The Big Bang is not random

notto · Sep 22, 2005

servantx said:
And about the galaxy shape, the sink example has a force to absorb units inward into the centre of the sink, which is different from the bang which is expanding the units outward in a spiral circle, scientists studied by seeing the shift of the spectum of the stars, red shift means going outward, and hence they found the moving speed of the stars in this galaxy, and the rate of expansion of it's size. When you have a big bang, (explosion), the particles, stars and planets goes out randomly (like an atomic bomb), it needs to take a long time with a huge gravitational force to turn it into spiral shape like current. Scientist tried to calculate it and they found that even up to 40 to 60 rotations the galaxy cannot draw the stars and planets from random places resulted from the bang into achieving its spiral shape with gravitation.

You are confusing the universe with our galaxy. The universe is expanding. The galaxy isn't.

When the big bang happened, there were no stars, planets, etc so your description is describing something that isn't the big bang.

I certainly would like to see a reference for you claim by scientists. I doubt very much that any claim of that sort would make reference to planets (which are within solar systems).

You seem to be confusing the size, shape, and composition (as well as what exactly the big bang theory addresses and impacts) of universe->galaxies->solar systems->planets.

You really are not making much sense and seem to be throwing around a lot of claims about things without tying them together and showing how they are related.

What does the expansion of space have to do with the shape of a galaxy?
What is the 'shape of the Big Bang'? that is pretty meaningless.

Gravity would be the force that determines galaxy formation.

servantx · Sep 22, 2005

notto said:
Why do you come to the conclusion that a process that started with a random fluctionation can't create order?

Where does the big bang theory state anything about a lack of order?

You seem to be mixing the terms random, chance, and order.

Only an order can be applyed onto "random fluctuation" so the process turn out in order.

"Random fluctuation" does not start a process of order by itself, it needs an order apply onto it.

For example, in the Genetic Algorithm I posted above, unless you apply a code, or an order, or a law, or an algorithm onto the initialized subject, it will never grow and start any process. The process need an intellegent (A.I) applying the algorithm (order) onto the initialized random unit.

The big bang theory is not lack of order, that is why I said it is "not random", please read the heading of this thread.

notto · Sep 22, 2005

servantx said:
The big bang theory is not lack of order, that is why I said it is "not random", please read the heading of this thread.

You claimed the following:
because this world is in order so the Big Bang Theory is wrong.

This would seem to suggest that the Big Bang Theory as described suggests non-order. Where does it do this?

You then claim:
The process need an intellegent (A.I) applying the algorithm (order) onto the initialized random unit.

Gravity is a non-intelligent organizing force that can (and does) lead to order. Just like natural selection (not intelligence) acting on a genetic algorithm leads to order.

You are making claims that are contradictory to direct observations.

Nobody 'applied' gravity or natural selection.

servantx · Sep 22, 2005

LewisWildermuth said:
You keep on saying this but provide no evidence or reason why it is so. Why should I believe you with no evidence?

But in your exampse the rocks have to overcome the gravity of the Earth, a force working to keep them still. There is no such force to keep the stars from moving. Even a body as small as the Earth can cause the sun to wobble in space.

You asked me about formation of the shape of this galaxy. each rock or sand in example represent a solar system.

You also seem to not have studied the Big Bang Theory much either, otherwise you would have never called it an explosion.

Before you make your judgement on that, please read this page from NASA
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

"The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.
In 1927, the Belgian priest Georges Lemaître was the first to propose that the universe began with the explosion of a primeval atom."

Your examples are lacking, you display ignorance of even the basics of the Big Bang theory, you provide no evidence that your conclusion is correct. Again, why should I believe a word you say about things you seem to have no grasp of?

notto · Sep 22, 2005

servantx said:
Before you make your judgement on that, please read this page from NASA
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

I did notice this about that page:
Updated December 2, 1997
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This site is no longer supported, and is maintained for archival purposes only.

[/font]
Whoever wrote this should really check out this NASA page. I'm guessing that the original page was written by someone with no formal knowledge of the topic at hand. It seems to be a poorly done summary of information.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

Please avoid the following common misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:

The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.
By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question.
It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.

fragmentsofdreams · Sep 22, 2005

servantx said:
No, I actually did some researches before asking that question yesterday.

"Genetic Algorithm is a model of machine learning which derives
its behavior from a metaphor of some of the mechanisms of EVOLUTION
in nature. "

Basically it is applying an algorithm (order), putting onto an initialized "random" units.

The algorithm itself is not "random" but "intellegence" with orders (It is A.I.).

This is the computer pseudo code of Genetic Algorithm.

PSEUDO CODE
Algorithm GA is

// start with an initial time
t := 0;

// initialize a usually random population of individuals
initpopulation P (t);

// evaluate fitness of all initial individuals of population
evaluate P (t);

// test for termination criterion (time, fitness, etc.)
while not done do
// increase the time counter
t := t + 1;

// select a sub-population for offspring production
P' := selectparents P (t);

// recombine the "genes" of selected parents
recombine P' (t);

// perturb the mated population stochastically
mutate P' (t);

// evaluate its new fitness
evaluate P' (t);

// select the survivors from actual fitness
P := survive P,P' (t);
od
end GA.

