Author Topic: Big Bang theory Gains New Evidence  (Read 9694 times)

(No subject)
« Reply #15 on: June 07, 2013, 06:30:37 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?

I smell an argument that is arguing over details.

There has been lots of data between Darwin and DNA, just like the data between Galileo and Hubble. But the hiccups inbetween do not negate the building blocks, which is what this article was saying.

It certainly is a mandate in science that all competing claims have the tires kicked. But over all long term we progress.

We still know that the big bang is fact and none of this negates that.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers." Obama
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline Colanth

(No subject)
« Reply #16 on: June 07, 2013, 09:48:22 PM »
No one's ignoring blue shift.  Andromeda's heading toward us, but the galaxy as a whole is expanding.  Andromeda's in our local group.  The velocity of its heading toward us far exceeds the velocity of the expansion of space on a local scale.
Afflicting the comfortable for 70 years.
Science builds skyscrapers, faith flies planes into them.

Offline Solitary

(No subject)
« Reply #17 on: June 08, 2013, 12:23:41 AM »
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!

Can you give evidence for what you said? A good theory should be falsifiable, how can the big bang theory and what happened billions of years ago and based on general relativity and mathematics which is questionable with regard to a singularity, and that doesn't take into account quantum mechanics be falsified? God did it? Bill
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Offline Solitary

(No subject)
« Reply #18 on: June 08, 2013, 01:16:11 AM »
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
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 10120, clearly a mismatch.


Thanks for an intelligent response with no cussing or name calling.

Quote
Are we talking about atheists or scientists
? I did say atheist. Does one have to be an expert to be skeptical? Are atheist theologians that question religion?

Quote
Finding evidence to support a theory, and falsification are two different activities.
I believe that was just my point, evidence that supports a theory should be falsifiable to be good science.

Quote
Our theory tells us the universe had to start with high order, and since the BB, its disorder is on the increase.
This is true, but that doesn't mean it started with an infinite singularity.

Quote
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 10120, clearly a mismatch.
You are probably correct on that. My information is from from physicist Hugh Ross and physicist Leonard Susskind, as well as a friend that is a physicist, that are all Christian apologists.
I sure wish I had my original papers on the subject. All I can give is my understanding, opinions, and what modern physicists have to say about it. Nice math answer! I guess I'm done with this thread. I'll see what other controversies I can come up with---do we have freewill?  :-$  And are people determined to show we do?  [-(  Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Offline josephpalazzo

(No subject)
« Reply #19 on: June 08, 2013, 06:29:32 AM »
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"

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?

We can only tell what distance it was when the light was emitted and when it was received here. What happened in the meantime, we don't have any formula for that.

Offline josephpalazzo

(No subject)
« Reply #20 on: June 08, 2013, 06:46:45 AM »
Quote from: "Solitary"

Are we talking about atheists or scientists
?
Quote
I did say atheist. Does one have to be an expert to be skeptical? Are atheist theologians that question religion?

Good point. But I did say that non-scientist atheists most likely rely on the fact that science has a self-correcting mechanism. Scientists are eager to prove that other scientists are wrong. Imagine if you did prove that Einstein was wrong, you'be in line for the Nobel prize and world famous. OTOH, if you tried to prove your local minister wrong, you would probably be banned from that congregation.

Quote
Quote
Finding evidence to support a theory, and falsification are two different activities.
I believe that was just my point, evidence that supports a theory should be falsifiable to be good science.

I belive this is not quite right. It's not that every single evidence should be falsifiable, but that the theory should be falsifiable. For example, finding a rabbit fossil in the precambrian area would falsify the theory of evolution, but not that every single fossil found should be falsifiable.

Quote
Quote
Our theory tells us the universe had to start with high order, and since the BB, its disorder is on the increase.
This is true, but that doesn't mean it started with an infinite singularity.

Most scientists are aware that a singularity is a mathematical point, not a real point. And if a theory contains one, it's a red flag telling us that the theory is incomplete and needs major modifications.

Offline Solitary

(No subject)
« Reply #21 on: June 08, 2013, 10:00:24 AM »
Quote
Which evidence is being ignored?
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Offline Solitary

(No subject)
« Reply #22 on: June 08, 2013, 10:23:33 AM »
Quote
Most scientists are aware that a singularity is a mathematical point, not a real point. And if a theory contains one, it's a red flag telling us that the theory is incomplete and needs major modifications.

And yet the original Big Bang theory said the universe started with a singularity. I'm not aware a singularity is a mathematical "point." I thought in math it was a singular point and in astronomy it was a the mathematical representation of a black hole. The math backing up the Big Bang has a singularity in it, that cannot be ignored because it shows the theory needs major modifications which have been done now.

Quote
I belive this is not quite right. It's not that every single evidence should be falsifiable, but that the theory should be falsifiable. For example, finding a rabbit fossil in the precambrian area would falsify the theory of evolution, but not that every single fossil found should be falsifiable

Absolutely! And the fact that the Big Bang has a singularity in it is like finding a fossil in the wrong time period. The very reason I am skeptical of the theory as it was originally and why evidence that contradicts the theory should not be ignored. Thanks for all your input with intelligent arguments. Bill
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Offline PopeyesPappy

(No subject)
« Reply #23 on: June 08, 2013, 11:53:31 AM »
@ Solitary

I'm not a big fan of an infinitely small singularity or inflation. I prefer the Big Bang happening over a larger area which would negate the need for inflation.

From what I have read Penrose does not claim the concentric circles in the CMB as evidence the Big Bang never happened. He cites them of evidence of cyclic universe which has experienced multiple Big Bang type events. Neither does he claim that the CMB in these areas is older than the universe. Rather he claims the circles are the result of disturbances in space time that are the remnants of earlier events. The radiation itself is the remnant of our Big Bang.
Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.


Offline Solitary

Re: Big Bang theory Gains New Evidence
« Reply #24 on: June 08, 2013, 12:41:53 PM »
Thanks for your response! This an interesting subject. The evidence coming in is coming in faster than the theory can be modified. It is still my "opinion" that the universe just is with no creation or astronomical singularity. When anyone finds new thoughts by cosmologist on the new evidence, or their own opinions on this subject, post it here. I'm interested. Bill
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Offline josephpalazzo

(No subject)
« Reply #25 on: June 08, 2013, 12:47:28 PM »
Quote from: "Solitary"
Quote
Which evidence is being ignored?

There are galaxies older than the universe for one, and the radiation from the Big Bang is older is another one.

The WMAP results in 2003 suggest that the Universe is older than what we had calculated, so those discrepancies have disappeared.


Quote
Scientist claims entire universe existed before Big Bang Cosmic radiation discovered by NASA is older than Big Bang Universe left "trail" of radiation forming in concentric circles
Professor Roger Penrose says that cosmic radiation discovered by one of NASA's telescopes is older than the Big Bang.
The researcher shows that the cosmic radiation background (CMB) formed in concentric circles that had cooled to a temperature of -270C over the 14 billion years since the universe came into being.
Prof Penrose and his colleague Professor Vahe Gurzadyan of the Yerevan State University in Armenia claim to have 12 examples of the circles, some of which have five rings - meaning that the objects had five massive events in their history.
The rings appear around clusters of galaxy where the background radiation is incredibly low.
The scientists believe the circles are imprints of violent gravitational forces generated by black holes that existed long before the Big Bang.
The research casts doubt upon the widely-held theory that the universe has continued to expand since the Big Bang and will continue to do so until it ceases to exist.
Prof Penrose says that his research shows that all matter in the universe will eventually be consumed by black holes, leaving only energy behind which will in turn trigger the next Big Bang.
"In the scheme that I'm proposing, you have an exponential expansion but it's not in our aeon - I use the term to describe [the period] from our Big Bang until the remote future," Prof Penrose told the BBC.
"I claim that this aeon is one of a succession of such things, where the remote future of the previous aeons somehow becomes the Big Bang of our aeon."

Penrose's claims have been debunked.

See:
(1) You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

(2) You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login




Quote

None of that puts the BBT in jeopardy. Scientists are gathering information, which is what they're  supposed to do. That is the way a model gets either refined or is put away if the evidence are contradictory to the theory. Most scientists believed that the BBT is a description of the universe from 13,8 billion years ago to the present day. But that leaves the door open that this is just a phase, and perhaps, the universe was undergoing a different phase prior to the 13.8 billion years. On that there are many theories besides Penrose who are betting what that theory is, Reinahrdt and Smolin, to name a couple.



Quote from: "Solitary"
Quote
Most scientists are aware that a singularity is a mathematical point, not a real point. And if a theory contains one, it's a red flag telling us that the theory is incomplete and needs major modifications.

And yet the original Big Bang theory said the universe started with a singularity. I'm not aware a singularity is a mathematical "point." I thought in math it was a singular point and in astronomy it was a the mathematical representation of a black hole. The math backing up the Big Bang has a singularity in it, that cannot be ignored because it shows the theory needs major modifications which have been done now.

Hmm, that is not quite right. The BBT has a singularity, and that's why it is considered as incomplete. The BBT is derived from GR, and GR fails miserably at the Planck scale as it ignores quantum effects. Perhaps, if a quantum theory of gravity is developped we may possibly escape this singularity.

Quote
Absolutely! And the fact that the Big Bang has a singularity in it is like finding a fossil in the wrong time period. The very reason I am skeptical of the theory as it was originally and why evidence that contradicts the theory should not be ignored.

That would be the wrong analogy. More to do with QM. See above answer.

Offline Solitary

Re: Big Bang theory Gains New Evidence
« Reply #26 on: June 08, 2013, 09:16:59 PM »
:) Thanks for the info and update. It's nice having a rational disagreement and having new evidence presented. Am I wrong with thinking the universe we are in is unbounded, eternal, and not created from an astronomical singularity, but just is, and ever changing?  8-)  Bill
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Offline Solitary

(No subject)
« Reply #27 on: June 09, 2013, 01:26:46 AM »
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Offline josephpalazzo

(No subject)
« Reply #28 on: June 09, 2013, 09:16:48 AM »
Quote from: "Solitary"

Inflation Theory came forth in the 1970's, and Alan Guth is the guy who put it out. It is a theory that was added by hand to the original BBT in order to explain three things (1) flatness, (2) horizon, and (3) the lack of magnetic monopoles. So it was welcomed as a great success. But in the intervening times, a lot of things happened - the internet, better satellite communication, and the launching of several telescopes in outer space unimpeded by the diffraction of light from our atmosphere. So now, we are finding that the universe is not as uniform as it was believed in those days. And there was always that uneasiness with the BBT starting from a singularity - as I pointerd out, this means the theory is incomplete. So the data coming from those space telescopes seem to indicate that there are signs of pre-bang activities still in our past and hopefully these will make a difference in how we need to amend the present paradigm. And I believe this is welcoming news.

Quote
Isn't science fun? Bill

If your head has stopped spinning carry on!

 How is time passing now and during the formation of our universe?

Is time a general property of nature or is it invented by us to describe processes in nature? Is it a property of material or is it only invented by us? And, what is the meaning of the passing of time? Is time always passing with the same speed 300,000 Kilometers  a second? Can our measure of time on an atomic clock be considered as an inherent property of nature?

We can say time is passing as changes occur, events happen. Changes in energy, location, motion, composition. In these changes some energy is needed. If the inherent energy of a specific physical process which is used to carry out the change in the state of material  is higher the change occurs in a shorter time.

Is time also quantized. Therefore, a quantum of time belongs to a quantum of energy at a specific radiation frequency or wavelength.

 It can be shown that time is a phenomenon inherent in physical processes because there is a direct connection between time and energy involved in physical processes. This relationship presents strict connection between energy and time.
Just Noether's theorem tells us that a time translation symmetry yields the conservation of energy. So we know for quite a long time that energy and time are intimately linked.

 
Quote
How about the formation of Earth when it was erupted from the Sun. At that time the Earth had an extremely high nuclear activity. Its nuclear processes had an extremely high  energy and consequently the changes in the state of the Earth were carried out in an extremely short time.
This has to be taken into consideration when the age of our universe and earth are estimated.

Nuclear activity and time are not related in any way.

Quote

In that case the mass of the material is increased and the use or deliver of the same amount of energy will occur during a longer interval of time. In other words, at relativistic speed, time is slowed down, the same action needs longer time. That is in complete agreement with general relativity theory.

Time dilation is strictly a phenomenon between different observers who are moving with respect to each other. It has nothing to do with energy.



 
Quote

The universe seems to be showing its age, now calculated at 13.8 billion years, 80 million years older than scientists had thought. It's got about 3.2 per cent more width, it has more matter than dark energy, and it is expanding about 3.1 per cent more slowly.  I'm getting a headache now.  :rolleyes:  Bill

All these measurements are within a range of precision. As our measuring devices get better, those measurements will be better and better refined. Part of the territory.

Offline PopeyesPappy

(No subject)
« Reply #29 on: June 09, 2013, 10:55:13 AM »
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"

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?

We can only tell what distance it was when the light was emitted and when it was received here. What happened in the meantime, we don't have any formula for that.
That is what I'm asking. If it took 1 billion years for the light to get here, where was the source in relation to us when the light was emitted? Where is the source is relation to us when the light arrives?

I have a couple of problems figuring this out for myself. The math is beyond my skill set, and my calculator crashes and burns when I try to plug in really small numbers (rate of expansion 7 x 10[sup:3c6i60hu]-7[/sup:3c6i60hu] m/s per meter) and really big numbers (speed of light in m/s, seconds in a billion years) in the same calculation.
Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.


 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk