Is There Proof The Big Bang Happened?

[TCH]

If there are any brave Ex-Christians out there, let them respond. I have little faith you will.

(Hows that for a challenge?)

 

If you don't know what Physics is you're in the wrong topic. Lets take a journey into the realm of Physics 101. Look up the following definitions:

 

Black Hole...: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

Big Bang.....: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

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

 

Not too much at once or you head will explode. So by definition before the Big Bang there was a tremendous Black Hole somewhere in the Universe (Since we don’t know hoe big the Universe is we can’t say it was in the ‘center’). Using integration on Newton's law of universal gravitation we should be able to see something amazing as the numbers for mass approach infinity and the distance approaches zero. We don’t. Why? Try dividing any number by zero. So here we are with a gigantic Black Hole than is crushing in on itself and based on the math there is no way physically for it to break apart. How then did the Big Bang happen?

[chefranden]

If there are any brave Ex-Christians out there, let them respond. I have little faith you will.

(Hows that for a challenge?)

 

If you don't know what Physics is you're in the wrong topic. Lets take a journey into the realm of Physics 101. Look up the following definitions:

 

Black Hole...: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

Big Bang.....: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

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

 

Not too much at once or you head will explode. So by definition before the Big Bang there was a tremendous Black Hole somewhere in the Universe (Since we don’t know hoe big the Universe is we can’t say it was in the ‘center’). Using integration on Newton's law of universal gravitation we should be able to see something amazing as the numbers for mass approach infinity and the distance approaches zero. We don’t. Why? Try dividing any number by zero. So here we are with a gigantic Black Hole than is crushing in on itself and based on the math there is no way physically for it to break apart. How then did the Big Bang happen?

 

It didn't.

 

There now that wasn't so scary.

 

chef, the brave Ex-Christian.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

First, and I'm not sure if you do, it is wrong to assume that the Big Bang theory takes us to the beginning of everything. It doesn't. It only takes us to a point in time when the universe was 10^-43 seconds old. Time itself has not gained its definition and this is known as Planck Time.

 

The short answer to your question is quantum mechanical tunneling. If your looking for inflationary explanations there is plenty of information out there. You can look into red shift/blue shift and the continued expansion of the universe. There is no point in anyone going into detail about it here because to be thorough enough you would have to write a book here in the forums, and there are books already written on the subject. I can't see doing all the work of typing out an entire explanation when you can get off your butt and find out for yourself.

[Skankboy]

Using integration on Newton's law of universal gravitation

Well, right off you've got a problem here. While Newton's laws are accurate to a point (they were good enough to get us on the moon), they aren't applicible when dealing w/quantum mechanics, esp those occuring around what are commonly known as "singularities". As chef pointed out there's no gaurantee the big bang even happened, several theories are currently in contention on this front.

 

And correct me if I'm wrong, but in another thread you just used the big bang as "proof" of the literal bible...

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Using integration on Newton's law of universal gravitation

Well, right off you've got a problem here. While Newton's laws are accurate to a point (they were good enough to get us on the moon), they aren't applicible when dealing w/quantum mechanics, esp those occuring around what are commonly known as "singularities". As chef pointed out there's no gaurantee the big bang even happened, several theories are currently in contention on this front.

 

And correct me if I'm wrong, but in another thread you just used the big bang as "proof" of the literal bible...

 

And the great thing about science is that it doesn't claim infallability and can change as knowledge progresses, literal Christianity cannot do that.

[Ouroboros]

Not too much at once or you head will explode. So by definition before the Big Bang there was a tremendous Black Hole somewhere in the Universe (Since we don’t know hoe big the Universe is we can’t say it was in the ‘center’).

 

Are you 100% certain about that explanation? Read the link you provided, it doesn't say "Black Hole" as the origin for the big bang. One theory is actually something you probably haven't heard about, a white hole. (I'm not kidding.)

[Asimov]

Um...the BB covers everything after Planck Epoch.

[TCH]

JGJ: Did you read the information pointed to by the links?

 

"In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from an enormously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago."

 

I'll do your work for you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_Time)

 

"Within the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, we can neither measure nor discern any difference between the universe at the time it first came into existence and the universe anything less than 1 Planck time later.

 

The estimated age of the Universe (4.3 x 10^17 s) is roughly 8 x 10^60 Planck times."

 

You said, "Time itself has not gained its definition and this is known as Planck Time." Why has time not been defined? There is no mathematical basis for your assumption. (Look up infinity)

 

I find that Science, as a whole, is more wrong than right. We've only figured out the good stuff in the last 100 years or so. Before then we had our collective heads stuck in the sand.

 

Since you know of this plethora of information on this topic, please list them. I like to read.

============================

Skankboy,

 

Overwhelmingly the evidence supports the theory of the 'Big Bang' from what I have read. There was contention in the 15th century surrounding whether the world was round or flat.

 

"And correct me if I'm wrong, but in another thread you just used the big bang as "proof" of the literal bible..."

 

Don't get ahead. This is a scientific discussion right now not religious.

============================

HanSolo,

 

As a matter of fact I have heard of this theory. In a nutshell, it deals with the existence of wormholes and how they are unidirectional. It's been around in Science Fiction books for a long time.

 

The problem is that there is absolutely no proof of it's existence. At least with the Black Hole we can see one in our own Galaxy. Yes, I know you can't see one but you can see the effects, just as you can see the effects of the Big Bang.

 

And yes I have read the links:

 

"A black hole is a concentration of mass ..."

 

"In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from an enormously dense and hot state ..."

 

I would have to say that all matter shoved into a single place is a concentration of mass, wouldn't you?

============================

Asimov

 

I thought you were dead? Well Isaac, logic dictates that there was something there prior to the BB or did it just come out of nowhere??

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

JGJ: Did you read the information pointed to by the links?

 

 

No, I didn't have to. I know enough about cosmology and astrophysics that I don't need to read Wiki's version.

 

"In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from an enormously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago."

 

I'll do your work for you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_Time)

 

One cannot say that the universe itself emerged from the big bang according to M theory/String Theory and to do so is purely hypothetical and currently beyond the ability of science to detect, only to theorize. Before Planck time, t = 0, we do not assume that nothing at all was in existance. Doing so would assume that an extraordinarily large violation of energy conservation, the first law of thermodynamics, took place at the beginning of time. The BB takes us back to the epoch of quantum gravity, like I said before, when the universe was only 10^-43 seconds old.

 

You said, "Time itself has not gained its definition and this is known as Planck Time." Why has time not been defined? There is no mathematical basis for your assumption. (Look up infinity)

 

According to Einstein's theory of general relativitity, space and time are not a preexisting arena in which the universe happens but are part of the physical universe. Because of this vital link between space and time, and the mass inventory of the cosmos, time itself began as the universe evolved out of its Planck time.

 

I find that Science, as a whole, is more wrong than right. We've only figured out the good stuff in the last 100 years or so. Before then we had our collective heads stuck in the sand.

 

And who didn't?

 

I thought you were dead? Well Isaac, logic dictates that there was something there prior to the BB or did it just come out of nowhere??

 

Read String Theory and M theory.

[Ouroboros]

Well, white hole is a option (not only science fiction), brane theory could be the answer (doesn't require anything "before" the big bang, at least not in our universe), or maybe the answer is found in LQG (which seams, from the experiments, to explain the breakdown of gravity and physics before Planck time, and a large singularity can exist without behaving like a black hole). Truly, I don't know. And to be honest, I don't think it matters to me if Big bang as such is proven or not, it's a theory in the works, and it could be replaced with a new one. That's the beauty of science. Nothing has to be dogma, written in a book, that has to be accepted against observations 2000 years later. Regarding the BB, it's just that many properties of the universe points to a common origin, and Big Bang Theory is the one that fits best right now. But there are scientists that argue that Big Bang have flaws. (Especially considering the current acceleration of the expansion)

 

So in my opinion, BB is just the one that is most likely, or most plausible explanation as of now. The evidence can be interpreted as such, but maybe could be interpreted different.

[Guest GrewUpFundie]

Isn't the cosmic background radiation generally thought of as one of the best pieces of evidence for the Big Bang?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microw...round_radiation

[Ouroboros]

Isn't the cosmic background radiation generally thought of as one of the best pieces of evidence for the Big Bang?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microw...round_radiation

Yes, but I think the radion is uneven, and so is the distribution of galaxies and sizes. The lack of uniformity creates a problem, and dark matter and other ideas are trying to explain it.

[Asimov]

I thought you were dead? Well Isaac, logic dictates that there was something there prior to the BB or did it just come out of nowhere??

 

The Big Bang is an event, moron, so yes it could have just come out of nowhere.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Isn't the cosmic background radiation generally thought of as one of the best pieces of evidence for the Big Bang?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microw...round_radiation

Yes, but I think the radion is uneven, and so is the distribution of galaxies and sizes. The lack of uniformity creates a problem, and dark matter and other ideas are trying to explain it.

 

I think the biggest problem to overcome is the what is known as the "Horizon Problem." We are limited to what we can view because of the nature of the speed of light and the expansion of the universe. We can only observe local patterns in galaxy location and speed and radiation that is distorted by the limited speed of light and our ability to detect. If someone was standing in the Andromeda Galaxy and took a look at earth they would see earth before humans evolved to the stage they are now and that is the closest galaxy to our own. They would also see time here on earth moving slightly faster than we observe time since the galaxy is moving closer to ours.

 

We can only theorize about what is beyond our own limited view and weigh the local phenomenon.

[mwc]

I find that Science, as a whole, is more wrong than right. We've only figured out the good stuff in the last 100 years or so. Before then we had our collective heads stuck in the sand.

Science, by and large, has done an absolutely amazing job for only 100 years time. It alone is responsible for the things that make your daily life what it is. The internet, medicine, television, radio, air travel and so on. Science wins hands down especially compared to "god." Show me what god has done in the past 100 years? Anything? Anything at all? Oh, I know, he inspired hate and violence and wars (science did help god out though so it must be doing god's will). It scared millions with the firm hold that fundamentism and evangelicals have on soceity. Sorry god loses big time and history bears that out. Science in whatever form has outshined god in every single field.

 

However, I digress. You mention we had our collective heads in the sand. Why would that be? That's right, the church. Goddidit was the answer and to look for alternatives was heresy. Who cured the plague? God? No, it was a punishment from god (according to people in those times). Science by way of people figuring out that cleanliness stopped the spread. Who got the credit? God (Cleanliness is next to godliness even though it was the xians that said you should not bath too much). God fails and fails and fails. Even alchemists did better than god even though it was illegal to practice it in later xian controlled societies (where would iron and all those metals that helped build society be without them).

 

Science starts off and sometimes they get it right and sometimes they don't. Science promises nothing but delivers plenty. You don't need to believe or worship science for it to benefit you. You have to be patient though as it goes through its process (which is laid out for all to know). Science is designed to fail so that only the best solutions get the attention and are refined (and if a better solution comes along even that previous work may be discarded in its favor). A thousand "bad" ideas may get tested but if it produces that *one* good one that saves or enhances lives then it's doing it's job. You see this as 1000:1 failure though. You're got it all wrong. People used to have their lives destroy like crazy from Polio. Did god step in a help? No. Science did. Did science solve canced? Not yet but I can assure you that mortality rates are falling as a result of SCIENCE and NOT god.

 

So pull your head out and listen to your own false statements. Here's what you really mean "Science does not work in absolutes nor does it have 100% of the answers, right or wrong, out of the gate. That frightens me and I need to cling to a book that lays out everything in an absolute fashion even though it's more wrong than right I prefer that security blanket." Tell the truth and we'll all get along just fine.

 

Science takes time and knowledge. Why was there a copper age instead of starting with a steel age? Because they did not have the knowledge or ability. By your reasoning this is a failure. Your logic is flawed since science is not a god but you want it to be (object all you want but your attitude reveals that comparison...science evolves but god gets it right on the first try). If we could study the phenomenon in space close up in a detailed long term manner with all the proper instruments then we'd make a lot larger strides on getting you the answers you desire. We're not even in a metal age yet in that regard but in the stone age. Someday maybe we'll visit these places but we'll all likely be long dead before then. Science will keep doing what it promises though and that is trying to find the best answer based on the information it has at that time.

 

Sorry for hijacking the thread everyone. For some reason this statement rubbed me the wrong way today. Please go back to you origins of the universe discussion.

 

mwc

[♦ nivek ♦]

Not very brave, nor very caring. Wasn't there at beinning, nor do I believe the End will happen while I watch.

 

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

We can chase the cosmological reasoning about when and why things started forever and not find a solution that pleases everyone.

 

Amazing the demand by sectarians to K NO W when and where "The Begining" was...

 

Not a reason to stop looking for answers, but sure isn't a reason to fire off a shitstorm over things still being investigated.

 

kL

[Asimov]

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

The dinosaur.

[quicksand]

How then did the Big Bang happen?

Formally: Argument from Ignorance.

 

Nice set-up though. Good amount of snarkie arrogance in your tone.

 

I find that Science, as a whole, is more wrong than right. We've only figured out the good stuff in the last 100 years or so. Before then we had our collective heads stuck in the sand.

And this is important to your "argument" how? The principles of nature are much harder to discern than just making something up while sitting around the campfire, oppressing your property of women, and forging primitive bronze axes.

 

Don't get ahead. This is a scientific discussion right now not religious.

Bah. No it's not. You'll say "You see you chickenshit ex-christians cannont account for the BB without God. The Bible tells us that God existed before all. God created the BB. I win. Submit to God on your knees before your heathen-asses are roasted for a billion years. Or something close to this.

 

The Bible might have a few observations about nature contained in it, but its not a science book. Besides, I've seen ppl like you come and go on this board and I've already called you out.

 

I would have to say that all matter shoved into a single place is a concentration of mass, wouldn't you?

And even if you were to ignore "space" on the quantum-level, how is this important or even relevant to your "argument" above?

 

logic dictates that there was something there prior to the BB or did it just come out of nowhere??

Again, this is a set-up based on an argument from ignorance. Simply, your setting up a strawman.

[TCH]

Quicksand:

 

"Formally: Argument from Ignorance."

 

A man who does not admit his ignorance is a fool. I'm no fool.

 

"Nice set-up though. Good amount of snarkie arrogance in your tone."

 

No arrogance, just a question for the people on the side of the Big Bang theory. I'm on that side but I could be swayed by a good argument.

 

"And this is important to...”

 

It's not. It is just a statement.

 

"Again, this is a set-up based on an argument from ignorance. Simply, your setting up a strawman."

 

What part of this did I misrepresent? You do know what a strawman/strawdog argument is don't you? I don't see this as a setup and I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone here. I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion on the subject of the Big Bang, as a theory, for the beginning of the universe. From your argument you are trying to make this a religious discussion? Why? You don't need religion to find the answers or prove your statements do you?

 

Not every Christian is out to get you. Fear not, or "No Fear" if you like.

[TCH]

mwc:

 

I have no idea why that statement set you off. It's true. Science is based on observation, hypothesis and experimentation. Invariably you are going to make more mistakes than get things right. I guess, from my perspective, you took it as an attack on the scientific community. It's not, it’s an observation based on 30+ years of reading Science books.

 

The failures in science are actually more important than the successes. In my opinion, no one ever learned anything from succeeding.

 

http://www.testermanscifi.org/AsimovQuotesPart2.html

Asimov's Corollary: "If a scientific heresy is ignored or denounced by the general public, there is a chance it may be right. If a scientific heresy is emotionally supported by the general public, it is almost certainly wrong." In this same article: "It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong....It is those who support ideas for emotional reasons only who can't change." (from 1977 essay "Asimov's Corollary," reprinted in Quasar, Quasar, Burning Bright, 1977)

 

(Note: This is the real Asimov, not the emotional one making posts in this forum)

[quicksand]

Quicksand:

 

"Formally: Argument from Ignorance."

 

A man who does not admit his ignorance is a fool. I'm no fool.

 

"Nice set-up though. Good amount of snarkie arrogance in your tone."

 

No arrogance, just a question for the people on the side of the Big Bang theory. I'm on that side but I could be swayed by a good argument.

 

"And this is important to...”

 

It's not. It is just a statement.

 

"Again, this is a set-up based on an argument from ignorance. Simply, your setting up a strawman."

 

What part of this did I misrepresent? You do know what a strawman/strawdog argument is don't you? I don't see this as a setup and I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone here. I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion on the subject of the Big Bang, as a theory, for the beginning of the universe. From your argument you are trying to make this a religious discussion? Why? You don't need religion to find the answers or prove your statements do you?

 

Not every Christian is out to get you. Fear not, or "No Fear" if you like.

Um, then whats the point? You've stated that "here was something there prior to the BB or did it just come out of nowhere."

 

So get to the point already.

[Ouroboros]

I have no idea why that statement set you off. It's true. Science is based on observation, hypothesis and experimentation. Invariably you are going to make more mistakes than get things right.

I don't agree to that. Because then you should have to make the same conclusion about your religion, and all observations you've ever done in your life. As humans, as babies, we observe, imitate and experiment. It's the human nature, and that's how we learn and become talking, writing, walking, thinking human beings. Basically you're saying that most likely we don't understand each other at all, because both you and I don't understand writing or reading. We made a mistake when we learned it through observing and testing.

 

I guess, from my perspective, you took it as an attack on the scientific community. It's not, it’s an observation based on 30+ years of reading Science books.

So from your reading, what is your take on the new theories of LQG (looped quantum gravity, not "loopy" )?

The computer model seems to solve the problem with the condensed "big ball before big bang".

[TCH]

Quicksand:

 

"Um, then whats the point? You've stated that "here was something there prior to the BB or did it just come out of nowhere."

 

So get to the point already."

 

Did I miss something? I think you're looking for a trap where there is none. I'm not hiding behind a tree or a rock ready to say, "Ha-ha! You blew it!"

 

The search for knowledge is the point.

 

I've read Hawking, Feynman, Asimov, Sagan, Einstein and many others. I've attended seminars and lectures on all sorts of scientific topics. I always go back to physics because I find it the most interesting of all scientific endeavors. I've posted on other sites and run up against thickheaded PhD's like Eddington who either say, "well that's the way it is" or they change the subject rather than admit, "I have no idea."

 

By your attitude you think just because I'm a Christian I have no right to learn or ask questions. I'm sorry you feel that way. If you want to argue religious ideologies then start up another topic or point me to one where I will express my views. This is a scientific discussion with the only point being the gaining of knowledge.

[chefranden]

Bravo, THC.

 

It is difficult for a Christian to hold his/her own here let alone hoist us on our own petard.

 

Stick around.

[TCH]

HanSolo:

 

I might as well give up on this but I think I'll try it one more time...We are not talking about religion or my personal beliefs. Whether or not God exists is not relevant to this particular discussion.

 

"So from your reading, what is your take on the new theories of LQG (looped quantum gravity, not "loopy" )?"

 

It's one of several Quantum Gravity theories. Depending on whom you speak with it has promise but I'm not ready to accept it yet.