence for the BBT.
Posted on 1/5/18 at 1:05 pm to Arksulli
quote:
Eventually the Universe will go through a Heat Death where all the stars are burned out and no new ones are being formed.
Well, maybe. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time. This is why the deduction of a "death by ice" is popular at the moment.
We know, however, that there are circumstances at play that we don't understand at all and that they can have universal implications, pardon the pun. Dark Matter, and especially Dark Force, are the biggest factors in the evolution of the Universe. Together they make up 95% of the physical Universe.
I emphasized Dark Force because it seems to be variable. 5-6 billion years ago it grew strong enough to overcome the attractive force of gravity. That's one thought. Another is that it was gravity itself that changed. It became repulsive over long distances but remained attractive locally. We refer to the effect as "dark" because we don't know which is correct at this time.
Also, we don't know that the Universe is a closed system. There are indications that it might be linked to other Universes. M-Theory, Dark Flow and the Hole in the Universe are some of the proposals that support the idea that our Universe is intimately linked to others in a Multiverse.
This post was edited on 1/5/18 at 1:08 pm
Posted on 1/5/18 at 1:07 pm to Kentucker
The proven part to the best of my knowledge doesn’t go back to t=0 though and that’s where a lot of the questions about it from doubters arise. Our models and equations track it back to a tiny fraction of a second after, but we don’t have a unifying theory yet to get beck to the absolute beginning.
What’s incredible also and what I don’t think a lot of people realize is the speed of the inflation right after. Everything (including spacetime?) expanded outwards to create the vast expanses that we see today in a very short period of time. Question though, would that initial expansion be faster than light? The speed of c wasn’t established until after the Bang?
What’s incredible also and what I don’t think a lot of people realize is the speed of the inflation right after. Everything (including spacetime?) expanded outwards to create the vast expanses that we see today in a very short period of time. Question though, would that initial expansion be faster than light? The speed of c wasn’t established until after the Bang?
Posted on 1/5/18 at 1:12 pm to Arksulli
quote:
That is an interesting idea, and one I tend to lean towards as well. Eventually the Universe will go through a Heat Death where all the stars are burned out and no new ones are being formed. With no heat being generated gravity slowly causing the Universe to contract until we get another Big Bang.
I do believe a heat death is the ultimate fate, I encourage you to watch the second video (called The End) I posted on the first page if you want to learn more about it. He goes over our theories on the end of the universe and how/why we think that.
What’s interesting is the lifespan of Red Dwarf stars - 10 trillion years! Our universe is only 14 billion years old, these things are expected to burn far far longer than that. So while a heat death may be the ultimate fate it won’t happen for a very long time.
Red Dwarf star
This post was edited on 1/5/18 at 1:13 pm
Posted on 1/5/18 at 1:14 pm to Kentucker
Good stuff Kentucker 
Posted on 1/5/18 at 1:24 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
The proven part to the best of my knowledge doesn’t go back to t=0 though and that’s where a lot of the questions about it from doubters arise. Our models and equations track it back to a tiny fraction of a second after, but we don’t have a unifying theory yet to get beck to the absolute beginning.
To me, our observations of the Universe alone are evidence enough that we began from a single point. That we can see light, in all directions, that began its journey to us more than 13 billion years ago is proof positive that there was once a central point of origin.
While the math ultimately leads to a singularity in the past, I suspect that people like Edward Witten will find the error(s) soon and lead us past the BB and into the pre BB.
quote:
What’s incredible also and what I don’t think a lot of people realize is the speed of the inflation right after. Everything (including spacetime?) expanded outwards to create the vast expanses that we see today in a very short period of time. Question though, would that initial expansion be faster than light? The speed of c wasn’t established until after the Bang?
The speed-of-light barrier applies only to the movement of matter and energy through space. It has no relevance to space itself, except that perhaps it's space that applies the speed-of-light restriction to matter and energy.
The discovery of the Higgs Boson in 2012 confirmed that the Higgs Field exists and is a physical entity. Space is made up of the Higgs Field and seems to be independent from the field that generates matter and energy. Thus it isn't subject to the speed-of-light restriction itself.
This post was edited on 1/5/18 at 1:28 pm
Posted on 1/5/18 at 1:28 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Good stuff Kentucker
Some say I'm "full of it."
Posted on 1/5/18 at 4:14 pm to DavidTheGnome
I believe it. The cosmic microwave background radiation confirms it imo.
Posted on 1/5/18 at 4:29 pm to Kentucker
quote:
The speed-of-light barrier applies only to the movement of matter and energy through space. It has no relevance to space itself, except that perhaps it's space that applies the speed-of-light restriction to matter and energy.
The discovery of the Higgs Boson in 2012 confirmed that the Higgs Field exists and is a physical entity. Space is made up of the Higgs Field and seems to be independent from the field that generates matter and energy. Thus it isn't subject to the speed-of-light restriction itself.
Before inflation there was no space though (big assumption). The Big Bang was the inflation of space itself which carried the remaining matter (after the matter/antimatter collisions wiped most of everything out), so since that is space itself that is "blowing up" so to speak it's not traveling through any kind of medium, it would be traveling through true nothingness. As a result would it be possible for space itself to travel faster than light?
I'm sure I'm totally off base on most of that..
Posted on 1/5/18 at 4:47 pm to Hogwarts
quote:
Takes more faith to believe that it all happened by chance than to believe that an Intelligent Designer created everything.
If the history of science has taught us anything it's that it's always been premature to credit deities for things we don't understand. Chances are anything we don't know today will be answered in the future. That's the way it's always been.
"God did it" is a lazy answer.
Posted on 1/5/18 at 6:03 pm to Kentucker
Aren't there many scientists who find fault with the Big Bang Theory? I know I'm not as up to date as you on matters of science, but one has only to goggle: "respected astrophysicists who dispute the big bang theory," or "problems with the big bang theory" to find numerous articles and reports from the scientific community asserting the debate is far from settled.
Also, considering the rate that new discoveries are made, and the vastness of the universe, there has to be many discoveries in physics yet to be made. These discoveries would probably have an impact on theories concerning the origin of the universe.
I just think it's premature to definitively say Big Bang Theory has been proven. Honestly, if scientists are even close in their estimation of the age of the universe, I don't think we'll ever definitively know exactly how the universe came into being.
Can we even contemplate an amount of time that vast? I mean supposedly, the earth is 4.5 billion years old. An inconceivable amount of time for us to comprehend. Double that number and add it to the earth's age and we're supposedly approaching the age of the universe!
Might the laws of physics change over such vast lengths of time? Might the laws of physics have been different in the past, or change in the future? Are there areas in the vastness of the universe were the laws of physics are different? Is it out of the realm of possibility for this to be true? (I know, I ask a lot of questions)
Modern astrophysics as a science is only 200 years old. Can we presume to say we have 13 billion years of history ascertained after so short a time?
Plus, I just don't trust scientists. I'm sorry, but there's too much grant money at stake. Too much pride. Too many egos. More than a few have been known to skew or interpret data a certain way to support a preferred conclusion. Faulty data means faulty conclusions.
Based on the evidence, BBT is probably the leading explanation for the origin of the universe. I just think there's more evidence out there. Plus, time is against us. We have only a limited amount of time to study the universe before humanity's time is done.
I don't think science has all the answers. I think there are answers science cant provide. I think scientists feel the absolute need to explain everything, and are resistant to admitting there are mysteries in the universe that cant be explained, or ever will be. There are just some questions we won't get answers for in this life.
Also, considering the rate that new discoveries are made, and the vastness of the universe, there has to be many discoveries in physics yet to be made. These discoveries would probably have an impact on theories concerning the origin of the universe.
I just think it's premature to definitively say Big Bang Theory has been proven. Honestly, if scientists are even close in their estimation of the age of the universe, I don't think we'll ever definitively know exactly how the universe came into being.
Can we even contemplate an amount of time that vast? I mean supposedly, the earth is 4.5 billion years old. An inconceivable amount of time for us to comprehend. Double that number and add it to the earth's age and we're supposedly approaching the age of the universe!
Might the laws of physics change over such vast lengths of time? Might the laws of physics have been different in the past, or change in the future? Are there areas in the vastness of the universe were the laws of physics are different? Is it out of the realm of possibility for this to be true? (I know, I ask a lot of questions)
Modern astrophysics as a science is only 200 years old. Can we presume to say we have 13 billion years of history ascertained after so short a time?
