Total Posts:103|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

mathamatical odds of big bang therory

sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 6:10:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Paraphrased from an article I read.

The Big Bang Theory is being presented as a credible scientific theory.

One of the facets of science is mathematics--The Big Bang Theory through the spectrum of math and probability is an improbable theory. To be viable scientifically, there should be a quantifiable probability that it would even be possible.

Ignore for the moment that there is no viable explanation of where the initial atoms came from. Or that, in all the vastness of the known universe these atoms could somehow find each other to initiate the explosion. This alone, if quantified as a mathematical probability, would likely exceed a googolplex--or a googol raised to the googoleth power--a number that is so big that it cannot be written by a human in an entire lifetime.

Additionally, you have the obvious fact that there is no scientific evidence in any other case of order coming from chaos. Or, if it is possible, what are the odds? How could you quantify the odds of order coming from chaos? The initial odds are so staggering as to preclude any further belief that this could be true.

With each step of order that came from the Big Bang, the odds of possibility decrease exponentially. The mathematical probability of each of the following being possible as a direct or indirect result of an explosion ,however far removed in time from the initial blast.

•An explosion big enough to expand matter throughout the known universe but not eradicate all life forms?

The mathematical probability that all order came from chaos requires as much if not more faith than considering or believing it was created.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 6:16:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think the author misunderstands the Big Bang Theory. In addition, people don't believe in the Big Bang because of its mathematical possibility, but because of evidence for it. For example, there is redshift and cosmic background radiation.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 6:18:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It doesn't matter what the odds are, it's just because of the evidence. For example, if I pick a random card and get a 6 of Hearts, I wouldn't say that it's unlikely, so it couldn't of happened. Faced with the evidence, I would accept that I got a 6 of Hearts. Odds don't matter when you have evidence that it happened.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 6:20:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 6:16:10 PM, seraine wrote:
I think the author misunderstands the Big Bang Theory. In addition, people don't believe in the Big Bang because of its mathematical possibility, but because of evidence for it. For example, there is redshift and cosmic background radiation.

What does either of them prove other than the exsistance of radiation and movement?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 6:20:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
One of the most fascinating things about reality is that life on this planet appears to have manifested under astronomical odds.

Anyway, the explosion is still occurring. We are the explosion.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 6:23:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 6:18:54 PM, seraine wrote:
It doesn't matter what the odds are, it's just because of the evidence. For example, if I pick a random card and get a 6 of Hearts, I wouldn't say that it's unlikely, so it couldn't of happened. Faced with the evidence, I would accept that I got a 6 of Hearts. Odds don't matter when you have evidence that it happened.

this
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 7:18:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So, the "observation" of red shift and cosmic background radiation scientifically and logically extrapolates automatically into the big bang theory thus making it a probability?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 7:21:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why is order and complexity "Not" evidence for creation? We clearly observe that. Why does science assume it came from chaos.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 7:23:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
the "probability" of our existence being as it is (big bang included) Rather than things being some Other way Cannot be calculated.

This is because there are no standards by which to oppose our reality to some other supposedly potential reality.

B/c Metaphysics is Rubbish.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 7:36:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 7:18:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
So, the "observation" of red shift and cosmic background radiation scientifically and logically extrapolates automatically into the big bang theory thus making it a probability?

This is like saying the evidence for dark matter "makes it a probability."

The evidence all points to the fact that sometime in the past, the universe was much hotter and much smaller. If you keep following that trajectory, the evidence leads to less than a millsecond after the big bang. The "bang" itself is extrapolated from empirical evidence of the universe being really small and hot and then exploding outwards over billions of years.

You'd need to thoroughly change physics in order to explain red shift and background radiation in a way that does not lead to the conclusion of a smaller, hotter universe billions of years ago.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 7:48:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 6:10:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Paraphrased from an article I read.

The Big Bang Theory is being presented as a credible scientific theory.

One of the facets of science is mathematics--The Big Bang Theory through the spectrum of math and probability is an improbable theory. To be viable scientifically, there should be a quantifiable probability that it would even be possible.

Additionally, you have the obvious fact that there is no scientific evidence in any other case of order coming from chaos. Or, if it is possible, what are the odds? How could you quantify the odds of order coming from chaos? The initial odds are so staggering as to preclude any further belief that this could be true.

With each step of order that came from the Big Bang, the odds of possibility decrease exponentially. The mathematical probability of each of the following being possible as a direct or indirect result of an explosion ,however far removed in time from the initial blast.

•An explosion big enough to expand matter throughout the known universe but not eradicate all life forms?

The mathematical probability that all order came from chaos requires as much if not more faith than considering or believing it was created.

This article was written by someone with almost no understanding of astronomy/physics, and I sure as heck don't claim to be any kind of expert.

For instance, we have quite a bit of evidence showing order comes from chaos. It's called Chaos Theory. Check out Strange attractors and fractals.

Before the big bang, there was nothing to eradicate. No life. No nothing. After the big bang, things had to cool down before you even had what we now call atoms to work with. So what on earth does it mean to say the big bang eradicted pre-existing life?

You can define the universe as either the boundary around the results of the big bang or the infinite space around it. If you define it as the former, it is nonsensical to say "the big bang expanded to fit the universe." If you define it as the latter, you're simply mistaken since the big bang cannot possibly stretch through the whole universe.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 9:08:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 7:48:06 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/29/2012 6:10:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Paraphrased from an article I read.

The Big Bang Theory is being presented as a credible scientific theory.

One of the facets of science is mathematics--The Big Bang Theory through the spectrum of math and probability is an improbable theory. To be viable scientifically, there should be a quantifiable probability that it would even be possible.

Additionally, you have the obvious fact that there is no scientific evidence in any other case of order coming from chaos. Or, if it is possible, what are the odds? How could you quantify the odds of order coming from chaos? The initial odds are so staggering as to preclude any further belief that this could be true.

With each step of order that came from the Big Bang, the odds of possibility decrease exponentially. The mathematical probability of each of the following being possible as a direct or indirect result of an explosion ,however far removed in time from the initial blast.

•An explosion big enough to expand matter throughout the known universe but not eradicate all life forms?

The mathematical probability that all order came from chaos requires as much if not more faith than considering or believing it was created.

This article was written by someone with almost no understanding of astronomy/physics, and I sure as heck don't claim to be any kind of expert.

For instance, we have quite a bit of evidence showing order comes from chaos. It's called Chaos Theory. Check out Strange attractors and fractals.

Before the big bang, there was nothing to eradicate. No life. No nothing. After the big bang, things had to cool down before you even had what we now call atoms to work with. So what on earth does it mean to say the big bang eradicted pre-existing life?

You can define the universe as either the boundary around the results of the big bang or the infinite space around it. If you define it as the former, it is nonsensical to say "the big bang expanded to fit the universe." If you define it as the latter, you're simply mistaken since the big bang cannot possibly stretch through the whole universe.

I find it interesting how so many are so absolute in what was before the so called big bang. And also how absolute people are that the universe was a singularity at it's inception, why does it have to be a singularity at the beginning why does there have to be an explosion, why couldn't the universe start as maybe a light year across instead of a singularity. It all sounds so presumptuous
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 9:13:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 9:08:59 PM, sadolite wrote:

I find it interesting how so many are so absolute in what was before the so called big bang. And also how absolute people are that the universe was a singularity at it's inception, why does it have to be a singularity at the beginning why does there have to be an explosion, why couldn't the universe start as maybe a light year across instead of a singularity. It all sounds so presumptuous

I understand.

The reason why scientists have extrapolated the Big Bang Theory, to my knowledge, is due to the fact that they realized that the Universe is expanding, and we applied that to a function of the trajectory of known forces in reverse.

Then, we replicated certain conditions -- such as the forces necessary to create the fusion of heavy elements from light elements -- that confirm such hypotheses.

Moreover, we've extrapolated certain conditions (like given temperatures of given areas of the universe) based on the model to which the Big Bang abides, and then confirmed them true.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 11:46:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Question:
Mentioning that the Big bang happened at a dense state and was spinning and was the size of a period on a sentence. We will start. You put four kids on a merry-go-round and have two grown-ups pushing. They push the kids clock-wise. They push and push, the kids, say faster and faster. You go faster. Spinning and spinning around and around, until they kids spin off. Which way they spin off? clock-wise, right? If so why do we planets and moons rotating counter-clockwise>?
TheAsylum
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 6:38:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 6:10:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Paraphrased from an article I read.

The Big Bang Theory is being presented as a credible scientific theory.

One of the facets of science is mathematics--The Big Bang Theory through the spectrum of math and probability is an improbable theory. To be viable scientifically, there should be a quantifiable probability that it would even be possible.

Ignore for the moment that there is no viable explanation of where the initial atoms came from.

Yes there is: from the existing electrons and protons. Once the energies were sufficiently low, the electromagnetic force was able to couple these electrons and protons into the first hydrogen atoms (and some helium).

Or that, in all the vastness of the known universe these atoms could somehow find each other to initiate the explosion.

Eh? What? What explosion? The Big Bang? Uhm. Well, the Big Bang wasn't an "explosion" nor was it initiated by preexisting atoms. Atoms came after the Big Bang. At this point, both you and the author need to go back to school and educate yourself on the material being discussed.

This alone, if quantified as a mathematical probability, would likely exceed a googolplex--or a googol raised to the googoleth power--a number that is so big that it cannot be written by a human in an entire lifetime.

1. So long as it is a number it is a "quantifiable probability" greater than 0, making it a possibility and meeting the arbitrary requirements set forth at the onset of this article.
2. Show your math, please.


Additionally, you have the obvious fact that there is no scientific evidence in any other case of order coming from chaos.

The Sierpinski triangle.

Or, if it is possible, what are the odds? How could you quantify the odds of order coming from chaos? The initial odds are so staggering as to preclude any further belief that this could be true.

As far as I know, the process which generates The Sierpinski triangle always does so. So... 100%?


With each step of order that came from the Big Bang, the odds of possibility decrease exponentially. The mathematical probability of each of the following being possible as a direct or indirect result of an explosion ,however far removed in time from the initial blast.

Actually, as described entropically, the Big Bang started in an infinitely orderly state (singularity) and, through the proccess of expansion (not explosion) became less orderly and more chaotic, as per the second law of thermodynamics.

The fallacy here is to take localized instances of order, such as life, and then extrapolate that attribute to the entire universe. However, localized increases in order are perfectly acceptable given a net decrease in order overall.


•An explosion big enough to expand matter throughout the known universe but not eradicate all life forms?

...

Du what?


The mathematical probability that all order came from chaos requires as much if not more faith than considering or believing it was created.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 8:35:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 6:16:10 PM, seraine wrote:
I think the author misunderstands the Big Bang Theory. In addition, people don't believe in the Big Bang because of its mathematical possibility, but because of evidence for it. For example, there is redshift and cosmic background radiation.

The redshift does not evidence a Big Bang.

The big bang is entirely theoretical. There is no direct evidence of it.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 8:35:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 11:46:24 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Question:
Mentioning that the Big bang happened at a dense state and was spinning and was the size of a period on a sentence. We will start. You put four kids on a merry-go-round and have two grown-ups pushing. They push the kids clock-wise. They push and push, the kids, say faster and faster. You go faster. Spinning and spinning around and around, until they kids spin off. Which way they spin off? clock-wise, right? If so why do we planets and moons rotating counter-clockwise>?

There's no indication that there was any spinning, or that spinning even existed, at the point of singularity. Planets spin in all directions just as the particles that comprise them do.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 8:48:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 8:35:35 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
At 5/29/2012 6:16:10 PM, seraine wrote:
I think the author misunderstands the Big Bang Theory. In addition, people don't believe in the Big Bang because of its mathematical possibility, but because of evidence for it. For example, there is redshift and cosmic background radiation.

The redshift does not evidence a Big Bang.

The big bang is entirely theoretical. There is no direct evidence of it.

All science is "theoretical."
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 8:51:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
All science is "theoretical."

But, the BBT is a theory with no direct evidence to support it, unlike most real scientific theories.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 8:57:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 8:51:51 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
All science is "theoretical."

But, the BBT is a theory with no direct evidence to support it, unlike most real scientific theories.

At 5/29/2012 9:13:25 PM, Ren wrote:

I understand.

The reason why scientists have extrapolated the Big Bang Theory, to my knowledge, is due to the fact that they realized that the Universe is expanding, and we applied that to a function of the trajectory of known forces in reverse.

Then, we replicated certain conditions -- such as the forces necessary to create the fusion of heavy elements from light elements -- that confirm such hypotheses.

Moreover, we've extrapolated certain conditions (like given temperatures of given areas of the universe) based on the model to which the Big Bang abides, and then confirmed them true.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 9:09:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 8:51:51 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
All science is "theoretical."

But, the BBT is a theory with no direct evidence to support it, unlike most real scientific theories.

As stated, redshift and background radiation support the BBT.
There is no direct evidence of gravity, either.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 9:28:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Brief History of the BBT:

1. Vesto Slipher measures (direct evidence) the redshift of a neighboring galaxy and determines that it is retreating from us. The implications of this are unknown, and it is not known that it was a neighboring galaxy.

2. Einstein generates equations for general relativity which suggest that the Universe should be expanding. Believing in a static universe, he introduces a cosmological constant to remedy this.

3. Alexander Friedmann derives his own equations from Einstein's which posit an expanding universe. Georges Lemaître independently derives his own copies of these equations.

3. Observations (direct observations, direct evidence) performed by Edwin Hubble determine that these nearby objects were, in fact, distant galaxies.

4. The retreat of these galaxies is posited by Georges Lemaître as due to the expansion of the universe which, if reversed, indicates a constraction if you go backward through time.

5. Edward Hubble makes a series of observations, measuring distances and velocities of galaxies outside ours (direct evidence). From these observations he constructs Hubble's Law and notes that the magnitude of the velocity correlates with its distance from us (the further it is away, the faster it is reatreating).

6. These observations (Hubble) along with the implications (Lemaître) is in direct opposition to the static, steady state Universe accepted at the time. To resolve this, many scientitists come up with Lemaître's "Big Bang" theory, such as an oscillating universe (Friedmann/Einstein/Tollman), or continual creation of matter (Hoyle).

7. Lemaître's theory is expanded upon by Gamow, Alpher, and Herman to include nucleosynthesis and background radiation.

8. Direct observations of the universe - most importantly the discovery and direct observation of background radiation, as predicted by Alpher and Herman - lend support to the Big Bang Theory, and other options lose support, as they lack evidence.

That brings us to 1964.

Since then scientists have mainly been trying to determine A) exactly what was happening during those early moments and B) the development of the universe since then.

The BBT is based upon direct observation (redshift, background radiation) and extrapolation. We extrapoloate that, if the universe is expanding, then it used to be smaller. If it used to be smaller, then the energies were higher. Using particle accellerators, we can replicate the energies at early times in the universe to see what kinds of physics were operating.

Based upon continued direct observation of the universe as is, we can get a sense of how the universe has expanded, leading to additional components such as inflationary expansion, dark matter, dark energy, etc.

Like evolution, it is no longer a question of whether it happened - we've determined it to be the best answer currently - but the precise details of how.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 10:45:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
1. Vesto Slipher measures (direct evidence) the redshift of a neighboring galaxy and determines that it is retreating from us. The implications of this are unknown, and it is not known that it was a neighboring galaxy.

That's not direct evidence of a big bang. That's just direct evidence that the universe is bigger than it was in the past.

3. Observations (direct observations, direct evidence) performed by Edwin Hubble determine that these nearby objects were, in fact, distant galaxies.

Not direct evidence for the Big Bang, just evidence that there are multiple galaxies.

5. Edward Hubble makes a series of observations, measuring distances and velocities of galaxies outside ours (direct evidence). From these observations he constructs Hubble's Law and notes that the magnitude of the velocity correlates with its distance from us (the further it is away, the faster it is reatreating).

Hubble didn't have the standard candles to measure the ditances of many galaxies. Observations of acceleration were shown in the 1998 type 1A supernova standard candles, not in Cepheid Variables used by Hubble.

Also, I reiterate, this is not direct evidence of the Big Bang, only that the Universe was smaller at one point.

The BBT is based upon direct observation (redshift, background radiation) and extrapolation. We extrapoloate that, if the universe is expanding, then it used to be smaller. If it used to be smaller, then the energies were higher. Using particle accellerators, we can replicate the energies at early times in the universe to see what kinds of physics were operating.

The Cosmic Microwave Background, according to the theory, is the first escaping light when the universe became opaque 300,000 years after this theoretical bang. The CMB is not evidence of the Big Bang, only possible evidence of hotter conditions in the past.

Just because the Universe used to be smaller does not mean it approached the smallness that the BBT says. There is no evidence that we can take it back that far. It's all theoretical. There's nothing empirical to get us to that point.

Based upon continued direct observation of the universe as is, we can get a sense of how the universe has expanded, leading to additional components such as inflationary expansion, dark matter, dark energy, etc.

Inflationary expansion differs from standard models. With it, there are essentially two completely different big bang theories. And, again, there is absolutely no evidence for inflation. At least the standard BBT has the benefit of logic despite no evidence for it.

