Big Bang

[Wiccan_Child]

That would be Antioch -- not Rome.

Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Ah, my bad

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, my bad

Ain't no thang --

 

[Chesterton]

What badtim said. It's just a historical relic.

Yes I understand, but still it seems there's an important distinction to be made. I've seen you say that the "Bang" is still going on, but the real importance of the theory is that this ongoing event had a beginning (which is indicated by the word "bang").

 

[Chesterton]

That would be Antioch -- not Rome.

Yes, as a member of the Church of Antioch, thank you for the slight correction. I'm (dare I say) proud, that we were first ridiculed there.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm (dare I say) proud, that we were first ridiculed there.

Ditto here, my friend!

You talk about Allah -- meh.

You talk about Shiva -- meh.

You talk about Santa Claus -- meh.

But you talk about Jesus Christ, and they'll come out of the woodwork to pwn you.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes I understand, but still it seems there's an important distinction to be made. I've seen you say that the "Bang" is still going on, but the real importance of the theory is that this ongoing event had a beginning (which is indicated by the word "bang").

Actually it's not. Nothing about the theory states that it had a beginning, only that it's been going on for 13.5 billion years. The real importance of the theory is that it tells us the expansion of the universe for billions of years. What it doesn't tell us, despite popular opinion to the contrary, is that the universe had a start.

For all we know, the Big Bang has been going on for far longer than 13.5 billion years.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ditto here, my friend!

You talk about Allah -- meh.

You talk about Shiva -- meh.

You talk about Santa Claus -- meh.

But you talk about Jesus Christ, and they'll come out of the woodwork to pwn you.

Clearly you haven't been on many Muslim forums

 

[AV1611VET]

Clearly you haven't been on many Muslim forums

Why? are Internet scientists over there 'knowing' everything the Koran says or shouldn't say?

Are they over there pestering Islams to do something about their "Great Satan"?

Maybe that's why 9/11 happened over here.

They were pestered into it by [their] Internet scientists, in the same way [our] Internet scientists pester us to hang witches --

(I think I'm on to something here.)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why? are Internet scientists over there 'knowing' everything the Koran says or shouldn't say?

In Muslim forums, people are more critical of Islam than they are over here.

Are they over there pestering Islams to do something about their "Great Satan"?

Yep.

Maybe that's why 9/11 happened over here.

They were pestered into it by [their] Internet scientists, in the same way [our] Internet scientists pester us to hang witches --

(I think I'm on to something here.)

I don't think anyone here wants you to hang witches - just to be consistent in your beliefs.

 

[Nostromo]

I wonder if AV would ever go on the record using his real name accusing "Internet scientists" of causing 9/11.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think anyone here wants you to hang witches - just to be consistent in your beliefs.

I [kinda] disagree with this -- I've even seen us called 'hypocrites' because we won't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep.

Let me ask you this question, WC, since I have a lot of respect for you, and you seem to be knowledgeable:

In 1995, Shoko Asahara, wanting to get back to serving the Hindu god of destruction in 'supreme truth', made a name for himself.

Question: are there 'Japanese servers' where Internet scientists prompt the Hindus to stop being hypocrites, if they truly believe their religion?

As far as you know?

(I really do think I'm on to something.)

 

[Chesterton]

Actually it's not. Nothing about the theory states that it had a beginning, only that it's been going on for 13.5 billion years. The real importance of the theory is that it tells us the expansion of the universe for billions of years. What it doesn't tell us, despite popular opinion to the contrary, is that the universe had a start.

For all we know, the Big Bang has been going on for far longer than 13.5 billion years.

But there's contradiction in your words. If this universe has been going on for 13.5 billion years, that means it started 13.5 billion years ago. From what I understand, the expansion is the beginning of the universe; the way you talk it sounds like the evidence indicates the expansion of some smaller universe into our bigger one. Do you consider the singularity a universe?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I [kinda] disagree with this -- I've even seen us called 'hypocrites' because we won't.

Well, yea - we don't want people to be hanged for their religious or spiritual beliefs (despite the Bible's commands to the contrary). But the point is, some people think that your beliefs are cherry-picked. You follow the good parts (Love thy neighbour), but ignore the bad parts (Thou shall not suffer a witch to live).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

But there's contradiction in your words. If this universe has been going on for 13.5 billion years, that means it started 13.5 billion years ago. From what I understand, the expansion is the beginning of the universe; the way you talk it sounds like the evidence indicates the expansion of some smaller universe into our bigger one. Do you consider the singularity a universe?

Yes.

The universe has been going for at least 13.5 billion years.

If I say I've lived in my house for 10 years, does that mean the house never existed before I moved in? No - all it means is that the house is at least 10 years old. It could be older and have had prior occupants, or it could indeed have been made 10 years ago. The evidence is insufficient to decide either way.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Let me ask you this question, WC, since I have a lot of respect for you, and you seem to be knowledgeable:

I'm in the process of getting ready for a night out, but your flattery has given you an extra five minutes

In 1995, Shoko Asahara, wanting to get back to serving the Hindu god of destruction in 'supreme truth', made a name for himself.

Question: are there 'Japanese servers' where Internet scientists prompt the Hindus to stop being hypocrites, if they truly believe their religion?

As far as you know?

(I really do think I'm on to something.)

As far as I know? No. But then, I haven't gone out in search of them. Perhaps the world's Hindus aren't as populous as the world's Christians, so there are less groups of Hindus who could be accused of hypocrisy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, yea - we don't want people to be hanged for their religious or spiritual beliefs (despite the Bible's commands to the contrary). But the point is, some people think that your beliefs are cherry-picked. You follow the good parts (Love thy neighbour), but ignore the bad parts (Thou shall not suffer a witch to live).

Should we be sacrificing cattle to God on a quotidian basis?

 

[Chesterton]

Yes.

The universe has been going for at least 13.5 billion years.

If I say I've lived in my house for 10 years, does that mean the house never existed before I moved in? No - all it means is that the house is at least 10 years old. It could be older and have had prior occupants, or it could indeed have been made 10 years ago. The evidence is insufficient to decide either way.

Everything I've read says time and space began with the Big Bang. Are going outside the evidence and imagining some pre-existent universe without time and space?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Yes.

The universe has been going for at least 13.5 billion years.

If I say I've lived in my house for 10 years, does that mean the house never existed before I moved in? No - all it means is that the house is at least 10 years old. It could be older and have had prior occupants, or it could indeed have been made 10 years ago. The evidence is insufficient to decide either way.

I'm not one to disagree with you very often but, based on books and textbooks I've read, it seems that its commonly accepted in the scientific community that the universe began as a singularity which then "became" the Big Bang which has led to the expansion as we observe it.

"The Big Bang was the event which led to the formation of the universe, according to the prevailing cosmological theory of the universe's early development (known as the Big Bang theory or Big Bang model). According to the Big Bang model, the universe, originally in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly, has since cooled by expanding to the present diluted state, and continues to expand today" -good ol' Wikipedia (emphasis mine).

It seems most physicists would say that the universe "began" 13.5 billion in the Big Bang rather than them saying the universe is expanding currently via the "process" of the Big Bang. The Big Bang, however accidental a term, seems to imply an event, not a process.

I have many problems with this theory, as well as the notion of an expanding universe. Its not really based on evidence, it just based on my own thought experiments (like the "Strange Idea" which you replied to). For example, here's another one:

Lets say at T=0 you have a quasar which forms. This quasar starts emitting light.
Now, you have T=12 billion years. The light from this quasar now reaches Earth, and the light from the quasar is 12 billion years old.

But at T=12 billion years, where is the quasar and how far away is it from the Earth? Because the quasar formed at T=0, which was supposedly 12 billion years ago. So the light we see on Earth is light from T=0, not T=12 billion.

This seems to imply that, at T=12 billion, the quasar, (if it still exists, and if the universe is expanding) is much further from Earth now. But it cannot be further than 12 billion years away because that would contradict the notion of it moving faster than the speed of light.

It makes my head hurt, but I feel like there's a contradiction hiding in there somewhere.

 

[jonmichael818]

This seems to imply that, at T=12 billion, the quasar, (if it still exists, and if the universe is expanding) is much further from Earth now. But it cannot be further than 12 billion years away because that would contradict the notion of it moving faster than the speed of light.

It makes my head hurt, but I feel like there's a contradiction hiding in there somewhere.

Space itself can move faster than the speed of light. Consider this quote:

You might be wondering how we could possibly see a galaxy that is moving away from us faster than the speed of light! The answer is that the motion of the galaxy now has no effect whatsoever on the light that it emitted billions of years ago. The light doesn't care what the galaxy is doing; it just cares about the stretching of space between its current location and us. So we can easily imagine a situation where the galaxy was not moving faster than the speed of light at the moment the light was emitted; therefore, the light was able to "outrun" the expansion of space and move towards us, while the galaxy moved away from us as the universe expanded.-Cornell.edu

Also one thing to keep in mind regarding the age of the universe is that the number 13.7 billion years is based on our "observable universe."