The Big Bang Theory

[Chalnoth]

People always think the organic material in space is getting more complicated through "evolving" or "forming". But what is wrong if they are there now because of deterioration/decomposition? How can we tell one way or the other? It seems the latter option is more plausible due to the harsh space environment.

Remember that we are talking about plants, not animals. That is the difference between the Creation Day 3 and Day 5.

Except these chemicals aren't getting more complicated. It's staying roughly the same, though they are formed and destroyed all the time. The relative abundance of them is likely to increase with time in the next few billion years, though, as the heavier elements get more and more common through processing in stars.

And it doesn't really matter if we're talking about plants or animals. Equating organic matter in space to either is equally as absurd.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Er, I think evolving is a bad word to use here. There is no life on comets. There is no biological evolution on them, either. I think a better, more accurate word might be "forming", as it doesn't have the biological implications of the word evolve.

I don';t have a problem with the idea of life on comets. I acknowledge that it would have to be in a very different form to any extant life form on Earth though

 

[Chalnoth]

The Big Bang Theory:
God said it and 'Bang' it happened.

Cute, but just plain wrong.

The big bang theory has a very misleading name. This shouldn't be terribly surprising, as the name was not coined by anybody that developed the theory, but instead by a critic of the theory. What the big bang theory actually is is a theory about how space expands with time. It says that space is, on large scales, very smooth and expanding, and is described by General Relativity.

It doesn't actually say anything about the origins of the universe, as the assumptions used to form the theory break down before we get to the point in the theory that could be the "origin". That is to say, though the theory includes an origin of sorts, the theory itself can't be taken seriously that far back.

 

[Chalnoth]

I don';t have a problem with the idea of life on comets. I acknowledge that it would have to be in a very different form to any extant life form on Earth though

True. But at the current point in time there is no evidence that it does exist there. So I think it's best to go with what we do know: that natural processes could, and almost certainly did, produce the organic chemicals that we see on comets and asteroids, as well as other astronomical bodies.

 

[MasterWaldo]

Cute, but just plain wrong.

The big bang theory has a very misleading name. This shouldn't be terribly surprising, as the name was not coined by anybody that developed the theory, but instead by a critic of the theory. What the big bang theory actually is is a theory about how space expands with time. It says that space is, on large scales, very smooth and expanding, and is described by General Relativity.

It doesn't actually say anything about the origins of the universe, as the assumptions used to form the theory break down before we get to the point in the theory that could be the "origin". That is to say, though the theory includes an origin of sorts, the theory itself can't be taken seriously that far back.

I understand that, I just felt that it needed to be said.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

True. But at the current point in time there is no evidence that it does exist there. So I think it's best to go with what we do know: that natural processes could, and almost certainly did, produce the organic chemicals that we see on comets and asteroids, as well as other astronomical bodies.

Oh. Well sure.

Abiogenesis is a completely natural phenomenon.

I believe God designed the universe in such a way to give rise to life, however, that doesn't mean a direct intervention from deity was required at any point during the formation and evolution of life on Earth

 

[MarcusHill]

I find the Big Bang theory, with its idea of an early universe which was fairly uniform and expanding, like a ball of snot immediately after exiting a nostril; which then expanded and became les uniform, like the snot turning into a whole spray, closely backs the truth of the Great Green Arklesiezure.

 

[juvenissun]

Except these chemicals aren't getting more complicated. It's staying roughly the same, though they are formed and destroyed all the time. The relative abundance of them is likely to increase with time in the next few billion years, though, as the heavier elements get more and more common through processing in stars.

And it doesn't really matter if we're talking about plants or animals. Equating organic matter in space to either is equally as absurd.

So, do you have a belief, or a favorable model on the origin of life?

If you do not, how could you say that any idea about it is absurd? Or, are you a creationist?

 

[juvenissun]

Impossible. Comets come from the outer reaches of our solar system, a region where the temperature has never been high enough to support any kind of plant life.

What could be the situation of comet in other solar systems? Do they have to be the same as ours?

Provided, icy planet/moon could have life under the surface. May be some seaweeds? I think we do have chance to find seaweeds on Europa.

 

[juvenissun]

What the big bang theory actually is is a theory about how space expands with time.

Good.

But, is the word "expand" also misleading? How do expand any space "inward", even with the consideration of time?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

What could be the situation of comet in other solar systems? Do they have to be the same as ours?

Provided, icy planet/moon could have life under the surface. May be some seaweeds? I think we do have chance to find seaweeds on Europa.

Undoubtedly there should be comets orbiting around stars other than ours, their compositional makeup could be different for comets in your solar system, but still made up of the 90 or so naturally occurring elements.

There is an outside chance for life in the seas of Europa, but not seaweed, because seaweed relies on photosynthesis for its energy. Any life beneath Europa’s ice would have to rely on chemosynthesis for energy.

 

[Chalnoth]

So, do you have a belief, or a favorable model on the origin of life?

If you do not, how could you say that any idea about it is absurd? Or, are you a creationist?

I thought we were talking about organic molecules here, not the origin of life. As for what's absurd and what's not, well, I do have some basic understanding of physics, chemistry, and biology that allows me to evaluate whether certain claims are absurd or not. However abiogenesis actually occurred, after all, it has to make sense with our current knowledge.

What could be the situation of comet in other solar systems? Do they have to be the same as ours?

Provided, icy planet/moon could have life under the surface. May be some seaweeds? I think we do have chance to find seaweeds on Europa.