Like evolution, it is no longer a question of whether it happened - we've determined it to be the best answer currently - but the precise details of how.

Depends on which version you are talking about. There are several versions of "what" happened, how small it got, and the processes that were in play.

I wil reiterate. These differences are because there is absolutely no evidence that it happened. It is just a strong probability based on the logic of what we do know did occur, which was a long history of expansion, but logic that takes great leaps.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 10:53:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 9:09:05 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/30/2012 8:51:51 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
All science is "theoretical."

But, the BBT is a theory with no direct evidence to support it, unlike most real scientific theories.

As stated, redshift and background radiation support the BBT.
There is no direct evidence of gravity, either

Depends on how specific you want to get.

If you want to tlk about the gravitational effect of large bodies attracting smaller bodies, then that's easy to demonstrate.

But, what gravity is, and a comprehensive theory of gravity is elusive and problematic since quantum theory doesn't even account for its effect except for very specific occurrences, such as Hawking Radiation.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 11:01:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 6:10:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
Paraphrased from an article I read.

The Big Bang Theory is being presented as a credible scientific theory.

One of the facets of science is mathematics--The Big Bang Theory through the spectrum of math and probability is an improbable theory. To be viable scientifically, there should be a quantifiable probability that it would even be possible.
Sounds to me that either the author doesn't understand the BBT or is making an INCREDIBLE amount of assumptions.

Ignore for the moment that there is no viable explanation of where the initial atoms came from.
First assumption, and it is incorrect. There IS a viable explanation as to where the initial atoms came from: the cool-down of the quark soup that came from the BB.

Or that, in all the vastness of the known universe these atoms could somehow find each other to initiate the explosion.
Second assumption that is also incorrect. The vastness of the known Universe developed from the BB. Atoms did not need to "find" each other as they all came from the same place.

This alone, if quantified as a mathematical probability, would likely exceed a googolplex--or a googol raised to the googoleth power--a number that is so big that it cannot be written by a human in an entire lifetime.
Good thing this has nothing to do with the BBT!

Additionally, you have the obvious fact that there is no scientific evidence in any other case of order coming from chaos.
Third assumption that is also incorrect. This stems from a misunderstanding of "chaos" and "order" and entropy. It may come to a surprise, but there is order in chaos! Once one understands about the 2 types of orders, then one can see how this is so. The 2 types of order are grouping order (the extreme order at the BB) and symmetry order (the order in the direction of entropy that guides the Universe to the end of time.) At no point in time within the BBT, is entropy violated.

Or, if it is possible, what are the odds? How could you quantify the odds of order coming from chaos? The initial odds are so staggering as to preclude any further belief that this could be true.
No need to calculate (nor is it possible to do so) because this is the wrong assumption and has nothing to do with the BBT.

With each step of order that came from the Big Bang, the odds of possibility decrease exponentially. The mathematical probability of each of the following being possible as a direct or indirect result of an explosion ,however far removed in time from the initial blast.
More misunderstanding of the BBT.

•An explosion big enough to expand matter throughout the known universe but not eradicate all life forms?
What? The explosion IS the known Universe. Wow, this is one of the most egregious misrepresentations of the BBT I have ever come across!

The mathematical probability that all order came from chaos requires as much if not more faith than considering or believing it was created.
If the author wrote this, then he has NO IDEA what the BBT is about.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 11:02:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 10:45:10 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
1. Vesto Slipher measures (direct evidence) the redshift of a neighboring galaxy and determines that it is retreating from us. The implications of this are unknown, and it is not known that it was a neighboring galaxy.

That's not direct evidence of a big bang. That's just direct evidence that the universe is bigger than it was in the past.

It's direct evidence that supports the BBT theory.


3. Observations (direct observations, direct evidence) performed by Edwin Hubble determine that these nearby objects were, in fact, distant galaxies.

Not direct evidence for the Big Bang, just evidence that there are multiple galaxies.

All of which are retreating away from us, in support of an expanding universe as a result of the BBT.


5. Edward Hubble makes a series of observations, measuring distances and velocities of galaxies outside ours (direct evidence). From these observations he constructs Hubble's Law and notes that the magnitude of the velocity correlates with its distance from us (the further it is away, the faster it is reatreating).

Hubble didn't have the standard candles to measure the ditances of many galaxies. Observations of acceleration were shown in the 1998 type 1A supernova standard candles, not in Cepheid Variables used by Hubble.

Also, I reiterate, this is not direct evidence of the Big Bang, only that the Universe was smaller at one point.

Which supports the BBT.



The BBT is based upon direct observation (redshift, background radiation) and extrapolation. We extrapoloate that, if the universe is expanding, then it used to be smaller. If it used to be smaller, then the energies were higher. Using particle accellerators, we can replicate the energies at early times in the universe to see what kinds of physics were operating.

The Cosmic Microwave Background, according to the theory, is the first escaping light when the universe became opaque 300,000 years after this theoretical bang. The CMB is not evidence of the Big Bang, only possible evidence of hotter conditions in the past.

Which supports the BBT.


Just because the Universe used to be smaller does not mean it approached the smallness that the BBT says. There is no evidence that we can take it back that far. It's all theoretical. There's nothing empirical to get us to that point.

There is more evidence for the BBT than there is for any other suggestion. Furthermore, absolutely, positively, NOTHING no explanation, in any field of epistemology, meets the standards you are insisting open. At which point you need to explain why anyone should adhere to those outrageous standards.



Based upon continued direct observation of the universe as is, we can get a sense of how the universe has expanded, leading to additional components such as inflationary expansion, dark matter, dark energy, etc.

Inflationary expansion differs from standard models. With it, there are essentially two completely different big bang theories. And, again, there is absolutely no evidence for inflation. At least the standard BBT has the benefit of logic despite no evidence for it.

There is evidence for it. It seems like you're looking for a single piece of evidence that proves everything. I reject your criteria. You have to understand that, when I use terms like "support", "evidence" and "theory" I am using them in the sense that science, and most rational people, use them. I am not adhering to your nonsensical extreme definitions of these words. No one is.


Like evolution, it is no longer a question of whether it happened - we've determined it to be the best answer currently - but the precise details of how.

Depends on which version you are talking about. There are several versions of "what" happened, how small it got, and the processes that were in play.

Yeah. That's what I said. The different competing versions are our way of trying to figure out the precise deatils.


I wil reiterate. These differences are because there is absolutely no evidence that it happened. It is just a strong probability based on the logic of what we do know did occur, which was a long history of expansion, but logic that takes great leaps.

If there is no support for the BBT, then how do you imagine that we ruled out other, non-BBT theories, especially given a preexisting environment that was antagonistic to any BBT?

Did you think we just flipped a coin and everyone just accepted it?

I'm interesting in your thoughts on the matter.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 11:03:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 10:53:22 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
At 5/30/2012 9:09:05 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/30/2012 8:51:51 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
All science is "theoretical."

But, the BBT is a theory with no direct evidence to support it, unlike most real scientific theories.

As stated, redshift and background radiation support the BBT.
There is no direct evidence of gravity, either

Depends on how specific you want to get.

If you want to tlk about the gravitational effect of large bodies attracting smaller bodies, then that's easy to demonstrate.

Then do it.


But, what gravity is, and a comprehensive theory of gravity is elusive and problematic since quantum theory doesn't even account for its effect except for very specific occurrences, such as Hawking Radiation.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 1:31:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 11:03:23 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/30/2012 10:53:22 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
At 5/30/2012 9:09:05 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/30/2012 8:51:51 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
All science is "theoretical."

But, the BBT is a theory with no direct evidence to support it, unlike most real scientific theories.

As stated, redshift and background radiation support the BBT.
There is no direct evidence of gravity, either

Depends on how specific you want to get.

If you want to tlk about the gravitational effect of large bodies attracting smaller bodies, then that's easy to demonstrate.

Then do it.

If I drop an apple, it falls to the ground. That is an effect of gravity. Same for the Earth and the Sun. They both orbit their mutual center of mass where neither the Sun nor the Earth have enough momentum to escape from the Sun-Earth gravitational relationship.

Those are two effects of gravity as demonstrated by common knowledge.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 1:36:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And, just so we relate this to the BBT. the reason I can define this is because I can predict that, if I release an apple from my hnd above the ground. It will go in a predictable direction. This is proof that something exists that attracts two objects together, and the bigger the object, the greater its attraction.

You cannot demonstrate the BBT because it cannot be re-created, and this is one of the big problems of science. The BBT cannot ever be replicated, so it cannot be falsified by direct observations.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman