|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Something From Nothing? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Itachi Uchiha Member (Idle past 5615 days) Posts: 272 From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco Joined: |
Beercules writes: The big bang doesn't suggest the universe arose from "nothing" or "non matter" at all. A little reading up on what the actual theory is would avoid confusion like this. Since you're a creationist, I will take the time to inform you that the big bang theory is not about a dot that spun out of control and exploded. http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.htmlI'm afraid hundreds of links like this one disagree with you. At the end it says "Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions. " This is the reason the creation/evolution debate will never end. Crationists cant prove 100% God created everything and evolutionists cant prove the bing bang either. It all faith my man.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It all faith my man. No. You're confusing "trust" and "faith", much like Buz has been doing. "Trust" is when you believe someting because of the evidence. Scientists trust their theories because they are supported by a preponderance of evidence. "Faith" is when you believe something in spite of the evidence. Religious people have faith in God in spite of a lack of evidence that he exists. So, no. It's not all "faith" - unless you want to expand the meaning of faith so as to be completely useless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
jazzlover there iss an article at Scientific American.
We're Sorry - Scientific American That gives the idea behind it however the actual understanding of it is much deeper to be sure. "I am not young enough to know everything. " Oscar Wilde
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RingoKid Inactive Member |
seems a lot of scientists don't have a lot of faith in each other's theories...
...so I think I'll put my trust in god until proven otherwise does that make me a creationist even though I believe the universe is evolving ??? hah...I just realized i put my trust in nothing and believe in nothing, guess i'm a nihilist but that's cool cos God is a nihilist as well...why else would it destroy a perfect nothingness to create a chaotic universe... [This message has been edited by RingoKid, 01-15-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Remember that "proof" is a pretty strong term and not used carelessly. The big bang has enough issues left, as I understand, that I would expect at least some changes before it gels more solidly. However, it will (my guess) be in that form within a couple of decades. Whatever results will still not be "proven" but it will not leave so many unanswered questions.
If you want to have God at the very beginning there is room for that. Once that moment has passed then you may only keep God in the objective picture if you avoid insisting you know how he allowed things to work out. You and I both agree there was a moment of creation. I don't know what triggered it, you do. That is the only place that there is room for differences bases on the evidence we have. So in my case the big bang happend for unknown reasons 13.7 billion years ago. In your case God created the universe with a burst of light 13.7 billion years ago that we call the big bang. I don't see any reason to get into a knot about it until we learn more. As for your article disagreeing with anything. It is a very, very simple popularization of the real understanding of it. It doesn't disagree with anything we are discussing. It isn't talking at even the uninformed, simple, high level we are talking. Common sense isn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
RingoKid
You know, this kind of statement
seems a lot of scientists don't have a lot of faith in each other's theories seems to pop up from time to time and I am going to ask you what you mean by it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
seems a lot of scientists don't have a lot of faith in each other's theories... Correct. The have trust in each other's theories, insofar as they are supported by evidence.
...so I think I'll put my trust in god until proven otherwise You mean, your faith in God. After all, there's no evidence that he exists.
does that make me a creationist even though I believe the universe is evolving ??? Does it matter? For as much as we characterize this debate as "evolution vs. creationism", all I really care about is whether or not the mechanisms of evolution are sufficient to account for the diversity of life on Earth. As long as you think that statement is true, you're an evolutionist. If you also believe that the mechanisms of evolution themselves were created by God, I guess you could claim to be a creationist, too, though most creationists will disagree. But ultimately I think you have the right to decide what you want to call yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beercules Inactive Member |
You haven't the slightest clue of what you're talking about, do you? There is nothing in the link posted that suggest either a. the big bang says the universe was created from nothing or b. the big bang involves a spinning dot. Please don't post links to artciles you haven't even bothered to read.
[This message has been edited by Beercules, 01-15-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taco Inactive Member |
Abshalom,
The problem is you are putting the 2-dimensional analogy into a 3-dimensional space. The analogy is the surface of the balloon. There is no inside or outside, only the 2-D surface. The 2-D surface does not displace anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
Taco, NosyNed, and others who have been so patient about my inablilty to get wrapped around this balloon analogy:
Okay, please tell me a few things: 1) Is the information at: http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/?id=SOURCE3.SNW related to the balloon analogy by which you are trying to explain the expanding universe? Unrelated? How related? 2) If that site is not relevant, could you please guide me to sites that better explain your take on the balloon analogy. I am specifically stuck on the image of a infinite universe that the analogy tries to have me visualize in only two dimensions as if only the "skin of the balloon" with no "thickness" to the fabric. And I can visualize the fabric having no edges only if I can see it all as a ball, irregular spheroid blob, or possibly folded somehow back into itself. Otherwise I keep seeing this elastic fabric being stretched "two-dimensionally" in all directions (x and y) but having no depth or volume (z); not necessarily flat, but basically 2D. This is really hard for someone who has only the old-time take on Big Bang to visualize. Sorry for being so dense on this deal, but being 50-something, I have heard and seen at least a dozen "shapes of the universe" theories explained or depicted, and this one just doesn't flip the light switch for me. Oh well, if nothing else, ignorance is bliss. Peace.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Taco
How about giving this site a try and see if it helps or screws you up totally. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/.../astro/bbang.html#c1 "I am not young enough to know everything. " Oscar Wilde
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taco Inactive Member |
Abshalom,
I read through the article and must admit I had a bit of trouble following it. It didn't really deal with the analogy, but a I understand it tried to explain a possible theory on the rapid expansion of the universe. It deals with string theory which is probably a bit too much to get into here. A clarification on the balloon analogy may be found here: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html I have stolen a quote (about 2/3rds down the page): "This question is based on the ever popular misconception that the Universe is some curved object embedded in a higher dimensional space, and that the Universe is expanding into this space. This misconception is probably fostered by the balloon analogy which shows a 2-D spherical model of the Universe expanding in a 3-D space. While it is possible to think of the Universe this way, it is not necessary, and there is nothing whatsoever that we have measured or can measure that will show us anything about the larger space. Everything that we measure is within the Universe, and we see no edge or boundary or center of expansion. Thus the Universe is not expanding into anything that we can see, and this is not a profitable thing to think about. Just as Dali's Corpus Hypercubicus is just a 2-D picture of a 3-D object that represents the surface of a 4-D cube, remember that the balloon analogy is just a 2-D picture of a 3-D situation that is supposed to help you think about a curved 3-D space, but it does not mean that there is really a 4-D space that the Universe is expanding into." and via the balloon link: "The expanding balloon analogy for cosmological models is shown below at two different times. A common misconception is that the balloon is expanding into empty space that is "beyond the Universe" and that it is expanding from a single point in the center of the balloon. But the balloon analogy is a 2-dimensional model, and the center of the balloon and the space around are not part of the 2-dimensional Universe. In our 3-dimensional Universe, these points could only be reached by traveling in a 4th spatial dimension (not the time dimension of 4-D spacetime), but there is no evidence that this dimension exists. " Sidelined: Thanks for the link, it is interesting. But I think you may have us confused...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Taco
Sorry.I see my error. If Abshalom is alert perhaps he can get hold of the link and we can continue.I am curious what the balloon analogy is about. "I am not young enough to know everything. " Oscar Wilde
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
In Message #73 Sidelined hopes, "if Abshalom is alert perhaps he can get hold of the link and we can continue. I am curious what the balloon analogy is about."
I'm trying, Sidelined, I'm trying. But when the link uses descriptions like "primordal fireball," I'm still stuck with images of the universe exploding out like a spheroid from a fixed central point like an aerial bomb or firework. I guess I'm saying that with the balloon analogy, I get stuck on the image that the "skin" is expanded out by some force contained "within" the spheriod shape of the ball; and that all of the universe is held together by the tensile connection of the skin in a globe shape. Now, I'm trying to visualize it more like the smoke ring that rolls out the end of iron cannon fired by black powder. I know this visual may not be any more correct than my ass-backward fireball visual, but at least using the smoke ring analogy, I can see the surface "skin" of the material roiling and swirling over and over into itself, expanding, and cooling without there being any necessary "central" point within the gasses themselves; and I can see there is "nothing" outside the cloud itself. Taco's link in Message 72 has lots of links on it's main page that I have not explored, so give me a little more time ... Thanks for the help, though. Still struggling in bliss. Peace.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Abshalom
LOL do not worry if you find these hard to wrap your brain around. It is the same for everybody and that is why the mathematics is helpful. I am abysmally poor at math and I am presently struggling to gain a foothold on the calculus and other items I need in order to start really understanding the dynamics of the issue. It is indeed difficult to "see" the physical process at work without it since our very human tendency is to relate it to familiar things by way of analogy. I am presently purchasing the three book set Feynman Lectures on Physics to help as the author is good at making the connection clearer. I believe that in another post earlier last year I introduced the balloon analogy in a discussion with NosyNed. However the use of the balloon was to illustrate how the galaxies get farther away with time. So imagine it this way.Think of an ordinary balloon [deflated] covered with spots of black ink to represent galaxies.Now in your head have the balloon begin to expand. This represent the passsage of time.Now expand the balloon rapidly through time and watch the galaxies get further and further apart with time, now in your mind let the ballloon pop but keep the image of the galaxies expanding.Since time is essentially what was represented by the balloon it is not necessary to keep it.As with all simple analogies it is used to give understanding to one aspect of the dynamics of the big bang. It needs to be kept in mind that there are actual motions in the universe that are not covered by this and so you must allow it to be adjusted and in some situations abandoned as you delve farther into the complexities of the universe.I hope this can help.Have a great day. "I am not young enough to know everything. " Oscar Wilde
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024