Something I don't understand...

[Lucretius]

What I don't get is, what was in its physical place in space prior? How can it expand when there's nothing to expand into.

I'd rather think the universe is how it is, and no matter how far back in time human vision can go, it's still the same universe. We make an awful lot of assumptions from the point of view this planet gives us of the rest of the universe.

If we can see back 13.7 billion years, based upon how far we think the furthest point of light we've ever seen, then I would imagine that 13.7 billion years ago, or if we were to be 13.7 billion light years from THIS location in the universe, that the universe would look quite different than we think we see now. If we were back 13.7 billion years, we may still see the light that took 13.7 billion years to reach us. If we go 13.7 billion light years from here, we'd have a whole different view of the universe.

I guess we just can't accept that the universe, for all intents and purposes, has been here all along. It's life that's transitory.

Same for expansion and contraction... it's only a point of view that we think we see it and a comparison of mere earth years dividied by 13.7 billion years minimum.

If we were to observe the tektonic plates from the center and bottom of the atlantic, we'd think this planet is expanding, too.

I think we have a lot of wrong assumptions based upon short time frames. Like the weather patterns, we watch them for what, 118 years, and then make all sorts of predictive models. 118 years out of 4.5 billion years isn't enough to make a prediction. Same for the ozone hole, how do we know it doesn't belong there and has a 1 billion open/close cycle? We're judging from a few decades of observation.

Physicists, as I stated in my original response, don't think it prudent to go back to Time Zero. Our laws become useless at the Planck Time, and at this point, the universe already exists in physical space, albeit it is very small. For now, we must assume both space and time exist for our theories to work.

The universe really would not have looked different in any point of view 13.7 billion years ago (but it would look different than it does now naturally.) It is around this time that the universe is still white hot, and photons cannot pass through the universe's plasma, making the whole observable universe a big cloudy white haze. It was only after photons were able to pass right through things, and the universe began to cool down, that we begin to see star formation etc. You can see the remnants of this big white cloudy haze today — it's known as Cosmic Background Radiation (we are making the assumption that once the light stopped getting stuck in the plasma, it took a straight path in whatever direction it was going, and so we are seeing things as they were just after the photons escaped the plasma.)

Regarding the universe being eternal — I thinks it's clear that the Big Bang did occur, and that matter was condensed to a very tiny point about 14 billion years ago. However, because of the uncertainty before the Planck Time (this is where the quantum laws apply) we don't exactly know if it's logical to continue our extrapolation back to a point of infinities, or if the universe really was there forever. Hopefully a theory of quantum gravity will give us some sort of clue!

As for time frames — don't underestimate the human mind. We have done a lot in 2,000 years. Our scientific understanding of the universe has gone from believing the Earth was the center of the universe (though some Creationists still believe this—cough cough Russell Humphreys), to the Big Bang, to being able to predict (approximate) what the universe was like at the earliest possible time. The assumptions we make about any sort of scientific theory are founded in logic, and we have good reasons to believe [most] of these are true. Only time will tell if we are right, I suppose.

 

[Lucretius]

I think the expansion is just a visual problem. From our spot in this universe it only looks like we're expanding. If the universe is the totality of all that is, there's no Place to Expand to. If there's no boundaries, it just keeps going, or maybe the universe is spherical, but that still gives an 'other side'. Who knows.

You're right about the visual problem. People always try to picture something expanding into something else. With the universe, there is no "outside". Yet, expansion still occurs. What can contain, besides the forces within it? (which are not powerful enough to halt the expansion apparently.)

 

[Trillian]

Thank you everyone. You've given me a lot to think over and read about. I think you've gotten me off to a good start.

For those of you who were trying to debate, you may now have the thread. As I read the material I've been given, I'm sure I"ll have other questions but I'll just start a new thread or PM those who obviously can help me.

Thanks again!

Tril

 

[Loudmouth]

I think the expansion is just a visual problem. From our spot in this universe it only looks like we're expanding.

What are we supposed to think when every galaxy is the universe is moving away from us (ignoring gravitational capture for now)?

What are we supposed to think when we take the movement of galaxies and run them backwards, and the result is that they all meet in one place?

It would seem that the observations are too much to ignore instead of being a problem.

If the universe is the totality of all that is, there's no Place to Expand to. If there's no boundaries, it just keeps going, or maybe the universe is spherical, but that still gives an 'other side'.

What is takes up more space every second. An expanding balloon does not need something to expand into.

The universe is finite, yet infinite in some ways. For instance, you could walk an infinite distance if you followed the equator, yet you are still bound to the finite surface of the Earth. This is how the universe is modeled. As a sphere with flat sides.

 

[Alex1210]

Well, the atmosphere is actually the least problematic of the primordial conditions to replicate.