If they aren't roughly the same sort of object, then we wouldn't call them comets, would we? Europa, for instance, is not a comet. It's a moon with the possibility of a layer of liquid water and tectonic activity below the surface.

Good.

But, is the word "expand" also misleading? How do expand any space "inward", even with the consideration of time?

No, expand is exactly right. There is no expansion "inward". It's always outward, in every direction, and everywhere, on average on large scales. Once you go below a certain size scale, of course, the expansion is not the prevalent factor. For example, we can't see the effects of expansion within our own galaxy, and can only see it when we look at large numbers of objects far beyond our own galaxy.

 

[juvenissun]

Undoubtedly there should be comets orbiting around stars other than ours, their compositional makeup could be different for comets in your solar system, but still made up of the 90 or so naturally occurring elements.

There is an outside chance for life in the seas of Europa, but not seaweed, because seaweed relies on photosynthesis for its energy. Any life beneath Europa’s ice would have to rely on chemosynthesis for energy.

Good point. It rarely happened, but it does this time. Thank you.

So we could have "plant" that lives without light as long as the "ground" is fertile. It means, there could be plant(s) without the sun(light). We have many such examples on the Earth.

 

[Naraoia]

OK, thanks.

But, I just wonder if plants could grow under far infrared (heat) or UV. It does not reflect much of it, right? Well, I need to find the spectrum data.

I guess theoretically it's possible to get energy from any wavelength, but you'd probably need different pigments for each.

I remember there was an article on the Scientific American website that speculated about photosynthetic organisms on other planets, and how their colour would depend on the spectrum of the planet's star... it was an interesting read. I think this is the one.

I said visible light because that the current plants "coincidently" use that part of light.

I for one don't think it's a coincidence but the result of the sun's emission spectrum; or rather where the sun emits most of its energy. So on earth, the visible spectrum (plus-minus a small margin) is the obvious choice for both photosynthesis and sight.

Photosynthesis is covered in the SciAm article if I remember correctly, but basically it's about the amount of energy you can get from different wavelengths.

IR isn't worth harvesting because each IR photon carries very little energy and the sun doesn't give off enough of it to make up for that - far-UV isn't worth harvesting because although each individual photon is high-energy, there are very few of them. In each case, making pigments that can catch these wavelengths would probably cost more energy than it gained (not to mention that they'd take away space from more useful pigments).

With sight, I think it's a very similar bargain. You want to get the most information for the least cost, and the solution is to go for the most abundant wavelengths.

That makes sense to me, anyway.

 

[Naraoia]

Good point. It rarely happened, but it does this time. Thank you.

So we could have "plant" that lives without light as long as the "ground" is fertile. It means, there could be plant(s) without the sun(light). We have many such examples on the Earth.

Yea, just don't call them plants

 

[Chalnoth]

IR isn't worth harvesting because each IR photon carries very little energy and the sun doesn't give off enough of it to make up for that

Actually, it's more because of the fact that our atmosphere absorbs IR quite strongly (specifically the water in it). This is a continual source of frustration for astronomers, and it's one reason why we have so many telescopes on the tops of high mountains. The Sun emits less IR than visible light, of course, but it's not that much less. The same is true with UV (except it's scattered, not absorbed).

 

[juvenissun]

I guess theoretically it's possible to get energy from any wavelength, but you'd probably need different pigments for each.

I remember there was an article on the Scientific American website that speculated about photosynthetic organisms on other planets, and how their colour would depend on the spectrum of the planet's star... it was an interesting read. I think this is the one.

I for one don't think it's a coincidence but the result of the sun's emission spectrum; or rather where the sun emits most of its energy. So on earth, the visible spectrum (plus-minus a small margin) is the obvious choice for both photosynthesis and sight.

Photosynthesis is covered in the SciAm article if I remember correctly, but basically it's about the amount of energy you can get from different wavelengths.

IR isn't worth harvesting because each IR photon carries very little energy and the sun doesn't give off enough of it to make up for that - far-UV isn't worth harvesting because although each individual photon is high-energy, there are very few of them. In each case, making pigments that can catch these wavelengths would probably cost more energy than it gained (not to mention that they'd take away space from more useful pigments).

With sight, I think it's a very similar bargain. You want to get the most information for the least cost, and the solution is to go for the most abundant wavelengths.

That makes sense to me, anyway.

Thanks. Now I know that plants could have different color in different solar system.

 

[Chalnoth]

Thanks. Now I know that plants could have different color in different solar system.

Well, if they're carbon-based, it's not that likely that they'd be very different in terms of what frequencies they absorb. If they're carbon-based, after all, there will still be water vapor in the atmosphere, which will still preferentially screen out the same frequencies of radiation in the IR range. And higher frequencies will still be scattered much more.

So, it is plausible that there could be some shift to the high or low end of the scale, but I seriously doubt that it's going to be much of a shift at all.

 

[edrogati]

So, what do they show?



Please address what I actually said. According to the viewpoint of someone on the surface of the Earth, light appeared before plants, which is not patently absurd. If the Sun and Moon became visible later, this shouldn't be a problem. Please notice that I said became visible, not, were created. As far as the order of the origin of organisms, I agree, that does create an issue with the account. However, that was not what I was talking about.

Still no response. Something I said? Or didn't say?

 

[brinny]

Well, if you've read any of my posts on this subject, you can tell I am a strong believer in the Big Bang Theory.

I think that it's very similar to evolution in the sense that it's very misunderstood scientific theory (he name itslef and give people wrong ideas of what it is). I'll admit there are a few unknowns about it here and there, but for the most part it's pretty solid.

So what do you guys think about this?

What caused the Big Bang?