Now back to the "random" I discussed earler. The big bang is usually defined as a random, chance event. Without an intellgence of "order" it cannot bang by itself in random chances.

Now, our galaxy is rotating at a speed that only permits from 45 to 60 rotations since the big bang. Which is not a long enough time for it to achieve its spiral shape.

Actually, the cause of the Big Bang is usually not defined because our understanding breaks down under those conditions (we don't get to study them often). Therefore, Big Bang models don't take positions on whether it was "random" or not.

Your statement about galactic rotation assumes you know where all the mass is.

LewisWildermuth · Sep 23, 2005

servantx said:
You asked me about formation of the shape of this galaxy. each rock or sand in example represent a solar system.

But the rocks and sand in your experiment have to overcome the gravity of the Earth, there is no such force to overcome in space. The rocks would move much more easily in space under the same conditions because the Earth's gravity is not holding them in place.

And who said the galixy is spinning slowly? I would not call 250km/s slow...

Before you make your judgement on that, please read this page from NASA
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

"The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.
In 1927, the Belgian priest Georges Lemaître was the first to propose that the universe began with the explosion of a primeval atom."

A web page written by a non scientist that seems to have as little understanding of the Big Bang as you is your evidence? Why not just site some tabloid in your grocery store as evidence that "Bat Boy" exists.

Now have you actually read anything writen by a scientist about the Big Bang Theory? It seems that you have not. I on the other hand have read works by scientists and even talked to a few about things like this. So why should I believe you over them?

Robert the Pilegrim · Sep 23, 2005

servantx said:
The definition of random I am using is that big bang theory states that it started by "random chance" processes by itself instead of any external causes.

Errr, no.
General Relativity says little to nothing about how the initial event occurred.
There is some speculation, but that is not central to the point that all evidence points to it having occured.

shernren · Sep 23, 2005

So wouldn't it be a non-random process if God started the Big Bang? Therefore the Big Bang, as a God-directed ex-nihilo creation process, is consistent with Christian theology and ontology. Thank you.

Robert the Pilegrim · Sep 23, 2005

servantx said:
There is possibility that the bang could be there, but for sure not by a random chance as the theory suggested.

What you cited was a hypothesis far from a solid part of General Relativity, but you haven't demonstrated why it couldn't occur.

And about the galaxy shape, the sink example has a force to absorb units inward into the centre of the sink, which is different from the bang which is expanding the units outward in a spiral circle, scientists studied by seeing the shift of the spectum of the stars, red shift means going outward, and hence they found the moving speed of the stars in this galaxy, and the rate of expansion of it's size. When you have a big bang, (explosion), the particles, stars and planets goes out randomly (like an atomic bomb), it needs to take a long time with a huge gravitational force to turn it into spiral shape like current.

You are very confused.

In the beginning there were no particles, by the time the first stars formed anything remotely considered to be "the Big Bang" was long over. The universe continues to expand but the expansion within our galaxy (or within a similar sized chunk of space) is fairly minimal.

I call a pox down upon the writer of the kiddie NASA web site you got your information from for talking about explosions and a double pox on Hoyle for originating the term "Big Bang".

Scientist tried to calculate it and they found that even up to 40 to 60 rotations the galaxy cannot draw the stars and planets from random places resulted from the bang into achieving its spiral shape with gravitation.

Could you please provide a citation?
The problem with making such bold pronouncements is that the physics is messy and we are reduced to massive numerical models based on incomplete information.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~umcoll14/minorproject.html gives an explanation of a few theories of spiral arm formation. There is no completely satisfactory theory

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/galaxies.php#questions has lots of information including stuff on galaxy formation, but also some cool stuff:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=402

You might find this somewhat more to the point for our discussion:
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~depoy/courses/lecture.notes/spirals.html
Rotation Speeds
Inner Parts: Rise from Zero to few 100 km/sec
Outer Parts: Nearly constant at a few 100 km/sec
Example in the Milky Way:
* Sun has Vrot=220 km/sec at R=8.5 kpc
* Orbital Period: 240 Myr

shernren · Sep 23, 2005

I call a pox down upon the writer of the kiddie NASA web site you got your information from for talking about explosions and a double pox on Hoyle for originating the term "Big Bang".

Hoyle was ridiculing the theory. It's funny how we all today know the theory by its "joke name". But at least it's a lot more popular than if it had been named "the theory of ekpyrotic brane collision primordial event horizon formation".

Kripost · Sep 25, 2005

servantx said:
Randomness cannot create order. You can try that with a computer or calculator.

The digits of pi follows no order, but circles and complex numbers depend on the value of pi.

servantx said:
When I look at the sky, seeing the stars, the Sun and the Moon moves in the way that can be calculated by computer, look at the calender.

The present Gregorian calendar is imperfect. Having to add a day every 4 years except when the year is not divisible by 400 is a stop-gap measure. Unfortunately, this is because of a few extra minutes adding up every year.

servantx said:
and I know that, this galaxy did not come out suddenly in random Big Bang, for if it starts in random possibility, everything in this world will remain in random out of order, but indeed many things in this world can be calculated (look all scientistist, they all use computer to calculate different things), as long as the nature can be calculated in numbers (include DNA), it is a sign that this ordered world is made in order.

Selective thinking. You left out many things which cannot be predicted, nor calculated This includes radioactive decay, movement of gas molecules and the exact position of electrons in an atom. However, the electronics still behave in a rather predictable manner.

servantx said:
So the plants grow by season by season, the stars move around years by years, IN ORDER, by seeing this awesome creation of the world, I see there is a creator. And it is an intelligent design.

Stars don't move around. The earth does. Once you have accounted for that movement the relative motion of the stars is rather insignificant.

Also, the solar system is not an orderly place. While the larger bodies move at a relatively predictable manner (to a certain extent), there are many minor bodies which behave rather erratically.

CaptainMercy · Oct 1, 2005

rmwilliamsll said:
actually, randomness can create order.
google genetic algorithms or the game of life or Thomas Ray's tierra for example examples of exactly how.

Evidently you don't understand randomizing and computer programing. These programs you mentioned are themselves not randomized but are a ordered set of instructions that tell the program how to use the randomized input. That order set of instructions is what gives the program order, not the randomizing itself.

shernren · Oct 2, 2005

Exactly! Genetic algorithms:

Random input -> programmed instructions -> complex output

Evolution:

Random mutations -> natural selection -> complex evolution. Heady.

CaptainMercy · Oct 2, 2005

shernren said:
Exactly! Genetic algorithms:

Random input -> programmed instructions -> complex output

Evolution:

Random mutations -> natural selection -> complex evolution. Heady.

Who programmed the instructions?

Who instigated the natural selections?

LewisWildermuth · Oct 2, 2005

blessedvalley said:
Who programmed the instructions?

Who instigated the natural selections?

Well, that would depend on if one is an atheist or not. I think you will find that most TE's belive that God himself set the rules that the univers runs by, one could look at the six days of creation as six literal days that God set out the orders for the universe to follow, and it took 14-16 billion years for the universe to manifest those orders. We can't test this, that is why it is a religious stance, not a scientific one.

justified · Oct 9, 2005

Wow, this thread is a mess. I guess it's good that everyone has a place to talk about stuff they have no training to be talking about. Right.

Scientist tried to calculate it and they found that even up to 40 to 60 rotations the galaxy cannot draw the stars and planets from random places resulted from the bang into achieving its spiral shape with gravitation.

You cannot go back in time calculating rotations based upon the current rates. You can't really even use simple calculus. The numbers we get when we look at ancient velocity are literally off the charts. I remember reading one astrophysics article that calculated a phenomenon at a good deal faster than the speed of light. That is a bit of an issue, so you can imagine any proof using velocities of galaxies to talk about current galaxies is really useless because as scientists we don't have enough data.

KerrMetric · Oct 9, 2005

justified said:
Wow, this thread is a mess. I guess it's good that everyone has a place to talk about stuff they have no training to be talking about. Right.

You cannot go back in time calculating rotations based upon the current rates. You can't really even use simple calculus. The numbers we get when we look at ancient velocity are literally off the charts. I remember reading one astrophysics article that calculated a phenomenon at a good deal faster than the speed of light. That is a bit of an issue, so you can imagine any proof using velocities of galaxies to talk about current galaxies is really useless because as scientists we don't have enough data.

What is sad is you are both completely wrong.

shernren · Oct 9, 2005

You cannot go back in time calculating rotations based upon the current rates. You can't really even use simple calculus. The numbers we get when we look at ancient velocity are literally off the charts. I remember reading one astrophysics article that calculated a phenomenon at a good deal faster than the speed of light. That is a bit of an issue, so you can imagine any proof using velocities of galaxies to talk about current galaxies is really useless because as scientists we don't have enough data.

The theories of relativity permit the propagation of patterns at superluminal (faster-than-light) speed. For example, if I lined up 4 people in a row each a meter apart, gave them extremely accurate atomic clocks and flashlights, and told the first one to flash at 10:00:00.000, the second one at 10:00:00.001, the third at 10:00:00.002 and the fourth at 10:00:00.003, their pattern would go faster than light indeed. (Or should; I'm being careless with the numbers.)

What is not permitted is propagation of information faster than light. If in that same example, I told the first person to flash and then signal the second, the second to flash and signal the third, and so on, their pattern would never go faster than light.

justified · Oct 10, 2005

I don't know about those patterns, but we're talking about more than just patterns. The article, which I have no hope of finding now, was suggesting that matter was being hurtled at those speeds. Which of course at the time was considered impossible, hence the question. People were running around looking for lense effect andall that; I would really like to have it explained.

The Big Bang is not random

Legend

Member

Legend

Member

Legend

Critical loyalist

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

you are not reading this.

Senior Veteran

you are not reading this.

Senior Veteran

In the valley He restores my soul!

you are not reading this.

In the valley He restores my soul!

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

you are not reading this.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency