universe,time ever existent
Debate Rounds (3)
This is a theory known as the "Steady State Theory". Interestingly enough it was accepted by many prominent physicists when it was first introduced. It has now been disregarded, and the big bang theory has shown such an overwhelming amount of evidence that it is now widely accepted in the scientific community and does seem to be indicative of the reality in which we live.
Before we start this debate, I would just like to clarify what evolution you are talking about. Do you simply mean evolution of the universe as in the big bang and expanding space or do you include the evolution of species? If you could reply in the comments or perhaps your following argument then that might clear some things up for me.
Thank you, and I am looking forward to this debate.
it supports my theory, since matter is produed and destroyed then there is no point in space time coordinate that must show a begining; because begining would mean only production and no destruction of matter, so both time and universe is existing forever.
i got this idea when i was reading 'the theory of everything' in that book, stephen states three possibilities of origin; one is big bang and expanding universe till infinity, second was big bang and big crunch, and most importantly third was universe and time existing forever.
It is also widely accepted that the Universe is expanding, this can be demonstrated by measuring the light shift of our neighbouring, and distant galaxies. You may have heard of a phenomenon known as "the doppler effect". This describes the way sound waves are compressed or stretched (change pitch) as the object emitting the sound travels towards you or away from you. It turns out that the same effect is had on light. When an object is travelling towards you it experiences a blue shift and when it is moving away from you it undergoes a red shifty. These shifts become more apparent at higher velocities and can be directly measured in galaxies. It turns out that all galaxies ever observed in the universe are travelling away from each other as they all experience a red shift. This is indicative of an expanding universe similar to the analogy of taking a deflated balloon with lots of little galaxies drawn on it, if you inflate the balloon then you will notice that all of your galaxies move away from each other. This can be recognised in our own Universe.
If you try to combine the steady state theory with the measured and accepted expanding universe theory then you have a bit of a paradox. If the Universe is expanding and it has also existed for an infinite amount of time then we would not be able to witness this expansion because it would have occurred an infinite amount of time ago.
The theory of everything is a good read but I think you may have taken the wrong message from it. Hawking never supported in any way the steady state theory and he actively trying to disprove it until the discovery of the CBR which he described as "The final nail in the coffin ". He always held the view that there was a beginning to the Universe and he even proved that a singularity must have existed at the beginning of the Universe.
In Summary; The Universe appears to have had a beginning, space itself is expanding or "inflating", the CBR is direct evidence of a rapid inflation of energy from 13.8 billion years ago. Stephen Hawking never endorsed the steady state theory and actively researched the beginning of the Universe.
Note: A good read is Lawrence Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing". That explains in great detail the quantum mechanics behind the idea of "empty" space and how things can arise from "nothing.
for CBR i can say that what we belive now is that this after-radiation is the result of big bang and death of old stars but one can also say that since matter was created and destroyed throughout infinity then these radiation was coming from matter destroyed long ago and not from big bang, as for uniformity we know that stars are distributed uniformly so it means they were destroyed at same time which can be the explanation of CBR.
for doppler effect we state that if universe was expanding for infinite time then we would not be able observe the shift but it doesnt state that universe had a begining.
maybe universe just started to expand and before it there was a steady constant universe it doesnt point that it had a begining.
if i were to join steady state theory with expanding universe theory them i would say that for time universe was a constant entity (steady state) and due to some reason it started expanding (expanding universe theory) the reason may be still unclear or maybe i am wrong and you won the debate. :)
it was my first debate and next time i will make sure universe was never created.
It is the uniformity of the CBR which rules out interference from the death of stars or the creation/destruction of matter. If it was caused by such things then a higher or lower value would be measured based on the direction in which you measured it in.
Stars are not uniformly distributed in space, they exist in clusters known as galaxies and within these galaxies there are areas of high densities of stars such as nebulae as well as individually.
The Universe couldn't expand from a steady state as the whole point of a steady state is that it is in equilibrium and has no reason to expand. It would require a massive influx of energy or an "explosion" to cause it to expand. This explosion would have to be of a magnitude far greater than that of the big bang, no remnants of this magnitude is measured today.
If you are still not convinced by this debate then please feel free to contact me in a message and I would be happy to recommend some textbooks, reading material and other sources which may be able to persuade you.
I like you have always been curious about the origins of the Universe and went on to study physics and cosmology after school at University, I do alot of reading and research in my own time and the big bang theory far surpasses the steady state theory in evidence and logical sense.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by distraff 1 month ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't actually make any good arguments for a steady state and was mostly on the defensive throughout the debate. Con was able to show that Pro's own sources supported the big bang. Con showed that the background radiation is evidence of the big bang and that stars are not uniform in the sky. Con's unproven assertion that the universe somehow started expanding was refuted because of all the energy it would take. Con won this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.