Plus, I just don't trust scientists. I'm sorry, but there's too much grant money at stake. Too much pride. Too many egos. More than a few have been known to skew or interpret data a certain way to support a preferred conclusion. Faulty data means faulty conclusions.
Based on the evidence, BBT is probably the leading explanation for the origin of the universe. I just think there's more evidence out there. Plus, time is against us. We have only a limited amount of time to study the universe before humanity's time is done.
I don't think science has all the answers. I think there are answers science cant provide. I think scientists feel the absolute need to explain everything, and are resistant to admitting there are mysteries in the universe that cant be explained, or ever will be. There are just some questions we won't get answers for in this life.
Posted on 1/5/18 at 6:29 pm to DavidTheGnome
We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
Nothing exists prior to itself.
Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
Aquinas
Nothing exists prior to itself.
Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
Aquinas
Posted on 1/5/18 at 6:39 pm to Perfect Circle
quote:
Plus, I just don't trust scientists. I'm sorry, but there's too much grant money at stake. Too much pride. Too many egos. More than a few have been known to skew or interpret data a certain way to support a preferred conclusion. Faulty data means faulty conclusions.
I say this while full knowing that scientists actually developed the invention that permits me to share my idea here, as I take a sip of water cleaned with filters developed by scientists. I then ask my wife what time it is, to which she responds with an exact number which are determined with mathematical accuracy, thanks to Scientists. After I discuss just how little I like those egomaniacs, I get in my car (the engine was in fact designed by scientists) to drive to work, wherein I will no doubt eat food scientifically altered to be clean and sufficient. Fortunately, having lived in a world designed by scientists, I will not have died from hundreds of different illnesses thanks to the scientists who developed the vaccinations that eradicated most viruses that have an abnormally high kill rate -- and when I am sick, I can take various medicine that will of course, cure me over time.
Now I'm going to watch television, where, thankfully scientists have developed satellites so I can watch Honey Boo Boo Child act a fool.
Stupid scientists with their stupid big heads.
This post was edited on 1/5/18 at 6:42 pm
Posted on 1/5/18 at 6:41 pm to Perfect Circle
I like the skeptical spirit of your post, PC.
I don't know that we will ever have all the answers, my friend. We have our limitations and the Universe is extraordinarily vast and complex. I do, however, believe it's more reasonable to at least assume a natural explanation for everything until there is indisputable evidence otherwise.
I also think it's okay to say, "I don't know."
Then maybe you can understand my distrust of theists and all their contradictory views. At least science offers a lot of tangibility and general agreement across cultures on a great many things.
I don't know that we will ever have all the answers, my friend. We have our limitations and the Universe is extraordinarily vast and complex. I do, however, believe it's more reasonable to at least assume a natural explanation for everything until there is indisputable evidence otherwise.
I also think it's okay to say, "I don't know."
quote:
Plus, I just don't trust scientists. I'm sorry, but there's too much grant money at stake. Too much pride. Too many egos. More than a few have been known to skew or interpret data a certain way to support a preferred conclusion. Faulty data means faulty conclusions.
Then maybe you can understand my distrust of theists and all their contradictory views. At least science offers a lot of tangibility and general agreement across cultures on a great many things.
Posted on 1/5/18 at 6:51 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Posted on 1/5/18 at 6:55 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Before inflation there was no space though (big assumption).
Well, we don't yet know what existed before the inflation/Big Bang. M-Theory says two branes bumped together to iniate the BB.
quote:
The Big Bang was the inflation of space itself which carried the remaining matter (after the matter/antimatter collisions wiped most of everything out), so since that is space itself that is "blowing up" so to speak it's not traveling through any kind of medium, it would be traveling through true nothingness.
It's easier to just think of space expanding, rather than trying to account for what it is expanding into. It's impossible to define nothingness without making it something.
quote:
As a result would it be possible for space itself to travel faster than light?
Guth's Inflation Theory indicates that space can expand much, much faster than the speed of light. In fact, the Hubble Horizon is the edge of the visible Universe. The horizon is the boundary between particles that are moving slower and faster than the speed of light relative to an observer at one given time. Beyond the boundary we'll never see anything, even the light that's emitted.
As space expands faster and faster, eventually everything beyond our local galaxy will be invisible to us. That is unless something weird happens to stop or reverse the expansion.
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News