Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,551 Year: 4,808/9,624 Month: 156/427 Week: 69/85 Day: 6/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation cosmology and the Big Bang
jar
Member
Posts: 34040
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 7.4


(1)
Message 16 of 305 (663539)
05-25-2012 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by NoNukes
05-25-2012 10:11 AM


Just another bump in the road.
I think the problem is one of exclusivity.
If every point appears to be the center of the universe then the Milky Way and the Earth in particular are not any more significant than any other point in the universe.
If the Earth is not significant then the life on the Earth is not significant.
It all goes back to wanting to be God's special little favorites.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2012 10:11 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2012 10:44 AM jar has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 305 (663542)
05-25-2012 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by jar
05-25-2012 10:17 AM


Re: Just another bump in the road.
If every point appears to be the center of the universe then the Milky Way and the Earth in particular are not any more significant than any other point in the universe.
Yes. And of course it is exactly that argument that I find unpersuasive. Even given the need to be God's favorite, it does not follow that God created a cosmos that even has a physical center.
Why wouldn't that same reasoning require a flat earth with the Middle East in the center?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 05-25-2012 10:17 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 05-25-2012 10:54 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34040
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 18 of 305 (663543)
05-25-2012 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by NoNukes
05-25-2012 10:44 AM


Re: Just another bump in the road.
Why wouldn't that same reasoning require a flat earth with the Middle East in the center?
Until fairly recently it did; in fact with Jerusalem in the very center.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2012 10:44 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10152
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(2)
Message 19 of 305 (663607)
05-25-2012 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by zaius137
05-25-2012 1:52 AM


The Big Bang theory has truly become a case of the tail wagging the dog. The invention of dark energy and dark matter relies on human imagination.
Like others have mentioned, you are barking up the wrong tree on this one. Dark matter and dark energy are names given to observations. They are definitely not inventions.
Let's start with dark matter. It was observed that that the motion of galaxies didn't match up with the estimated visible mass. Therefore, there had to be mass that wasn't luminous. Further observations have have used gravitational lensing to detect this matter that does not absorb or emit light, and apparently does not interact that much with luminous matter. One of the more observations was a collision between between two star clusters seen below:
SLAC | Bold People. Visionary Science. Real Impact.
The red represents the luminous matter and the blue represents the dark matter. They were able to show how the luminous matter interacts while the dark matter continues along the same path without interacting with the luminous matter.
So to sum it up, we are now able to map dark matter in the universe so I would hardly call it an invention.
As for dark energy, it is much like gravity. Gravity is the name of a force. Dark energy is no different. It is the name of the force that is accelerating the expansion of the universe. This acceleration is an observation, not something that is made up. Dark energy is not an invention either.
By far these are two of the most unlikely and bazaar things ever conceived of by science.
I would vote for Quantum Mechanics as the most bazaar, but to each their own.
In addition, there is a suggestion that the Cosmological Principle may be incorrect, remember it states that the universe has no center or no edge.
When you blow up a balloon, where is the center of expansion on the surface of the balloon?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by zaius137, posted 05-25-2012 1:52 AM zaius137 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Dogmafood, posted 05-25-2012 5:02 PM Taq has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 20 of 305 (663626)
05-25-2012 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Taq
05-25-2012 3:42 PM


As I am not a bigot I have no problem with dark energy or dark matter.
I still can not get my head around the idea that the Universe has no center. I have no reason to think that the center is anywhere near me but it seems that it should have one.
If the universe is infinite in all directions then I can see how every point could be considered the center. If there was a point somewhere in the past when the universe was not infinite in extent then there must have been a center. If it started as a dot then what happened to that spot?
When you blow up a balloon, where is the center of expansion on the surface of the balloon?
I realize that this is an analogy but the center is the same place it was before you inflated it. I do not understand where we make the jump from Euclidean to non Euclidean geometry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Taq, posted 05-25-2012 3:42 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Taq, posted 05-25-2012 5:51 PM Dogmafood has replied
 Message 22 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-25-2012 6:15 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10152
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 21 of 305 (663633)
05-25-2012 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dogmafood
05-25-2012 5:02 PM


I realize that this is an analogy but the center is the same place it was before you inflated it.
There is no center on the surface of the balloon, or rather there is no point that is more of the center than anywhere else. You may be mistakenly using the point in the center of the balloon instead of limiting yourself to the surface of the balloon.
If I understand it correctly, if you travel in a straight line in this universe you will end up where you started just as you would if you were walking on the surface of a sphere. Our universe has no center, just as the surface of a sphere has no center.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dogmafood, posted 05-25-2012 5:02 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Dogmafood, posted 05-25-2012 6:15 PM Taq has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4500
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 22 of 305 (663638)
05-25-2012 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dogmafood
05-25-2012 5:02 PM


