G
Graham4C
Guest
i'd just like to point out quickly that if what you call cosmic inflation has stopped, how can you use the red shift as evidence for the Big Bang??
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
- Status
Just because cosmic inflation has stopped, doesn't mean that the universe isn't expanding, because it is.
Upvote
0
Please explain. To me, the words inflation and expansion are synonyms.
IOW, to the layman, your sentence reads: Just because IT has stopped doesn't mean IT has stopped, because IT hasn't.
If I had to guess, I'd say you meant the impulse or cause of the inflation has ceased; but, the universe continues to expand, as it were, due to momentum.
[Metaphor warning]
It's like a car under influence of fuel (accelerator depressed), and then one takes one's foot off the accelerator and the car coasts.
[/Metaphor]
As I recall, there is some debate as to whether the rate of expansion is increasing/decreasing/maintaining. Yes?
Upvote
0
Yeah, pretty much. "Cosmic inflation" is a pretty specific term referring to the hyper-expansion right after the Big Bang. Although this hyper-expansion has stopped, the universe is still expanding.
(At least, that's my understanding. I'm no astrophysicist.)
Upvote
0
busterdog
Senior Veteran
I was just about to start a thread about that.
Setterfield, who talks of the stretching of space and suggests it MAY be static now (possibly contracting, but I would have to check his site). However, there is an also an aspect of this stretching which may be similar to inflation. His wife is around, so maybe we can get an answer on that.
Upvote
0
Deamiter
I just follow Christ.
A "Grand Unified Theory" is often called the Holy Grail of science, but it is not necessary for current theories to be accurate.
A theory does not have to explain EVERYTHING. For example, germ theory explains how we get sick. It does not explain where germs came from.
Quantam theory is able to predict the action of subatomic particles. That we do not understand what every single particle is made of does not detract from the fact that we can accurately predict the probability function of a particle.
Similarly the Big Bang theory explains how the universe is currently, and has predicted future findings. No, it doesn't accout for EVERTHING, but as with all science, since it's accounts for much more than any other hypothesis (like steady-state models for example) it's considered the leading theory.
No, it doesn't explain where the universe came from, but it doesn't have to in order to explain how the universe progressed from the initial expanding singularity to its current state.
To more directly answer your question about the laws of physics breaking down, you should be aware that the understanding that the laws of physics WOULD break down if the universe were compressed to nearly a singularity are based directly ON our understanding of the laws of physics. It's not just saying, "we don't understand it so the laws of physics probably don't apply." It's saying, "The evidence points toward a singularity at the beginning of the universe. Based on what we know about the physical behavior of the universe, many of the seperate forces (strong/weak nuclear, gravity) would become indistinguishable in such a singularity."
Of course, I just realized that may not be what you meant. Perhaps you meant that the Big Bang theory cannot be accurate if it does not explain WHERE the universe came from? If that were the case, then as I said before, germ theory, quantam theory... heck ANY scientific theory would be worthless. Quite simply, theories always have limited scope that is defined along with the predictions that they make.
It's the same reason evolution would still be a working theory if we could prove that God poofed the first cells into existance. No matter WHERE the first life came from, because living organisms reproduce, and copy themselves imperfectly, there IS the potential for speciation and large divergence over long periods of time.
Heck, even if common ancestry were disproved (though it hasn't been) evolution would still be the leading theory accounting for accumulated diversity within "kinds" (which would then have to be defined of course). Over long enough periods of time, you'd see populations diverge enough that they COULD no longer interbreed. But the point is that evolutionary theory (like the Big Bang theory) is not dependent on the origin of life (or the universe). It explains how we got from one point to another, not where the first point came from.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