That's true, but not wasn't talking about recreating the primordial conditions, just pointing out an obvious reasons why new life isn't going to spontaneosly appear in the same way.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's true, but not wasn't talking about recreating the primordial conditions, just pointing out an obvious reasons why new life isn't going to spontaneosly appear in the same way.

Also, life today produces copious amounts of RNase. One of the tougher jobs in any lab is creating an RNase free workspace. Keeping a sterile work space is child's play compared to an RNase free work space.

 

[Lignoba]

Unfortunately, you are a little off. While this may have been a popular theory 10 or 15 year ago, it is no longer accepted. Projects have shown that the energy density of the universe is not large enough to cause collapse, and counterintuitively it seems the universe is actually accelerating in it's expansion. "Dark Energy" is evoked to give this phenomena a name. Many theories about how this occur require such an energy to be present in space itself.

No longer accepted? By whom? You? Because its still the theory we are learning while I am getting my B.S. in Physics, and IIRC it is the theory still held at the University of Nevada where I am getting my PhD in Physics after I graduate. I have never heard of this "Dark Energy" theory, so I cant really verify, but all matter has gravity, therefore the only way for our universe to not have the same amoutn of gravity it had at the Big Bang would be for it to lose matter... but how does that work? Where did it go? Did it just transpose time and space and go into another universe?

 

[Mathematician]

Lucretius,

Technically, General Relativity claims the universe has no center. Quantum Mechanics predicts a "center" of the universe and that center must be accounted for when measuring the background radiation like in the COBE experiment.

The QM center has been accurately measured. A lot of effort has been made attempting to find a modification of GR to allow for a center with apparantly no success.

Notto,

You asked what other creationists thought of Dad's comments. I'm a creationist. I disagree with almost everything Dad said. But then, probably every creationist here would say the same about me.

Everyone,

This is my first post. Thank-you for having me. I'm a research mathematician in Southern California. On weekends, I'm either in church, out with the Boy Scouts, or doing field work on predators in the local desert with my "research associates."

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

This is my first post. Thank-you for having me. I'm a research mathematician in Southern California.

]Welcome Mathematician. Lets see… familiar with GR, QM, and disagree with almost everything dad says… sounds like a good start.

On weekends, I'm either in church, out with the Boy Scouts, or doing field work on predators in the local desert with my "research associates."

Does this field work involve guns?

 

[MQTA]

What are we supposed to think when every galaxy is the universe is moving away from us (ignoring gravitational capture for now)?

What are we supposed to think when we take the movement of galaxies and run them backwards, and the result is that they all meet in one place?

It would seem that the observations are too much to ignore instead of being a problem.



What is takes up more space every second. An expanding balloon does not need something to expand into.

NO? You can blow up a balloon in space?

The universe is finite, yet infinite in some ways. For instance, you could walk an infinite distance if you followed the equator, yet you are still bound to the finite surface of the Earth. This is how the universe is modeled. As a sphere with flat sides.

For the universe to expand, isn't there something on the OTHER side then? If you put a balloon in a box and blew it up, it couldn't keep expanding.

Whatever.. I'll take their word for it, I know those theories, I was just pondering some others.

I guess if you were on the bottom of the Atlantic and rewound the motion of the tektonic plates, they'd too look the same way. We'd also notice the Himalayas shrinking on the other side, too.

Could be.. just not committed to it.. doesn't seem like the whole answer, just a viewpoint from where we are, it's the ONLY viewpoint we've really ever had, no matter how much we model what we think we see.

 

[MartinM]

Technically, General Relativity claims the universe has no center.

No, GR is perfectly consistent with a Universe with a centre. It just happens to be the case that the simplest model within GR that is consistent with observation has no centre.

Quantum Mechanics predicts a "center" of the universe and that center must be accounted for when measuring the background radiation like in the COBE experiment.

I have no idea what you're referring to here. The CMB certainly has a rest frame, but that's got nothing to do with a centre.

 

[Loudmouth]

Lucretius,

Technically, General Relativity claims the universe has no center.

I thought it stated that there is no such thing as a true frame of reference, or an ideal frame of reference. Is this wrong?

 

[Dr.GH]

No longer accepted? By whom? You? Because its still the theory we are learning while I am getting my B.S. in Physics, and IIRC it is the theory still held at the University of Nevada where I am getting my PhD in Physics after I graduate. I have never heard of this "Dark Energy" theory, so I cant really verify, but all matter has gravity, therefore the only way for our universe to not have the same amoutn of gravity it had at the Big Bang would be for it to lose matter... but how does that work? Where did it go? Did it just transpose time and space and go into another universe?

Wowie.
How about you take a look at the UC Berkley Cosmology Research Groups "Dark Energy" links. I also recommend the rest of their site. "Dark Energy" is actually a very common idea, and I would be very worried if my professors hadn't taught about it. This would be true if there was such a thing or even not- perhaps more importantly if not.

 

[Lucretius]

Lucretius,

Technically, General Relativity claims the universe has no center. Quantum Mechanics predicts a "center" of the universe and that center must be accounted for when measuring the background radiation like in the COBE experiment.

I've been researching quantum mechanics for years, and never have I heard of it predicting a center of the universe. The only accounting that must be made for in the COBE image (to my knowledge) is the fact that we are moving while taking the image. Once this movement is taken into account, we can use the COBE to see the variations in the background radiation. Could you extrapolate on how exactly quantum mechanics predicts a center of the universe?

The QM center has been accurately measured. A lot of effort has been made attempting to find a modification of GR to allow for a center with apparantly no success.

I guess we will have to wait until we get a nice theory of quantum gravity Anyways, I would like to hear more about the center you propose. To my knowledge, there is none.

No longer accepted? By whom? You? Because its still the theory we are learning while I am getting my B.S. in Physics, and IIRC it is the theory still held at the University of Nevada where I am getting my PhD in Physics after I graduate. I have never heard of this "Dark Energy" theory, so I cant really verify, but all matter has gravity, therefore the only way for our universe to not have the same amoutn of gravity it had at the Big Bang would be for it to lose matter... but how does that work? Where did it go? Did it just transpose time and space and go into another universe?

The notion of dark energy has been around for years, it's the verification of it's existence that has been the hard part. Matter does not "have gravity"; technically it warps spacetime and so produces gravity. How would our universe have less matter in it? Well, anti-matter still can create a gravitational field — the collision between matter and anti-matter in the early universe greatly reduced the number of baryons in our universe today. Also, our universe is expanding, which means space is moving galaxies and other objects away from us — which is going to leave more empty space in between objects. Gravitational effects would not be as strong between objects, following the inverse square law. The important thing to remember is that matter can be converted into energy and vice versa — E=mc^2!

 

[funyun]

I guess my real question is the abiogenesis part. My understanding (from 6th grade science class) is that life doesn't come from no life. What I remember was a story where maggots found on rotton meat was the example. I guess people used to think that the rotting meat produced maggots (life from no life) and then someone, who I imagine is famous enough that I should know his name, put two pieces of rotten meat in containers, one w/ access available for flies and one w/ air but no access, and the one w/ no access did not produce maggots. The conclusion being, obviously, that life comes from life, i.e. the maggots came from the flies and not the rotten meat.

So- once upon a time, there was a rock and somewhere along the line that rock became a planet that is beaming w/ life of all kinds. How did that happen?

The maggots and the rotting meat is an example of something called spontaneous generation, which we now know is impossible. This is a seperate concept from abiogenesis. There are several competing theories (none of which are entirely tenable in terms of experiment at our present point of technology) in the field of abiogenesis.

Most experts believe life started as certain chemical processes resulted in monomers like amino acids, and eventually polymers. One present point of contention in the field is the role RNA and DNA had in the evolution of cells in terms of their relationship to one another. It's also unknown if the nucleic acids came first or if metabolism came first-- sort of a chicken or the egg problem.

 

[Lignoba]

ok, so I found a small blurb in my astronomy textbook about this dark matter theory, and my professor told me that it so absurd that most physicists dont accept it. The Big Bang-Big Crunch theory is still the theory supported by most physicists in the United States and Europe.

And also, energy IS matter, basically anything that exists is matter, (including antimatter). There is a theory going around as to how we can stop the Big Crunch by finding a way to "remove" matter from our universe, thus extending its lifespan. I really doubt it matters, the human race will be long extinct before the end of this universe comes.

 

[Lucretius]

ok, so I found a small blurb in my astronomy textbook about this dark matter theory, and my professor told me that it so absurd that most physicists dont accept it. The Big Bang-Big Crunch theory is still the theory supported by most physicists in the United States and Europe.

I don't think you read your textbook correctly — Dark Energy does not seek to replace Big Bang cosmology. It is not a theory about the origin and evolution of the universe.

And also, energy IS matter, basically anything that exists is matter, (including antimatter). There is a theory going around as to how we can stop the Big Crunch by finding a way to "remove" matter from our universe, thus extending its lifespan. I really doubt it matters, the human race will be long extinct before the end of this universe comes.

The Big Crunch is not going to happen as far as we can tell. The expansion of the universe is accelerating — are you familiar with Hubble's Constant?

 

[Lignoba]

The universe is not accelerating. It is physically impossible for something to move with more energy than it started with. The first millionth of a second the universe existed, the rate of acceleration would have been close to infinite, and since then it has been tapering off, coming closer and closer to zero.

 

[Mathematician]

Thank-you Agnostic,

]
Does this field work involve guns?

What good field work doesn't?

 

[Jet Black]

The universe is not accelerating.

careful:

http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog17/node9.html

or if that is too heady:

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9802/27/accelerating.universe/