Dogmafood writes:
If it started as a dot then what happened to that spot?
It's likely I'm wrong, but the dot became the whole universe, so the whole universe is the center. The Big Bang was not a whole bunch of stuff flying out from the center, it is the center getting a LOT bigger.
Or maybe I don't know anything.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dogmafood, posted 05-25-2012 5:02 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Dogmafood, posted 05-25-2012 6:32 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 23 of 305 (663639)
05-25-2012 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Taq
05-25-2012 5:51 PM


You may be mistakenly using the point in the center of the balloon instead of limiting yourself to the surface of the balloon.
This is what I mean by switching geometries. From what I can tell, you need at least 3 dimensions to have a surface that is not flat. You cant have the surface of the balloon without the inside. I know, I know 2-spheres and 3-spheres but are these not theoretical entities? Beside that, the universe certainly appears to have some depth. How is that like a surface?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Taq, posted 05-25-2012 5:51 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by nwr, posted 05-25-2012 6:47 PM Dogmafood has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 24 of 305 (663640)
05-25-2012 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Tanypteryx
05-25-2012 6:15 PM


...but the dot became the whole universe, so the whole universe is the center. The Big Bang was not a whole bunch of stuff flying out from the center, it is the center getting a LOT bigger.
I dont have a problem with the idea of expansion until you remove the idea of a center. Even if it is not expanding into anything it is still bigger than it was before. All the points are further away from any previous position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-25-2012 6:15 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6418
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 25 of 305 (663642)
05-25-2012 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Dogmafood
05-25-2012 6:15 PM


Dogmafood writes:
From what I can tell, you need at least 3 dimensions to have a surface that is not flat.
Just as you can have a 2-dimensional sphere (just the surface) in 3-space, you can have a 3-dimensional sphere in 4-space, and a 4-dimensional space-time as a surface in some higher dimensional space.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Dogmafood, posted 05-25-2012 6:15 PM Dogmafood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2012 9:46 PM nwr has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 305 (663659)
05-25-2012 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by nwr
05-25-2012 6:47 PM


Just as you can have a 2-dimensional sphere (just the surface) in 3-space,
I think this is just wrong. A 2-sphere is a two dimensional surface. It is mathematically the surface of a sphere, but it represents a curved, 2 dimension space.
Let's not buz up the physics.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by nwr, posted 05-25-2012 6:47 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by nwr, posted 05-25-2012 10:34 PM NoNukes has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6418
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 27 of 305 (663661)
05-25-2012 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by NoNukes
05-25-2012 9:46 PM


Yes, but people who are not familiar with the mathematics have difficulty conceptualizing unless it is embedded in a higher dimensional space.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2012 9:46 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by NoNukes, posted 05-26-2012 6:37 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 305 (663704)
05-26-2012 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by nwr
05-25-2012 10:34 PM


Yes, but people who are not familiar with the mathematics have difficulty conceptualizing unless it is embedded in a higher dimensional space.
True, but at some point we must help those people understand that a 2-sphere is not really a ball. Otherwise we are just adding to their difficulty in conceptualizing.
In this case, Dogmafood is already dealing with an error in understanding this point, and I didn't want to confirm his misconception.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by nwr, posted 05-25-2012 10:34 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3485 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 29 of 305 (663754)
05-26-2012 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by vimesey
05-25-2012 7:13 AM


Let me explain why I am using the term bizarre. If you look at both dark energy and dark matter, you are actually looking at antigravity and invisibility. Both of which are admittedly beyond the current ability in science to actually find them (all efforts have failed to date). Only indirect evidence of both is observable but they carry labels of very tangible principles; I refer to mass and energy.
I am open to any deeper understanding; if some one can maybe cast some light on these two proposals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by vimesey, posted 05-25-2012 7:13 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 05-26-2012 11:49 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 2:12 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 32 by vimesey, posted 05-26-2012 3:00 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 05-26-2012 3:05 PM zaius137 has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34040
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 30 of 305 (663755)
05-26-2012 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by zaius137
05-26-2012 11:40 AM


Talk about bizarre
If you look at both dark energy and dark matter, you are actually looking at antigravity and invisibility.
Say what?
Sorry but both Dark matter and Dark energy are observed the same way that Gravity is observed. They have nothing to do with either anti-gravity or invisibility.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by zaius137, posted 05-26-2012 11:40 AM zaius137 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