Big Bang

[Wiccan_Child]

Okay, I understand better now why you say we don't know about a beginning. But I'm going to try once more on this:

How do you measure the time starting from a present tense verb like "existing"? It doesn't indicate any point from which to measure.

Also, if we subtract a number from itself we get 0. How can t = 10[sup]-43[/sup] be even theoretically meaningful if t = 0 is not theoretically meaningful?

The singularity is the moment we arbitrarily define as t = 0. t = 10[sup]-43[/sup] s is a length of time after that moment.

The point of the Big Bang theory is that it posits the existence of this singularity in space, time, matter, and energy, an infinitely small, infinitely dense, point of spacetime. It also posits that this region of spacetime has been expanding for 13.5 billion years, from its initial singularity to its current state. This ongoing process is the Big Bang. There is also good empirical evidence that allows us to better understand exactly how fast this expansion occurred (e.g., there was the 'Inflationary Period'), and so refine this basic idea.

From these theoretical premises, we can use our theories (QM & GR) to model what would happen - and it turns out that, prior to 10[sup]-43[/sup] seconds after the singularity began to expand, our theories just don't cut it. After that moment, the universe was big enough and cool enough to conform to modelling.

So the Big Bang theory is a mathematical model we can use to understand what the universe was like when it was very small. We posit the existence of a singularity, arbitrarily designate it as t = 0, and measure time thusly. However, the evidence just points to the singularity's existence - not to its origins.

It's like the theory of evolution. Evolution posits the existence of a single common ancestor, but it doesn't say where that ancestor came from. Later, we devised abiogenesis to explain that ancestor. Similarly, the Big Bang posits the existence of the singularity - but that doesn't mean there wasn't anything before it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Doesn't a speed or velocity have to be taken relative to something? How can nothingness (space) even have a velocity? Can't we only measure a velocity based on us relative to an observable entity?

Correct. But we're not mesuring velocity, we're measuring expansion. If you like, a balloon's expansion rate is effectively measured with respect to itself - the left side and the right side are physically further apart at t = 1 than there were at t = 0.

Is light outside of space? Or does light get affected by the expanding space that it is traveling through?

It gets affected in a very well-documented way - redshift. As space expands, the light gets stretched out, lengthening its wavelength, which shifts it towards the redder end of the spectrum.
So we can look at distant stars and galaxies, see spectral lines (absorption/emmission spikes at certain EM wavelengths) that correspond to known chemicals (e.g., the Hydrogen spectrum), but are shifted by a certain amount towards the 'red' end. The amount of shifting is actually the first evidence of the metric expansion of spacetime.

 

[Doveaman]

The amount of shifting is actually the first evidence of the metric expansion of spacetime.

If Hubble had seen these babies through his telescope he would have recanted many years ago:

Creationists are often accused of holding to ideas that contradict scientific observations. It's a shame when so-called scientists and physicists do the very same thing they accuse creationists of. A shame.

 

[Nathan Poe]

If Hubble had seen these babies through his telescope he would have recanted many years ago:

Because...?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Because...?

Apparently they show physical bridges between galaxies and quasars - which redshift tells us are so far apart that they simply don't have any physical connection.

The real explanation, of course, is that with all the bodies in the sky, we're bound to see a foreground galaxy and a background quasar overlap.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Apparently they show physical bridges between galaxies and quasars - which redshift tells us are so far apart that they simply don't have any physical connection.

The real explanation, of course, is that with all the bodies in the sky, we're bound to see a foreground galaxy and a background quasar overlap.

Ah yes, the problem with showing three dimensions in a two-dimensional medium.

Dear God! He's marrying a giantess!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ah yes, the problem with showing three dimensions in a two-dimensional medium.

Dear God! He's marrying a giantess!

 

[Doveaman]

Ah yes, the problem with showing three dimensions in a two-dimensional medium.

Dear God! He's marrying a giantess!

Except that there is no connection here. He's not even holding her hand. Looser.

 

[Hespera]

Cant be holding it looser if hes not holding it at all.

 

[Doveaman]

The real explanation, of course, is that with all the bodies in the sky, we're bound to see a foreground galaxy and a background quasar overlap.

Some people hold this view because they are a part of the big bang cover-up. Others hold this view because they're just being gullible. I consider you to be a sincere person so I don't think you are a part of the cover-up. But I could be wrong.

 

[Doveaman]

Cant be holding it looser if hes not holding it at all.

That's exactly my point.

And I was referring to the bridegroom as the looser for not holding her hand, not Nathan.

 

[Hespera]

That's exactly my point.

And I was referring to the bridegroom as the looser for not holding her hand, not Nathan.

He's not even holding her hand. Looser.

loose (l

s)adj. loos·er, loos·est 1. Not fastened, restrained, or contained: loose bricks.
2. Not taut, fixed, or rigid: a loose anchor line; a loose chair leg.
3. Free from confinement or imprisonment; unfettered:

you made a point about something i guess but we dont know what it was.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

loose (l

s)adj. loos·er, loos·est 1. Not fastened, restrained, or contained: loose bricks.
2. Not taut, fixed, or rigid: a loose anchor line; a loose chair leg.
3. Free from confinement or imprisonment; unfettered:

you made a point about something i guess but we dont know what it was.

You could just point out that he misspelt 'loser' with an additional 'o'...

 

[Hespera]

You could just point out that he misspelt 'loser' with an additional 'o'...

Could have, sure. I didnt realize he was gonna be immune to subtlety.

 

[jonmichael818]

If Hubble had seen these babies through his telescope he would have recanted many years ago:

Creationists are often accused of holding to ideas that contradict scientific observations. It's a shame when so-called scientists and physicists do the very same thing they accuse creationists of. A shame.

I think the proponents of this idea call it Intrinsic redshift.

My issue with the whole thing is that the supposed red shift problem is based off of only a few examples among thousands and thousands of observations.

Is it more likely that all of our observations agree with our current understanding of the way redshifting works except with a few instances, which could mean our whole theory is wrong?
Or
All of our observations agree with our understanding and that these few examples are simply an issue of perception, line of site, and the lack of fine resolution from our telescopes at such a distance?

Seems to be a good example for Mr. Occam.

 

[Doveaman]

You could just point out that he misspelt 'loser' with an additional 'o'...

I was wondering what she meant. Thanks.

 

[Doveaman]

I think the proponents of this idea call it Intrinsic redshift.

Which falsifies Cosmological Redshift.

My issue with the whole thing is that the supposed red shift problem is based off of only a few examples among thousands and thousands of observations.

So if you saw a million people marching down the street and one was female and all the rest were males would you ignore the female and conclude they were a million males simply because they were thousands and thousands of males? I don't get it.

How many anomalous observations do you need?

It only takes one anomalous observation to falsify a theory.

Some dishonest scientists would prefer to sweep those few observations under the rug so as to maintain their dead theory.

Is it more likely that all of our observations agree with our current understanding of the way redshifting works except with a few instances, which could mean our whole theory is wrong?

It is wrong.

Or
All of our observations agree with our understanding and that these few examples are simply an issue of perception, line of site, and the lack of fine resolution from our telescopes at such a distance?

Except that not all your observers agree:

Confirmation of the luminous connection between NGC 4319 and Markarian 205

 

[jonmichael818]

Which falsifies Cosmological Redshift.

It would if intrinsic redshift were a reality.

So if you saw a million people marching down the street and one was female and all the rest were males would you ignore the female and conclude they were a million males simply because they were thousands and thousands of males? I don't get it.

How many anomalous observations do you need?

It only takes one anomalous observation to falsify a theory.

True, but this does not seem to be the case here. These "anomalous" observations have other explanations.

Some dishonest scientists would prefer to sweep those few observations under the rug so as to maintain their dead theory.
It is wrong.

I doubt that any ignoring that may have been done has anything to do with dishonesty. Secondly there are scientists that have taken a look at these issues and have concluded that there is no evidence for intrinsic redshift or redshift periodicity.

Except that not all your observers agree:

Confirmation of the luminous connection between NGC 4319 and Markarian 205

Yes but there have been more recent observations with a larger data set that show no evidence of intrinsic redshift.

Consider this:

In the view of most astronomers, the juxtapositions are just due to chance. The filamentary connection became less convincing as better images became available. John Bahcall and collaborators made a noteworthy contribution when they showed that NGC 4319 absorbs some of the light from Mrk 205, just as expected if NGC 4319 is projected in front of Mrk 205.-Hubble Heritage Project

Check the following links:
-Evidence against non-cosmological redshifts of QSOs in SDSS data

-NGC 4319 and Markarian 205

This is a good summary of the "Red Shift Controversy."
-The Red Shift Controversy

 

[dad]

Do you believe in the Big Bang? If not, what is your theory?

No. I don't need a theory. The big bang is a belief based on extrapolating what we think we see now into the past.

 

[jonmichael818]

No. I don't need a theory. The big bang is a belief based on extrapolating what we think we see now into the past.

Ok, so what is your explaination of the origen of the universe? If you say god did it how did he do it?
I need specifics, not vague Bible verses please.