<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If I remember correctly in the book A Brief History of Time Steven Hawkings tells a story about a conference held by the Pope on the subject of the Big Bang. After the talks the Pope stood up and said something like "It's ok to do research into what's happened after the big bang but don't look into what happened before it because that's the realm of God and shouldn't be messed with". Steven Hawkings then says "I'm glad the Pope didn't understand a word of my presentation"!Anyway, it seems that I've read something about "before" the big bang. Is the science of this sill just guess work? <br /> Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>I agree with Hawking. The subjugation of human skepticism and examination is one of the greatest evils perpetrated on humankind... whether done by the Catholic Church or the institution of evolution, or whoever. </p><p>Freedom of discourse was one of the great ideals of our country's founders, and giving to all a right to make their views, so long as those are kept within the bounds of decent speech, heard. I despise any who would seek to deprive others of such God-given rights, regardless of what labels they are called by. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Pasteur disproved the very old notion that maggots arose from rotting meat, mice from moldy grain and similar ideas. That has nothing whatever to do with abiogenesis as the origin of life.[/quote]</p><p>As I understand his experiments, he removed the possibility of outside influences through a flask experiment, so that he essentially created a sterile environment, and showed that life could not occur within it. To this day, there is no evidence that life can arise from a sterile environment. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nobody knows why the Big Bang occurrec, and in fact the notion of causality with respect to the Big Bang has no meaning, since there is no measure of time with which to describe the dynamics -- there is no "before" the Big Bang. The understanding of the Big Bang comes from general relativity and the predicted singularity is not essential to the conclusion that the universe was in the distant past in a very compressed state -- only a few centimeters in diameter. And, yes, the process involved in the Big Bang prediction is completely scientific, including the observation that the predicted singularity indicates a limit to our current understanding.</DIV></p><p>Hmm... I'm sure I've heard of this theory before, but could you provide me with a name for it so I can research it further? I know the Steady State and several others got debunked, but this one I'm not sure about. However, I still don't get the basic premise. I mean, I get the basic premise of compressing the universe with so much black-hole-like gravity that time stops applying. But it still doesn't explain why the universe would be compressed like that, how it got uncompressed, how it got compressed in the first place, how it could have anything of a physical nature inside it - compressed or not given the concept of absolute nothing, and if time didn't exist in such a compressed state how anything could occur. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hmm... I'm sure I've heard of this theory before, but could you provide me with a name for it so I can research it further? I know the Steady State and several others got debunked, but this one I'm not sure about. However, I still don't get the basic premise. I mean, I get the basic premise of compressing the universe with so much black-hole-like gravity that time stops applying. But it still doesn't explain why the universe would be compressed like that, how it got uncompressed, how it got compressed in the first place, how it could have anything of a physical nature inside it - compressed or not given the concept of absolute nothing, and if time didn't exist in such a compressed state how anything could occur. <br />Posted by joshuaz</DIV></p><p>Certainly there is evidence that life can arise from a sterile environment. The Earth is not eternal, and we are here.</p><p>To research the Big Bang try starting with Google. The theory is explained in many many places and you will find references there.</p><p>The universe did not get compressed, the verbage of which assumes it was no compressed before the big bang, which itself assumes that there was a "before", and both of those assumptions are unsubstantiated.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>....The universe did not get compressed, the verbage of which assumes it was no compressed before the big bang, which itself assumes that there was a "before", and both of those assumptions are unsubstantiated. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />I've heard that if you took all the forces and stuff in the universe and put it all together everything would cancel out and leave zero. Sort of like having several credit cards, spending money with them then moving the balance from account to account. You get all this stuff from nothing! </p><p>Did I hear this right?</p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All the laws I see suggest that nothing material can come from nothing. The law of conservation says matter can not be created or destroyed, but somehow it came to be. Unless the creator or creating essence is non-physical, spirit, or whatever you want to call it, the existence of all that now is doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The problem with Big Bang theory is that in schools it's taught often as fact, not simply a likely possibility. I know one LiveScience article mentioned that what best fits the facts with the fewest assumptions is what should be assumed to be the case. Well, Big Bang theory assumes, contrary to known facts, that stuff can materialize from absolute nothingness. Posted by joshuaz</DIV></p><p>No, the Big-Bang does <strong>not</strong> assume that stuff can materialize from absolute nothingness! It goes back as far at it can, and wherever it goes there is always <em>something</em> there, and then it <em>stops</em> as it reaches the point where our known laws of physics completely break down (or perhaps, were formed!). You cannot use the known laws of physics to predict how the known laws of physics <em>came to be</em>! You can only use them to predict situations where they are already in existance. </p><p> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The evolutionary theories tied to it assume that carbon levels remained constant despite the unparalleled global catastrophes occurring (meteor showers, ice ages, floods, etc.), that animals can change into entirely different species even though this has never been witnessed, that evolutionary speed once moved at a much faster rate (even though again this has never been witnessed), and that an ice age is the more likely explanation for dino extinction than a global flood (even though cultures worldwide bear reference to the latter). Posted by joshuaz</DIV></p><p>How can any evolutionary <em>event</em> be witnessed, if it is a gradual process? All we can do is look back over the fossils and the genetic evidence and make a prediction of what happened. The best scientific prediction, using the available evidence, is evolution. <br /><br /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The evolutionary theories tied to it assume that carbon levels remained constant despite the unparalleled global catastrophes occurring (meteor showers, ice ages, floods, etc.), that animals can change into entirely different species even though this has never been witnessed, that evolutionary speed once moved at a much faster rate (even though again this has never been witnessed), and that an ice age is the more likely explanation for dino extinction than a global flood (even though cultures worldwide bear reference to the latter). Even when judging universal age, one is assuming that light travels at the same speed through space and its 'dark matter' as it does here through earth's atmosphere.My point is simply that there are an awful lot of assumptions being made by the other side as well. <br />Posted by joshuaz</DIV><br /><br />I just had to respond to the many errors in this paragraph.</p><p>1. The theory of evolution does not assume carbon levels remained constant.</p><p>2. The theory of evolution does not asssume that evolution "once moved at a much faster rate".</p><p>3. It is not assumed that that dinosaurs became extinct due to an ice age.</p><p>4. There is no evidence - zero - that there was a world wide flood. Myths, traditions, or stories are not evidence.</p><p>5. Scientist know for a fact that light does not travel at the same speed through space as it does in the earths atmosphere.</p><p>You can believe whatever you want and there is no way any scientist can prove you are wrong. The problem is you cannot use science to support your belief in a young earth that is in accordance with a literal translation of the bible - the evidence does not match up with the book.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I just had to respond to the many errors in this paragraph.1. The theory of evolution does not assume carbon levels remained constant.2. The theory of evolution does not asssume that evolution "once moved at a much faster rate".3. It is not assumed that that dinosaurs became extinct due to an ice age.4. There is no evidence - zero - that there was a world wide flood. Myths, traditions, or stories are not evidence.5. Scientist know for a fact that light does not travel at the same speed through space as it does in the earths atmosphere.You can believe whatever you want and there is no way any scientist can prove you are wrong. The problem is you cannot use science to support your belief in a young earth that is in accordance with a literal translation of the bible - the evidence does not match up with the book. <br />Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>All your observations are correct.</p><p>However, you missed a LOT of errors in that post. In fact, that post seems to consist of nothing but errors.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><font size="2">What's been bothering me is the Hubble COSMOS survey and SDSS maps. One might expect an expanding shell of material or a "ripple in a pond" appearance from the Big Bang but the maps don't indicate anything like that. Granted, there is the time difference, looking back into the past, but the maps don't even look oval. Is this just an indicatation of how much of of the universe we can see? Can't begin to guess with what little info I've been able to find.</font></p><p>http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/html/heic0701.html</p>
<p>Well COSMOS only covers an area of the sky roughly nine times the size of the Moon, and SDSS covers a little over a quarter of the sky, so both surveys are just "slices" of the universe, rather than an overall map.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What's been bothering me is the Hubble COSMOS survey and SDSS maps. One might expect an expanding shell of material or a "ripple in a pond" appearance from the Big Bang but the maps don't indicate anything like that. Granted, there is the time difference, looking back into the past, but the maps don't even look oval. Is this just an indicatation of how much of of the universe we can see? Can't begin to guess with what little info I've been able to find.http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/html/heic0701.html <br />Posted by SHU</DIV></p><p>There are some ripples in the CMBR that are consistent with the predictions of inflation. This article by Guth might be of interest to you and it includes a discussion of those ripples. <br />http://web.mit.edu/physics/alumniandfriends/physicsjournal_fall_02_cosmology.pdf</p><p>If you want to chase inflatin further, Guth's web site is a good place to start. It has some links to his ArXiv papers as well. http://web.mit.edu/physics/facultyandstaff/faculty/alan_guth.html</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><font size="2">Thanks, both of you. Those answers were not off the top of your head.</font></p><p><font size="2">Cosmology is new to me but becoming more essential. Gonna have to look into the Guth site and the physics of the inflationary period, particularly the transition.</font></p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks, both of you. Those answers were not off the top of your head.Cosmology is new to me but becoming more essential. Gonna have to look into the Guth site and the physics of the inflationary period, particularly the transition. <br />Posted by SHU</DIV><br /> </p><p>Actually they were pretty much off the top of my head, although I did have to find the right URLs.</p><p>Guth wrote a book for a general audience, called <em>The Inflationary Universe.</em> You would probably enjoy it. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thank You DrRocket for your explanation and singularity is pretty clear to me now, but what about the rest of what he had said:"I can imagine that an undefined material blew up or decompressed like an explosion, with the material flying directly out from the centre, there being no force to direct it otherwise.(is there a force?) For some strange reason a piece forms a nucleus, and now the tricky bit. In defiance of the laws of motion an electron takes a sharp turn, without any cause, and goes into a very tight orbit around the nucleus, making an atom.(is there a defiance of the laws of motion?) There is nothing known in science to make the electron go into orbit, it should go straight ahead, as there is no possible force to make it turn at the right place, and stay in orbit.(???)How would nuclei form and then why would electrons go into a tight high speed orbit around them? This is the opposite of what we see in an atomic explosion..."PS And Thank You for the book recommendation, I've found one on Amazon and placed an order. <br />Posted by kristina3313</DIV><br />Initially, it wasn't big, nor was there a 'bang'. There is no 'center' to the 'explosion' of the Big Bang, space itself is expanding. The Universe has no center, and no edge. It is incorrect to visualize that the Big Bang was an explosion in 3-Dimensional space. At the instant of the bang, there was no 3D space. Tantalizing, huh? 
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div>
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Initially, it wasn't big, nor was there a 'bang'. There is no 'center' to the 'explosion' of the Big Bang, space itself is expanding. The Universe has no center, and no edge. It is incorrect to visualize that the Big Bang was an explosion in 3-Dimensional space. At the instant of the bang, there was no 3D space. Tantalizing, huh? <br />Posted by ZenGalacticore</DIV><br /><br />Absolutely... and mind blowing, awesome, fantastic! Oh and very addicting... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<br />Posted by ZenGalacticore</DIV><br /><br />Absolutely... and mind blowing, awesome, fantastic! Oh and very addicting... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>Stephen Hawking once said that asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking what is North of the North Pole, that it is a meaningless question. I for one believe that it won't be a meaningless question for long. The Large Hadron Collider, from what I've read, may make the question empirically meaningful in the near future, by discovering new particles of dark matter and others. The so-called 'God particle', for example. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Stephen Hawking once said that asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking what is North of the North Pole, that it is a meaningless question. I for one believe that it won't be a meaningless question for long. The Large Hadron Collider, from what I've read, may make the question empirically meaningful in the near future, by discovering new particles of dark matter and others. The so-called 'God particle', for example. <br />Posted by ZenGalacticore</DIV></p><p>And how does the Higgs boson make Hawking's observatin invalid ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Stephen Hawking once said that asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking what is North of the North Pole, that it is a meaningless question. I for one believe that it won't be a meaningless question for long. The Large Hadron Collider, from what I've read, may make the question empirically meaningful in the near future, by discovering new particles of dark matter and others. The so-called 'God particle', for example. <br />Posted by ZenGalacticore</DIV></p><p><font size="2" color="#ff0000">is like asking what is North of the North Pole<br /></font><br /><font size="2">North of North pole is 'space', 'empty space', or can call it 'northern space'. It's not meaningless if you observe the earth from space and name a 'direction' as 'north'.</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>is like asking what is North of the North PoleNorth of North pole is 'space', 'empty space', or can call it 'northern space'. It's not meaningless if you observe the earth from space and name a 'direction' as 'north'. <br />Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV></p><p>What you have observed is the difference between an imbedded manifold and an intrinsic manifold. The surface of the earth is a 2-manifold imbedded in 3-space. But the universe is an intrinsic 4-manifold, called space-time.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>is like asking what is North of the North PoleNorth of North pole is 'space', 'empty space', or can call it 'northern space'. It's not meaningless if you observe the earth from space and name a 'direction' as 'north'. <br /> Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV></p><p>Space has no preferred direction. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Space has no preferred direction. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br /><font size="2">Please don't think I'm competing with a genius. But I think Hawking may have had a blonde moment. Many geniuses do get blonde moments, Einstein had a few, I read.</font></p><p><font size="2">The other reason of my post is to point out another scenario, where earth ends, something else starts, in this case it is the space. If we go back in time, we'll find end of time (or start of time), but beyond that there may be start of something else (or end of something else). If we say there was nothing beyond t=0, it is the same as saying there's nothing after the earth, according to Hawking.</font></p><p><font size="2">All directions in space or on earth have a reference point, if we are heading towards andromeda, we can name our direction as north or south or eastomeda.</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Please don't think I'm competing with a genius. But I think Hawking may have had a blonde moment. Many geniuses do get blonde moments, Einstein had a few, I read.The other reason of my post is to point out another scenario, where earth ends, something else starts, in this case it is the space. If we go back in time, we'll find end of time (or start of time), but beyond that there may be start of something else (or end of something else). If we say there was nothing beyond t=0, it is the same as saying there's nothing after the earth, according to Hawking.All directions in space or on earth have a reference point, if we are heading towards andromeda, we can name our direction as north or south or eastomeda. <br /> Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV></p><p>North, south, east and west are arbitrary directions created by human to aid in navigation. It makes no sense for an explorer to reach the north pole and say, "Let's continue to head north." At this point, his only course is back south. At the north pole you can't even define which direction is east or west. Certainly, pointing to the sky above him and claiming that is north makes no sense whatever. How can he look at his map which is a representation of a closed 2-manifold (assuming his map is the shape of a globe) and point to the sky while simultaneously indicating which direction he should continue to travel on the surface? It can't be done.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Please don't think I'm competing with a genius. But I think Hawking may have had a blonde moment. Many geniuses do get blonde moments, Einstein had a few, I read.The other reason of my post is to point out another scenario, where earth ends, something else starts, in this case it is the space. If we go back in time, we'll find end of time (or start of time), but beyond that there may be start of something else (or end of something else). If we say there was nothing beyond t=0, it is the same as saying there's nothing after the earth, according to Hawking.All directions in space or on earth have a reference point, if we are heading towards andromeda, we can name our direction as north or south or eastomeda. <br />Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV></p><p>No, Hawking was not having a blonde moment. He was simply expressisng in simple terms the fact that when you apply general relativity to cosmology you get a 4-manifold of space time which predicts a singularity at t=0. It makes no sense to talk about any earlier time because there was no "earlier" time, in exactly the same sense that on the 2-manifold that represents the surface of the earth, there is no north of the north pole.</p><p>Yes you can name a direction in space to be north, but that has nothing whatever to do with the problem as it applies to the cosmological description of the universe. The universe is not imbedded in anything, so there is no direction normal to universe in which to move, unlike the case of the earth which is imbedded in a larger space.</p><p>It doesn't matter whether you call a new direction north, or eastomeda, there is no alternate direction to which one can apply a name when you are talking about the origin of space-time. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And how does the Higgs boson make Hawking's observatin invalid ? <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Higgs particles, Higgs fields, and, by extentsion, the Higgs ocean, are, first and foremost, theoretical physical constructs. IOWs, no one really knows. As far as unknown or theoretical particles moving through "space", and encountering 'drag' as they move through the Higgs "ocean of aether" space, and therefore obtaining mass, well, mass can become energy as easily as energy can become mass, Doc.</p><p>But that theoretical aspect of (unknown particle) physics doesn't really usurp or disqualify Hawking's initial answer to the empirical absurdity of asking what happened before the Big Bang. However, if we can identify the unknown particles that we suspect must have existed at the instant of the singularity and the subsequent event of 'expansion', and 10 to the negative billion seconds of the initial "Big Bang", then I guess we're well on our way to at least discovering a small fraction of the meaning of physical existence.</p><p>I don't think Hawking's question is invalid yet. Prove me wrong. I hope you can, I really do.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Higgs particles, Higgs fields, and, by extentsion, the Higgs ocean, are, first and foremost, theoretical physical constructs. IOWs, no one really knows. As far as unknown or theoretical particles moving through "space", and encountering 'drag' as they move through the Higgs "ocean of aether" space, and therefore obtaining mass, well, mass can become energy as easily as energy can become mass, Doc.But that theoretical aspect of (unknown particle) physics doesn't really usurp or disqualify Hawking's initial answer to the empirical absurdity of asking what happened before the Big Bang. However, if we can identify the unknown particles that we suspect must have existed at the instant of the singularity and the subsequent event of 'expansion', and 10 to the negative billion seconds of the initial "Big Bang", then I guess we're well on our way to at least discovering a small fraction of the meaning of physical existence.<strong>I don't think Hawking's question is invalid yet. Prove me wrong. I hope you can, I really do. <br /></strong>Posted by ZenGalacticore</DIV> [emphasis added]</p><p>You lost me. What you just said is in agreement with what I said, and I still agree with it. There is nothing about the Higgs boson that invalidates Hawking's observation.</p><p>A relation between the Higgs boson and Hawking's observation with respect to the big bang model which he derived from general relativity would probably require some sort of theory that includes both quantum field theory (the source of the prediction of the Higgs particle) and general relativity. That theory does not yet exist.</p><p>I can't prove you wrong. Neither can anybody else. I wish I could prove you either right or wrong. I can do neither.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> [emphasis added]You lost me. What you just said is in agreement with what I said, and I still agree with it. There is nothing about the Higgs boson that invalidates Hawking's observation.A relation between the Higgs boson and Hawking's observation with respect to the big bang model which he derived from general relativity would probably require some sort of theory that includes both quantum field theory (the source of the prediction of the Higgs particle) and general relativity. That theory does not yet exist.I can't prove you wrong. Neither can anybody else. I wish I could prove you either right or wrong. I can do neither. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />You lost me too. I guess we're all lost. Science is what we do when we don't know what we're doing. lol <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
See a dead Chinese satellite burn up as a brilliant fireball across the night sky (video)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
This Christmas Eve, humans will try to embrace a star
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 6
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram