Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 202 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
welcome to the newly developing glaciation period.
by paul
10/24/19 03:23 PM
Potatoes on Mars
by paul
10/24/19 02:55 PM
Fishing , baiting the hook.
by paul
10/24/19 02:43 PM
F=mv ... mv=F
by paul
10/24/19 02:37 PM
Do we have a moderator?
by paul
10/23/19 12:30 AM
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
10/23/19 12:22 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 13
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#14645 - 08/06/06 05:49 PM old topic
turak Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 08/06/06
Posts: 23
Loc: Yoga, jogging, writing, thinki...
Iam new here... RM posted a logical answer to the Big Bang theory: saying that in order for something to explode: there has to be an explosive.

Is the Big Bang theory still valid?

Do any of the posters here know what Science has as the latest understanding of the origin of the Universe?

The big Bang theory has been around a long time.

Is it still upheld by the most recent scientific facts?

Or are scientists coming up with newer models and explanations?

Top
.
#14646 - 08/06/06 08:49 PM Re: old topic
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
The big bang theory is alive and well but the nonsense about their needing to be an explosive? Well that just takes me back to the Ab Fab quote I just posted: "why not have a stupidity tax, just tax the stupid people!"

The Big Bang theory, modified 20 or do years ago to "The Big Bang with Inflation" is alive, well, and supported by every shred of physical evidence available to science.

Here's a link from the University of California at Berkeley that should help:
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html
and some others too:
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/InTheBeginning.html
http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/inflation.html
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/031030b.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/inflation.html

Note that they are all reputable sources.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#14647 - 08/06/06 09:55 PM Re: old topic
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
nice links, very informative.

unfortunately, the name big bang suggest explosives which means in the great mass of those unlearned, that there was some for of explosived needed. ignorance may be bliss (for some) but it can be cured.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#14648 - 08/07/06 08:03 PM Re: old topic
soilguy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/28/05
Posts: 414
Loc: North Carolina
Quote:
Originally posted by dehammer:
nice links, very informative.

unfortunately, the name big bang suggest explosives which means in the great mass of those unlearned, that there was some for of explosived needed. ignorance may be bliss (for some) but it can be cured.
As I recall, the term "big bang" was coined by someone who was ridiculing the theory. It just stuck.

There are lots of unfortunately named things in science, and elsewhere. I know biologists wish they'd never coined the term "mitochondrial Eve," for instance.
_________________________
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis

Top
#14649 - 08/12/06 12:41 PM Re: old topic
trilobyte Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/12/06
Posts: 179
I ask my self does it require more faith to believe in the religion of the "Big Bang" or the Christian view point on special creation?
In order for you to make that faith decision, picture this...take the planet earth and compress it to the size of a golf ball (this alone is hard to conceive) then add the moon, all the other planets and their satellites plus the sun and squash them down to the size of a golf ball.
Now that you have all of the elements from our solar system compressed, add to it our "six billion miles across" galaxy. Don't forget to keep in mind there are about 250 billion stars and planets in our galaxy.

Next, to complete our unbelievable picture you must gather all the other galaxies. Say, about, 250 billion of them plus or minus a couple of billion.
These other galaxies have approx. 70 sextbillion (7 followed by 22 zeros) stars contained with in them. These galaxies must now be compressed and added to our golf ball size galaxy. The next step would be to take our golf ball size galaxy with everything in it and compress it again until its the size of a pea. (Actually much smaller than that.) Pretty un-realistic huh? This is what the religion of the "Big Bang" teaches. This is what they want us and our kids to believe (have faith) in.

I also have a question for the big bangers, where did the pea size mass of matter come from before it exploded? Did it just appear?

As you can plainly see it takes a lot more faith to believe in the big bang than it does to believe that God made it all in 6 days.

Top
#14650 - 08/12/06 05:06 PM Re: old topic
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
trilobyte wrote:
"I ask my self does it require more faith to believe in the religion of the "Big Bang" or the Christian view point on special creation?"

Where were you when they were teaching science in school?

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

Hopefully this will help make up for some small part of what you missed. The "Big Bang" is not a religion. It is not accepted as a matter of faith. And it hasn't been the currently accepted theory in astrophysics in 20+ years.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#14651 - 08/12/06 10:07 PM Re: old topic
trilobyte Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/12/06
Posts: 179
Unfortunatly the BB fails number 1 DA Morgan:
Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

Did anyone observe it happening? I wasn't there...were you?

Top
#14652 - 08/12/06 11:31 PM Re: old topic
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Your mother couldn't fail #1. #1 translates in English into ... propose something to test. That Santa Claus eats Easter Bunnies doesn't fail #1.

And as I said but you ignored ... BB hasn't been the currently accepted theory in more than 20 years. Probably about the same time you were born.

Please troll elsewhere.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#14653 - 08/13/06 12:42 AM Re: old topic
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
first of all, the theory of the big bang is not a religion, thus does not require faith. If you understand the science then you can understand how it happened. if you somehow don't understand, then your encouraged to ask questions. if you don't understand the science, you need not try to understand it. either way it does not make any real difference.

if you believe in the bible version of creation. you need not understand anything, but you MUST accept it, period. no questions allowed. that is the major difference between religions and science. if you don't understand ask and you have science. if you don't understand, but must accept its religion . basically, its a matter of if its your understanding or someone else's.

secondly, your image of compressing matter like that takes three major deviations from reality.

1) the matter we see is mostly space. each atom has a certain amount of space around it. I've seen one of the major names in science (in a book i read long ago) equate the space between the atoms as being the same relative space as that between the stars. {on a side note, this leads some armchair scientist to postulate that the atoms were actually solar systems of much smaller galaxies.}

2) the majority of space in an atom is comprised of space. the electron shell "orbits" the nucleus at about the relative distance of Pluto (if the nucleus was the size of the sun).

3) during the big bangs first few seconds there was little or no matter. not even much energy. these we created by the substance that existed "inside" the big bang's "sphere". there was no compression of the material of the planets, suns, etc. the material did not exist yet.

please, do some reading on the subject before deciding its a religion. most of all, question it.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#14654 - 08/13/06 12:29 PM Re: old topic
trilobyte Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/12/06
Posts: 179
dehammer
What was the substance that existed "inside" the big bangs "sphere"...where did it come from?

My post was not suggesting the compression of the universe..but pointing out all of the stuff that the entire universe contains...then having it emerge from a speck requires faith in something...then again we already know that the BB is a faith based concept.

Top
#14655 - 08/13/06 05:41 PM Re: old topic
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#14656 - 08/13/06 09:54 PM Re: old topic
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by trilobyte:
dehammer
What was the substance that existed "inside" the big bangs "sphere"...where did it come from?

My post was not suggesting the compression of the universe..but pointing out all of the stuff that the entire universe contains...then having it emerge from a speck requires faith in something...then again we already know that the BB is a faith based concept.
it does not require faith, it requires the ability to look at the evidence. all the known material in the universe is moving away, apparantly from some spot well behind us in our own movement. now either some sort of force force all of that material to move though a relatively small area at the same time or there was some kind of "big bang" type of situation. at a certain time after the event, all of our knowledge of science fails us and we cant explain what it there. at one point the (working backwords) the theory is that at least some of the material became photons (later more stuff was created) but there is no known way of creating those photons, so there is no way science can describe what materials photons were created from.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#14657 - 08/14/06 03:17 AM Re: old topic
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer wrote:
"all the known material in the universe is moving away, apparantly from some spot well behind us in our own movement."

Just when I am thinking you've got it right we go back to science and my delight turns to sorrow.

All known material in the universe is not moving away from us and there is no concept of "behind" or "in front" or "beside" in astrophysics. The andromeda galaxy, for example, is heading toward us on a collision course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

What we observe is that those entities not gravitationally bound to us in the local cluster are moving away at a speed proportionate to their distance. That everything, no matter its direction, follows this same rule thus giving the impression that WE are at the center.

But as there is no center (leaving aside human egos for the moment) we conclude that everything (not bound gravitationally) is racing away from everything (to which it is not bound gravitationally) at a speed defined by the Hubble Constant. And that the speed is increasing and this is the acceleration recently discovered.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html

Hope this helps.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#14658 - 08/14/06 11:19 AM Re: old topic
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
i stand corrected, i had forgotten about the anomaly of Andromeda galaxy moving differently. but i do stand on the fact that we know we are moving, and that in some direction galaxies are not moving away as fast as in other directions. if there was a big bang then everything should be moving away from the point it was at, unless the galaxy happen to have had something change its directions. i believe that they have seen evidence that our galaxy and Andromeda have for some reason began to pull towards each other. perhaps as another pair have done else where. that pair is believe to be passing though each other ever few billion years. one theory is that another galaxy pass through our own causing many of the stars to lose more of their heavier materials than they would already. I have not heard if this theory had ever been disproved, but i do remember that it was suggested at one point that Andromeda had been the culprit. if it was it would have moved away for a couple billion years or more then have been turned back by the gravity of our galaxy and we would have been pulled back towards it by its gravity. regardless, the two are still moving in the general directions (if the big bang has any valitity) of away from the point of the bang.

please explain how things can race away from thing in the direction they are racing at the same time they are racing away from things they are racing away from. We know that there are galaxies in all directions from us. either racing away from the things that are to our universal west (an extension of the galaxy west), or they are racing away from the things to our universal east or they are racing away from us. It has been postulated that there is some point in space that all material is moving away from (in general terms). that is where the big bang theory came from. we KNOW that we are not at that point, so we must be moving away from it (in general terms).
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#14659 - 08/14/06 04:14 PM Re: old topic
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
I know it is a strange concept for human's to accept but we really are not moving ... except with respect to the other members of our local group of galaxies. At least not as defined by astrophysics.

What is happening is that the spacetime between our local group and other groups of galaxies is increasing. We measure a change in distance. But there really is no movement as there is no outside frame of reference from which movement could be measured.

Hope I didn't confuse things further.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#14660 - 08/14/06 05:32 PM Re: old topic
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
the outside frame of reference is the entire universe itself. astrophysis know that we are moving, but that its rather hard to determine the speed with which we are, because of the lack of reference. We know this because we know that we are not at the center of the galaxy and everthing is moving, that means we are moving as well. One day they will likely be able to determine not only the speed at which things are moving away from us, but the angle as well. given a good understanding of the effects of gravity, and the directions things are actually moving, not just relative to us, but to everything, someone, someday will figure out the spot that the big bang (if it is still accepted as a theory and has not been supplanted but a better one) occured. Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen in even our grandchildren's grandchildrens day.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#14661 - 08/14/06 06:51 PM Re: old topic
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer wrote:
"astrophysis know that we are moving"

No they don't. Where did you get this? We use phrases such as "moving away from each other" to describe relative motion. To explain things to the lay public. But any technical publication will refer to the expansion of space itself.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00812.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

Quote:
"Hubble's law applies to all galaxies or clusters sufficiently distant from one another that gravitational forces are negligible. According to the law, these galaxies are flying away from each other at tremendous speeds as the fabric of space they occupy stretches, such that the greater the distance between any two galaxies, the greater their relative speed of separation. In other words, the expansion of the universe is roughly uniform. This empirical finding strongly supports the theory that the universe began with an explosive big bang (see cosmology cosmology, area of science that aims at a comprehensive theory of the structure and evolution of the entire physical universe."
Source:
http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Expansion+of+space
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#14662 - 08/15/06 01:49 AM Re: old topic
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
here is a quote from your source.

Quote:
Space is said to expand when the locations of objects sitting in that space get farther apart, more than they would have just by coasting around with known velocities and forces.
this does not say that there is not movement, just that all of the expansion is not accounted for by the movement of the galaxies.

another interesting point is that wikipedia shows a graphic of everything coming out of a singularity. perhaps it should be stated instead that we are expanding away from a point where that singularity was. Neither of those state that there is no motion. if there is none, then there must be a contraction of space between us and Andromeda.

here's an interesting thought. if the expansion of space allows for faster than light movement (re your wikipedia link), perhaps that would be the key to "faster than light" travel. perhaps our great, great great.... grandchildren will figure a way to use it to get to the stars and other galaxies.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#14663 - 08/15/06 01:56 AM Re: old topic
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer quoted:
"Space is said to expand when the locations of objects sitting in that space get farther apart, more than they would have just by coasting around with known velocities and forces."

This is correct. But it DOES NOT say they are moving ... it says SPACE IS EXPANDING. Which is precisely what I've been trying to tell you.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#14664 - 08/15/06 05:26 AM Re: old topic
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
if they have no way of measuring the movement separately, its sounds like an opinion. tell me how is it that our galaxy and Andromeda's are approaching each other unless there is a contraction of space, which has all but been ruled out, and there is no movement. I forget which two galaxies it is, but i remember seeing pictures of two galaxies that are said to be moving though each other again and again, and will one day become one. how is that possible if there is no movement.

another point i thought of after a good bit of time passed. you treat the theory of expanding universe as though it were law. It not a law, only a theory. that is something that explains all the known facts. in fact there are several theories that fit all known fact. here are some I've heard of. i don't know the name of some of them so if any one does, please let me know.

one theory stated that the big bang was not like a ball, but in fact was like a series of hollow spheres, each inside the next. as the subphotonic stuff coalesced into first photon and then matter, they were at different distances, thus the farthest spheres were not affected as much by the gravity created by the inner materials and thus were not slowed down as much. in this theory, all the galaxies are moving in the directions that they were first moved in, or lasted effected by other galaxies.

another theory is that there is a dark matter, one that we cant see because its is in one of the dimensions other than the 4 we can detect (its speculated that there are 11 dimensions). since to this material gravity is a "pushing force" rather than a "pulling force" (for lack of better terms), it exist between galaxies rather than in them. it is pushed away by the galaxies gravity and pushes them. this causes the farthest galaxies (which have nothing on the other side to push them back) to move faster than the ones inside which are being pushed back by the dark matter, thus don't move as fast.

then there is the brane theory. once again it involves material that is in one of the 7 dimensions we cant explore. According to this there was not exactly a big bang, more of like a cymbal crashing together and producing the materials of our universe. as these cymbals expanded the material coalesced at different points and different speeds depending on the speed of the cymbal at that time. according to this theory, eventually the matterial of our universe will entrophy into nothingness, at which point another crash will occur to produce a new universe.

the point of all of this is that there are other theories that can explain all of this without trying to create something like some unknown force causing the universe to expand. the expanding universe maybe the most accepted, but i seem to recall someone saying something about the fact that 'just because x will explain something, does not mean that x is correct.'
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.