Author Topic: Big Bang theory Gains New Evidence  (Read 10069 times)

Offline stromboli

Big Bang theory Gains New Evidence
« on: June 06, 2013, 10:00:14 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote

The best part of this for me is that is shows the scientists involved are challenging their own work, and looking for more evidence to either bolster or disprove their basic assertions. Go science!
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline Colanth

(No subject)
« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2013, 10:48:07 PM »
Well ...

No one actually doubted it before.  The consensus was just that there was something we weren't getting.  And that turns out to be correct - what we weren't getting was accurate data.

Of course, theists can jump on this as some sort of "proof" that science isn't reliable.
Afflicting the comfortable for 70 years.
Science builds skyscrapers, faith flies planes into them.

Offline Solitary

(No subject)
« Reply #2 on: June 07, 2013, 12:30:21 AM »
Quote from: "stromboli"
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote

The best part of this for me is that is shows the scientists involved are challenging their own work, and looking for more evidence to either bolster or disprove their basic assertions. Go science!

I don't want to get into it now because I don't have the evidence handy, buy they completely ignore any evidence that contradicts the theory. For example: the blue shifting of galaxies. And how in the world could the theory be falsified they don't try to do it and ignore evidence?  Stephen Hawking now says the universe has no beginning in a singularity from his understanding of quantum mechanics, or end, and just is. But nobody is listening. I'll get back on this on a different thread. Bill
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

(No subject)
« Reply #3 on: June 07, 2013, 03:13:19 AM »
Quote from: "Solitary"
I don't want to get into it now because I don't have the evidence handy, buy they completely ignore any evidence that contradicts the theory. For example: the blue shifting of galaxies.

I call bullshit on that!
Winner of WitchSabrinas Best Advice Award 2012


We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real
tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. -Plato

Offline stromboli

(No subject)
« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2013, 06:45:49 AM »
Have I inadvertently opened a can of worms?  :shock:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

(No subject)
« Reply #5 on: June 07, 2013, 07:06:24 AM »
Quote from: "stromboli"
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote

The best part of this for me is that is shows the scientists involved are challenging their own work, and looking for more evidence to either bolster or disprove their basic assertions. Go science!

Theism adapts through marketing, not testing, and does not adapt to improve, but to prop up bad claims. So it simply keeps putting different color cloths on the same skunk arguments.

Science however demands the strict quality control that once something is busted, you discard the bad data. And the only way to insure the most accurate answers is to kick the ever living shit out of the claim with testing, control groups and peer review.

Theism is nothing more than human projecting their own childish desires on the world around them.

And how can anyone think they are special in a universe this size? No we are merely lucky, but even with our species existence, that "luck" also comes with very harsh conditions for many and the ultimate finite existence as well, like our planet and sun will die too.

Theism cheapens reality by concocting bullshit answers to reality. It is like trying to look into deep space with a kaleidoscope instead of a telescope.

Knowing reality is much more awesome, both in its constructive and destructive reality, than the ancient myths of scientifically ignorant humans.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers." Obama
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

(No subject)
« Reply #6 on: June 07, 2013, 09:26:33 AM »
Quote from: "Solitary"
they completely ignore any evidence that contradicts the theory. For example: the blue shifting of galaxies.

The blueshifting can be explained: most of these are galaxies nearby. They are blueshifted, meaning they are moving closer to us, as a result of the gravitational pull between galaxies. The ouliers also can  be explained. Take an explosion as an analogy - the BB is not an explosion -- but for the purpose here, we can draw some conclusions. In an explosion, particles will fly out, but on occasions some of these will collide and deflect in weird angles. Similarly, in the initial stage of the BB, some clusters of matter might have deviated from the normal course either through collisions or very strong gravitational pull of nearby galaxies, so that today they are moving towards us. But notice, the number of blueshifting galaxies is extremely small, and so this does not put the BBT in jeopardy.

Quote
And how in the world could the theory be falsified they don't try to do it and ignore evidence?  

Which evidence is being ignored?

Quote
Stephen Hawking now says the universe has no beginning in a singularity from his understanding of quantum mechanics, or end, and just is. But nobody is listening.

A lot of people are listening to Hawking, but most of the theists listening are howlering that this is nonsense. Of course, if you don't understand the physics, Hawking will sound like nonsense.

Offline Solitary

Re: Big Bang theory Gains New Evidence
« Reply #7 on: June 07, 2013, 02:17:47 PM »
So the raisons in a loaf of bread rising scenario for the Big bang is misleading then? The Big Bang says that space is expanding not the galaxies. If space is expanding how could a blue shift happen and galaxies that are red shifting collide which they do even in space that is expanding faster and faster, and thus gravity gets weaker? I agree if space is expanding slower than gravitational affects there will be blue shifts.  I'm always surprised that atheist are skeptical of religions, but not science. Like I said I'll get back with a post on this subject when I have time and try to find evidence I can't for now.

I've always been of the opinion that good science tries to falsify its data and theories, not just keep finding evidence to support the theory. This is the very reason evolution is considered fact now, because every piece of evidence that was found to falsify it has been explained, and all evidence from various fields of science have confirmed it with new evidence.

I've changed my mind, I can't find the evidence that I had that has been lost, so I will post my opinion and those of scientist on the latest evidence for the Big Bang and what is actually believed now at this thread which is appropriate.

Today, cosmologist can provide a variety of plausible, mathematical precise scenarios for an uncreated universe that violate no known laws of physics. Further more, despite the well-confirmed big bang, the universe, defined as all there is, had no beginning and thus no end
or Creator. The so-called proofs that the universe cannot be eternal are erroneous.

While there is no serious disagreement that our universe began with the big bang, nothing forbids it, and indeed modern cosmology suggests, an eternal multiverse containing many universes besides our own. I can see the rabbit pulled out of the hat. In any case, the claim that time did not exist until it was created in a big bang is incoherent. You can't have creation if you have no time.

Photons out number the atoms by a factor of a billion, and they are random to one part in one thousand. The universe is mostly random motion, and because we live in a tiny pocket of complexity, we wrongly assume the universe is highly ordered. Modern cosmology today views the universe as probably eternal, having no beginning and no end. While the big bang is the origin of our universe , nothing forbids the existence of a prior universe or, many other universes.  

The idea behind the big bang was first proposed by an astronomer and Belgian Catholic priest Georges-Henri Lemaitre. Einstein told him his math was correct, but his physics abominable. In Einstein's gravitational equation, the cosmological constant is equivalent to an energy density in a vacuum, that is, space without matter. This number is 120  orders of magnitude higher than what is observed. Such a value is so high it would result in a universe that would expand so rapidly that galaxies would have no time to form.

Modern cosmology does not require that everything that exists began with a big bang. Hawking and Penrose long ago admitted that their 1970 theorem proving the universe began in a singularity, while not "mathematically" erroneous, did not apply to the origin of the universe.
This was based on Einstein's general relativity if it was correct. In the end their work was generally accepted and now days nearly everyone assumes the universe started with a big bang.

It is ironic that Hawking can't convince other physicist that there is in fact no singularity  at the beginning of the universe because it disappears once quantum effects are taken into account. Decide for yourself. Mine is just an opinion, or not, like always.  8-)   Bill
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Online PopeyesPappy

(No subject)
« Reply #8 on: June 07, 2013, 02:56:38 PM »
Quote from: "Jason78"
Quote from: "Solitary"
I don't want to get into it now because I don't have the evidence handy, buy they completely ignore any evidence that contradicts the theory. For example: the blue shifting of galaxies.

I call bullshit on that!
What are you calling bullshit on, the existence of blue shifting galaxies or that they contradict big bang theory?
Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.


(No subject)
« Reply #9 on: June 07, 2013, 03:06:42 PM »
Quote from: "Solitary"
So the raisons in a loaf of bread rising scenario for the Big bang is misleading then?


 Analogies are often used in science to illustrate a particular point, and is rarely meant to be used for some other points. Needless to say that any analogy is only valid to a certain extent.

Quote
If space is expanding how could a blue shift happen and galaxies that are red shifting collide which they do even in space that is expanding faster and faster, and thus gravity gets weaker? I agree if space is expanding slower than gravitational affects there will be blue shifts.


One does not exclude the other. Most galaxies are receding from us. The few that don't can be explained by local conditions.

Quote
I'm always surprised that atheist are skeptical of religions, but not science. Like I said I'll get back with a post on this subject when I have time and try to find evidence I can't for now.

Are we talking about atheists or scientists? Perhaps those atheists who do not question science might feel they are not competent to do so. They rely on them because (1) science has made its marks , and (2) that science has a mechanism of self-correction, that religion doesn't have. So they take the attitude: if science has it wrong for now, some smart scientist will fix it. Religion is based on dogma, and there is enormous resistance to change that. One would have to leave that particular denomination, and start a new one - why there are 33,000 christian denominations at last count.

Quote
I've always been of the opinion that good science tries to falsify its data and theories, not just keep finding evidence to support the theory. This is the very reason evolution is considered fact now, because every piece of evidence that was found to falsify it has been explained, and all evidence from various fields of science have confirmed it with new evidence.

Finding evidence to support a theory, and falsification are two different activities.  


Quote
The universe is mostly random motion, and because we live in a tiny pocket of complexity, we wrongly assume the universe is highly ordered.

Our theory tells us the the universe had to start with high order, and since the BB, its disorder is on the increase.

 
Quote
The idea behind the big bang was first proposed by an astronomer and Belgian Catholic priest Georges-Henri Lemaitre. Einstein told him his math was correct, but his physics abominable. In Einstein's gravitational equation, the cosmological constant is equivalent to an energy density in a vacuum, that is, space without matter.

Einstein put in the CC because in his times, galaxies were not known to be receding. But he knew his cosmological model would be highly unstable. So the CC was introduced to put stability in his model. It's only when Hubble demonstrated with a stack of data that the universe was expanding that Einstein realized that his equations did in fact lead to an expanding universe, and so he though his CC was a blunder. But now, with the universe accelerating, that CC has been resuscitated.

I don't know what Einstein told Lemaitre.

Quote
This number is 120  orders of magnitude higher than what is observed. Such a value is so high it would result in a universe that would expand so rapidly that galaxies would have no time to form.

You're conflating two things. That order of magnitude comes from QFT. If the CC from GR is given a value of 1, the calculated QFT vacuum energy would be 10[sup:22qjed79]120[/sup:22qjed79], clearly a mismatch.

Quote
Modern cosmology does not require that everything that exists began with a big bang. Hawking and Penrose long ago admitted that their 1970 theorem proving the universe began in a singularity, while not "mathematically" erroneous, did not apply to the origin of the universe.
This was based on Einstein's general relativity if it was correct. In the end their work was generally accepted and now days nearly everyone assumes the universe started with a big bang.

*** my underlining.

Except for Reinhartd and Turok ( Cyclic theory using Brane theory), Randal-Sundrum's model in 5 dimensions, Smolin's Fecund Theory, Penrose's CCC theory, to name a few.

Quote
It is ironic that Hawking can't convince other physicist that there is in fact no singularity  at the beginning of the universe because it disappears once quantum effects are taken into account. Decide for yourself. Mine is just an opinion, or not, like always.  8-)   Bill

Other physicists have no problems with Hawking. The general public, hmm, that's another matter.

Offline Sal1981

(No subject)
« Reply #10 on: June 07, 2013, 03:37:58 PM »
Quote from: "Colanth"
Well ...

No one actually doubted it before.  The consensus was just that there was something we weren't getting.  And that turns out to be correct - what we weren't getting was accurate data.

Of course, theists can jump on this as some sort of "proof" that science isn't reliable.
And that will only show that they are dishonest assholes. Of course they will.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman

(No subject)
« Reply #11 on: June 07, 2013, 03:45:56 PM »
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"
Quote from: "Jason78"
Quote from: "Solitary"
I don't want to get into it now because I don't have the evidence handy, buy they completely ignore any evidence that contradicts the theory. For example: the blue shifting of galaxies.

I call bullshit on that!
What are you calling bullshit on, the existence of blue shifting galaxies or that they contradict big bang theory?

Blue shifting galaxies are real, but they don't contradict the BBT.

(No subject)
« Reply #12 on: June 07, 2013, 04:07:35 PM »
Joseph, are you a scientist? You seem like one. xD

/is a compliment
Which means that to me the offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can\'t give way, is the offer of something not worth having.
[...]
Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty & wisdom, will come to you that way.
-Christopher Hitchens

(No subject)
« Reply #13 on: June 07, 2013, 05:01:33 PM »
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"
Joseph, are you a scientist? You seem like one. xD

/is a compliment

Thanks, I try my best. I also run this You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login, often seen on this forum.  :-D

Online PopeyesPappy

(No subject)
« Reply #14 on: June 07, 2013, 05:48:32 PM »
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"
What are you calling bullshit on, the existence of blue shifting galaxies or that they contradict big bang theory?

Blue shifting galaxies are real, but they don't contradict the BBT.

Yea, Andromeda is a blue shift galaxy. It is moving towards us. As you said before there are other phenomena that cause blue shift in the light from distant galaxies.

Question for you Joseph. We detect light emitted from a galaxy exactly one billion years ago. How far away was the galaxy when the light was emitted and how far away is it now?
Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.


 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk