|
Author
|
Topic: Big Bang...How Did it Happen?
|
Navy10E
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 166 of 414 (94487)
03-24-2004 3:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 164 by Percy
03-24-2004 7:32 AM
|
|
Re: Evidential Support
Yes yes. I know this. Why do you think I was consentrating on evidence for the Big Bang? Now incidently, there is tons of evidence for a global flood. Someday I'll go through it. This thread however is named "Big Bang...How Did it Happen?". So maybe we could talk about that. Mr Jack has proposed that backround radiation proves that the Big Bang happened. Are any others who agree, and if so why? Joe
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 164 by Percy, posted 03-24-2004 7:32 AM | | Percy has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1697 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 167 of 414 (94495)
03-24-2004 3:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 166 by Navy10E
03-24-2004 3:38 PM
|
|
Re: Evidential Support
Mr Jack has proposed that backround radiation proves that the Big Bang happened My understanding is that the background radiation is evidence that before 13.7 billion years ago what we know as the universe was filled with a plasma that (1) was too high energy to allow "cooler" subatomic particles, like photons, to condense and (2) was "opaque" to the passage of photons and (3) was {dense \ compact \ hot} enough for this level of {energy \ "pressure"} to exist. This means that it was hot and opaque and contained in a smaller volume than at present, as is predicted by the (standard) big bang model. There are other theories that also make similar predictions but that diverge from the standard model for what happened before this point in development of the universe, and the evidence that can differentiate between them has not been observed, yet.
The (cosmic microwave) background radiation observed is consistent with the predictions from the theoretical expansion of the universe from a large hot ball of plasma 13.7 billion years ago. What is not determined is whether that ball of plasma came from the inflation of a singularity or the collision of multidimensional branes or some other mechanism. {{edits shown in ' gold' -- added material}} [This message has been edited by AbbyLeever, 03-25-2004]
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand
Rebel AAmerican .Zen [Deist
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 166 by Navy10E, posted 03-24-2004 3:38 PM | | Navy10E has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 172 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2004 1:33 PM | | RAZD has not replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 460 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
|
Message 168 of 414 (94504)
03-24-2004 4:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 165 by Navy10E
03-24-2004 3:37 PM
|
|
Re: Evidential Support
Now incidently, there is tons of evidence for a global flood. Someday I'll go through it. Please do, in the proper forum. I've been following this debate for years and haven't yet seen anybody back up that claim ... although it's often claimed.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 165 by Navy10E, posted 03-24-2004 3:37 PM | | Navy10E has not replied |
|
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4667 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: 11-15-2003
|
|
|
Message 169 of 414 (94507)
03-24-2004 4:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 166 by Navy10E
03-24-2004 3:38 PM
|
|
Re: Evidential Support
You'll be the first person in history to provide the evidence for a global flood then. Congratulations. Because all the educated/working geologists in the world (excepting 2 or 3 paid liars) disagree. Glad your geology knowledge is better than theirs.... Oh - you don't have that knowledge ... but I thought you said you knew....oh - it's faith based knowledge - Ahh now I understand - a nut. Why is it that of the say 100,000+ geologists on this planet you can probably find less than 100 who believe this global flood - and of those 95% are employed by Creationst groups like ICR/AIG where they are paid to hold the said opinion lest lose their job. So the rest (of all faiths) are in a denial or conspiracy. riiiiight! Tell me why do oil and mineral companies (not exactly known for anything but the bottom dollar) employ geologists who employ the standard principles and interpretations of geology and DON'T use the Creationist nonsense. Of course - who but the deluded do?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 166 by Navy10E, posted 03-24-2004 3:38 PM | | Navy10E has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 23055 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 6.5
|
|
|
Message 170 of 414 (94511)
03-24-2004 4:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 166 by Navy10E
03-24-2004 3:38 PM
|
|
Re: Evidential Support
Navy10E writes: Mr Jack has proposed that backround radiation proves that the Big Bang happened. Are any others who agree, and if so why? I think this ground has already been gone over before, but rather than read through what is becoming a long thread I'll just keep this brief. Hubble's discovery that in general galaxies are receding from all other galaxies provided the evidence that the universe is expanding. Extrapolating backwards led to the realization that all matter must once have all been compressed into a singularity which expanded into the universe we see today. The initiation of that expansion was derisively given the name Big Bang by Fred Hoyle, an opponent of the idea and a proponent of the now discarded steady state theory. It was theorized that the remants of the Big Bang should be detectable as cosmic background radiation of a specific frequency arriving from all directions. In the mid-twentieth century, while constructing highly sensitive antennae Wilson and Penzias of Princeton detected this radiation, at first believing it was man-made interference, but eventually deducing the actual source. The frequency of the radiation was found to be in fair accord with the theoretical prediction. They received the Nobel Prize for this discovery. Receding galaxies and the cosmic background radiation are both strongly supportive of Big Bang theory. No other proposal has proved anywhere near as successful at explaining the evidence. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 166 by Navy10E, posted 03-24-2004 3:38 PM | | Navy10E has not replied |
|
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: 07-14-2003
|
|
|
Message 171 of 414 (94642)
03-25-2004 5:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 165 by Navy10E
03-24-2004 3:37 PM
|
|
Re: Evidential Support
Mr Jack has proposed that backround radiation proves that the Big Bang happened. Are any others who agree, and if so why? No, I said the microwave background radiation is strong evidence for the Big Bang - on its own it does not prove it. I should really have refered to it as the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) - the CMB and common or garden background radiation are very different things. The CMB is strong evidence the Big Bang because its existence and structure were predicted from Models of the Big Bang and then confirmed by later observation. It is highly unlikely that a significantly wrong idea could make predictions unrelated to the observations from which that idea was hypothesised and have those predictions be accurate. I really do feel like I'm repeating myself here.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 165 by Navy10E, posted 03-24-2004 3:37 PM | | Navy10E has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 173 by Dr Jack, posted 03-29-2004 3:52 AM | | Dr Jack has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1697 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 172 of 414 (94703)
03-25-2004 1:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 167 by RAZD
03-24-2004 3:51 PM
|
|
Re: Evidential Support
I apologize for not being more specific in the original post this reply is to and have edited that for greater clarity. http:// EvC Forum: Big Bang...How Did it Happen? AL.
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand
Rebel AAmerican .Zen [Deist
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 167 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2004 3:51 PM | | RAZD has not replied |
|
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: 07-14-2003
|
|
|
Message 173 of 414 (95554)
03-29-2004 3:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 171 by Dr Jack
03-25-2004 5:57 AM
|
|
Re: Evidential Support
Navy? Any response?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 171 by Dr Jack, posted 03-25-2004 5:57 AM | | Dr Jack has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 175 by crashfrog, posted 04-24-2004 5:49 AM | | Dr Jack has not replied |
|
ElliPhant
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 174 of 414 (102375)
04-24-2004 5:34 AM
|
Reply to: Message 74 by Navy10E
03-16-2004 3:19 PM
|
|
I hope nobody minds that I'm bringing back a discussion that was some pages ago, and posted by someone who seems to no longer be replying...
quote:
The obvious shortcoming in this arguement is that on a journey from California to Florida, I could stop (we have no indications that time has ever stopped) or I could turn around (we have never seen time go backwards). Here on earth, we have choices about travel; where we go, how fast we go, etc. In time, a minute passes in a minute's time, and thats the way it's always been observed.
I just stopped time. For a million years. Didn't notice? well that's because time was STOPPED. And just after typing that sentence time actually ran BACKWARDS for 5 minutes and then went forwards again. Again, sadly, nobody was able to notice. Now, prove this didn't happen. As has already being pointed out, time behaves very differently depending on your speed and on the gravitational field you are in.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 74 by Navy10E, posted 03-16-2004 3:19 PM | | Navy10E has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1759 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 175 of 414 (102376)
04-24-2004 5:49 AM
|
Reply to: Message 173 by Dr Jack
03-29-2004 3:52 AM
|
|
Remember when Navy claimed to be one of those creationists who doesn't run off when he loses arguments? Teh Funny!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 173 by Dr Jack, posted 03-29-2004 3:52 AM | | Dr Jack has not replied |
|
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 176 of 414 (103828)
04-29-2004 4:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Navy10E
03-13-2004 3:01 AM
|
|
Excellent article
Navy10E writes: I simply want to know everyone's theory on the "Big Bang", how it happened, could it happen, etc. Start it out basicly. There's an interesting article written by Gabriele Veneziano about string and pre-bang theory in the latest edition of Scientific American which does away with the notion that time started at the Big Bang. Actually, it does away with the Big Bang singularity (aka the "speck") altogether.
Link. Excerpts:
Gabriele Veneziano writes: The first, known as the pre-big bang scenario, which my colleagues and I began to develop in 1991, combines T-duality with the better-known symmetry of time reversal, whereby the equations of physics work equally well when applied backward and forward in time. The combination gives rise to new possible cosmologies in which the universe, say, five seconds before the big bang expanded at the same pace as it did five seconds after the bang. But the rate of change of the expansion was opposite at the two instants: if it was decelerating after the bang, it was accelerating before. In short, the big bang may not have been the origin of the universe but simply a violent transition from acceleration to deceleration. The beauty of this picture is that it automatically incorporates the great insight of standard inflationary theory--namely, that the universe had to undergo a period of acceleration to become so homogeneous and isotropic. In the standard theory, acceleration occurs after the big bang because of an ad hoc inflaton field. In the pre-big bang scenario, it occurs before the bang as a natural outcome of the novel symmetries of string theory . . . So, when did time begin? Science does not have a conclusive answer yet, but at least two potentially testable theories plausibly hold that the universe--and therefore time--existed well before the big bang. If either scenario is right, the cosmos has always been in existence and, even if it recollapses one day, will never end. Far be it for me to question this, (I'm not even sure I understand it to be honest), but I do have a problem with the idea of a Universe being around forever. This would mean that anything allowable under physical laws which could happen has already happened (i.e. any event with a non zero probability of occurring in time t, has a probability of having occurred as 1 in an infinite Universe), and that seems absurd to me (especially if you couple this with the Quantum Many Worlds interpretation....infinity * infinity!!) Still, interesting read... PE
404 Not Found
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Navy10E, posted 03-13-2004 3:01 AM | | Navy10E has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 177 by Percy, posted 04-29-2004 5:26 PM | | Primordial Egg has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 23055 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 6.5
|
Re: Excellent article
Primordial Egg writes: Far be it for me to question this, (I'm not even sure I understand it to be honest), but I do have a problem with the idea of a Universe being around forever. This would mean that anything allowable under physical laws which could happen has already happened... I feel like I've heard this before...  I read the same article a week or two ago, glad you posted this. I think I had the same problem you did in feeling there was too much I didn't quite follow, but what was most significant for me was how they resolved the singularity by applying quantum principles. --Percy
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 178 by Navy10E, posted 04-29-2004 7:40 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
Navy10E
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 178 of 414 (103922)
04-29-2004 7:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 177 by Percy
04-29-2004 5:26 PM
|
|
Re: Excellent article
Hey all, Sorry I have been gone so long. As you all have probably figured out, I'm in the Navy. Sometimes, that requires duties that conflict with activities I enjoy. Sorry about the long absence, but I hope to make it up to you. Frog, not suprised to see you claiming victory in argument when you have yet to offer a single conclusive, winning point. Nice to see you again. See some dude is calling me a nut. Guess that means he disagrees with me. If he had wanted to hurt my feelings though, he should have called me a fruitcake. I'm always upset, and have to call my shrink, whenever I'm called a fruitcake. Man, I thought I was the intolerant, right wing wacko, who blindly labels those who disagree. Gosh, I'm not fitting my stereo-type. My bad, I'll work on that. On to the post I'm replying to: It is apparent to me that there are major divisions still in the scientific community, as to what really happened to get us all here. If there are still disreprencies, maybe that means that a definent working model describing the beginning has not yet been constructed. That means there is no "Scientific Gospel". So the "airtight" big bang hypothosis has more versions then Victoria's Secret has styles of underware. Every 5 yrs, the hypothosis has had a major overhaul anyway, so I know that no matter what, the opinions you hold today will be considered wrong in a few years. Well, good to see you all agian. Much love Joe man
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 177 by Percy, posted 04-29-2004 5:26 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 179 of 414 (103925)
04-29-2004 7:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 178 by Navy10E
04-29-2004 7:40 PM
|
|
Re: Excellent article
quote:
I'm always upset, and have to call my shrink, whenever I'm called a fruitcake.
We'll keep the "Seamen, First Class" jokes to a minimum, I promise. 
quote:
On to the post I'm replying to: It is apparent to me that there are major divisions still in the scientific community, as to what really happened to get us all here. If there are still disreprencies, maybe that means that a definent working model describing the beginning has not yet been constructed. That means there is no "Scientific Gospel". So the "airtight" big bang hypothosis has more versions then Victoria's Secret has styles of underware.
Just because we aren't sure about something, it doesn't mean that God did it. The overall theory is pretty solid, but the finer details are still being worked out. Just like no one disagrees that the Battle of Stalingrad happened, they still disagree on how many people died. Nothing in science will ever be proven, but that's not it's purpose anyway. Proof is for mathmeticians. Now, turn your Gospel's to Darwin 14:3 . . .
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 178 by Navy10E, posted 04-29-2004 7:40 PM | | Navy10E has not replied |
|
Melchior
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 180 of 414 (103956)
04-29-2004 8:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 178 by Navy10E
04-29-2004 7:40 PM
|
|
Re: Excellent article
It's not so much that there isn't a working model, but the model we have is not all encompassing, and as you probably know, it's a field where a lot of new 'ideas' are being suggested. There is nothing wrong with the big bang theory as such, and it's useful in itself. But there are parts where it don't have an answer for us, which *might* be possible to find sometime in the future if we expand the model. The current divisions are more of a "we got a sound foundation, but where do we go now?". It's not obvious what works and what don't.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 178 by Navy10E, posted 04-29-2004 7:40 PM | | Navy10E has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2