Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Astrophysics: The Church of the Big Bang

tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 7:06:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Big Bang never made a lot of sense to me, but I simply believed that I wasn't knowledgeable about the subject enough to get past the hurdles I was facing. That the science was simply too complex for me...

Questions like, what was before the Big Bang?

Well, I watched a rather sensationalist documentary last night, called "Universe: The Cosmology Quest". As with any sensationalist documentary, I kept an open mind. Last time I just bought into what the documentary was telling me, I began questioning all of human history but I digress.

The documentary was divided into two parts. The first part was about supposed companion galaxies and the possible flaws in judging distances by redshift. The second part focused almost entirely on plasma and the idea that dark energy and dark matter don't exist and are simply "fudge factors" in Big Bang mathematics.

So, I'm less convinced about Big Bang than I was 24 hours ago... A steady-state plasma universe is suddenly plausible. What does DDO think? Are you so certain about Big Bang?
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 9:40:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What's to say? We already know the current cosmological models built and derive from relatively are wrong in some way, due to their incompatibility with quantum mechanics.

We just don't know how to fix it yet, hence the conducting of experiments with super coliders and the hypothesizing of new models, such as string theory.

I'm fully open to the possibility of there being much more to reality than simply cutting things off at the Big Bang. We just don't know what to put there yet.

I'll have to look into it, but I believe that Dark matter was hypothesized to account for discrepancies based upon gravitational lensing around galaxies. Something is there. We just don't know what, and we can't see it.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 9:42:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 9:33:20 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Oh, come on, guys. TV and I had a pretty cool discussion about this on Facebook. I know y'all are packing better intellectual ammo than that.

I'm not surprised. All anyone on DDO seems to want to talk about these days is the other people on DDO.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 9:57:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 9:33:20 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Oh, come on, guys. TV and I had a pretty cool discussion about this on Facebook. I know y'all are packing better intellectual ammo than that.

At first I thought you meant you were talking with your TV, then I remembered people's usernames.

Anyway. There are a lot of theories regarding the big bang and some of the finer details of it. Honestly, the best thing to do would be to go to your university's physics department and grab a professor and poke them with it. I got to do that once and would love to do it again regarding Blackholes and how we jump to conclusions to a singularity.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 10:15:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 9:40:46 PM, drafterman wrote:
What's to say? We already know the current cosmological models built and derive from relatively are wrong in some way, due to their incompatibility with quantum mechanics.

Not for the string theorists. :P

We just don't know how to fix it yet, hence the conducting of experiments with super coliders and the hypothesizing of new models, such as string theory.

I'm fully open to the possibility of there being much more to reality than simply cutting things off at the Big Bang. We just don't know what to put there yet.

I'll have to look into it, but I believe that Dark matter was hypothesized to account for discrepancies based upon gravitational lensing around galaxies. Something is there. We just don't know what, and we can't see it.

Also check dark magnetism.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 10:47:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 7:06:02 PM, tvellalott wrote:
The Big Bang never made a lot of sense to me, but I simply believed that I wasn't knowledgeable about the subject enough to get past the hurdles I was facing. That the science was simply too complex for me...

Questions like, what was before the Big Bang?

Here's the thing about what was "before the big bang."

People seem to presume that the Big Bang theory is meant to explain "The Beginning" a la Genesis. This isn't the case. The Big Bang Theory is more accurately as far back as our mathematical and scientific extrapolations have taken us. Essentially, what this means is that we constructed a framework based on everything we understand about the universe, and, in effect, rewound it.

In other words, let's say there's a car travelling down an empty road at 55 mph. For the sake of simplicity, let's say that we observe this car for seven days straight and it never accelerates, decelerates, turns, or runs out of gas.

Well, this straight path at a rate of 55 mph becomes a framework, and using that framework, we can deduce the earliest possible hour that the car could have begun travelling down that road by dividing however many miles away the beginning of the road is by 55.

So, what was before the Big Bang? Nobody knows; just as we don't know where the car came from, or how it even got on that road in the first place. We just know what we've observed about the car, and that the road has a beginning.

Thus, a lack of understanding for what could have possibly preceded the Big Bang doesn't lead scientists to consider the theory dubious in its own right.

Well, I watched a rather sensationalist documentary last night, called "Universe: The Cosmology Quest". As with any sensationalist documentary, I kept an open mind. Last time I just bought into what the documentary was telling me, I began questioning all of human history but I digress.

Zeitgeist? Lulz.

The documentary was divided into two parts. The first part was about supposed companion galaxies and the possible flaws in judging distances by redshift.

You don't judge distances by redshift. Redshift is the electromagnetic manifestation of the Doppler effect, or the perception of expanding wave lengths with increasing distance. This, in and of itself, may lend to some inaccuracies in judging very large distances, but those distances are already within the parsec units of measurement -- hundreds of thousands or millions of lightyears away. In other words, it's generally distances completely out of reach as it is, and cosmologists make no claim to have any real understanding of what lay out there.

However, the shape and size of the universe wasn't figured empirically, it was figured mathematically by Henri Poincare using topography and hyperbolic geometry, based on given geometric rules to which the Universe appears to abide (which aren't Euclidean).

The second part focused almost entirely on plasma and the idea that dark energy and dark matter don't exist and are simply "fudge factors" in Big Bang mathematics.

Noootttt quite. I wonder how specifically it was worded.

"Dark matter" or "dark energy" is essentially the general variable scientists have used to account for gravitational anomalies, such as the fact that the expansion of the universe is ostensibly accelerating when a traditional conception of gravity would predict the opposite, or the fact that light appears to roll toward large objects like planets, as though those objects were sinking into a pliant substance and the light were travelling along that substance's surface.

So, I'm less convinced about Big Bang than I was 24 hours ago... A steady-state plasma universe is suddenly plausible. What does DDO think? Are you so certain about Big Bang?

What does that mean, "steady-state plasma universe"?

Pretty sure current theory holds that 99 percent of the universe is plasma. It's the fourth state of matter. It radiates off of the sun in flares and bombards us all the time. Some scientists at NASA predicted that a flare of plasma might penetrate the magnetosphere this year, in fact, potentially knocking out power grids in entire countries.

Not sure what that has to do with the Big Bang theory -- please elaborate?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 10:07:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 10:47:46 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/25/2012 7:06:02 PM, tvellalott wrote:
The Big Bang never made a lot of sense to me, but I simply believed that I wasn't knowledgeable about the subject enough to get past the hurdles I was facing. That the science was simply too complex for me...

Questions like, what was before the Big Bang?

Here's the thing about what was "before the big bang."

People seem to presume that the Big Bang theory is meant to explain "The Beginning" a la Genesis. This isn't the case. The Big Bang Theory is more accurately as far back as our mathematical and scientific extrapolations have taken us. Essentially, what this means is that we constructed a framework based on everything we understand about the universe, and, in effect, rewound it.

In other words, let's say there's a car travelling down an empty road at 55 mph. For the sake of simplicity, let's say that we observe this car for seven days straight and it never accelerates, decelerates, turns, or runs out of gas.

Well, this straight path at a rate of 55 mph becomes a framework, and using that framework, we can deduce the earliest possible hour that the car could have begun travelling down that road by dividing however many miles away the beginning of the road is by 55.

So, what was before the Big Bang? Nobody knows; just as we don't know where the car came from, or how it even got on that road in the first place. We just know what we've observed about the car, and that the road has a beginning.

Thus, a lack of understanding for what could have possibly preceded the Big Bang doesn't lead scientists to consider the theory dubious in its own right.

Well, I watched a rather sensationalist documentary last night, called "Universe: The Cosmology Quest". As with any sensationalist documentary, I kept an open mind. Last time I just bought into what the documentary was telling me, I began questioning all of human history but I digress.

Zeitgeist? Lulz.

The documentary was divided into two parts. The first part was about supposed companion galaxies and the possible flaws in judging distances by redshift.

You don't judge distances by redshift. Redshift is the electromagnetic manifestation of the Doppler effect, or the perception of expanding wave lengths with increasing distance. This, in and of itself, may lend to some inaccuracies in judging very large distances, but those distances are already within the parsec units of measurement -- hundreds of thousands or millions of lightyears away. In other words, it's generally distances completely out of reach as it is, and cosmologists make no claim to have any real understanding of what lay out there.

However, the shape and size of the universe wasn't figured empirically, it was figured mathematically by Henri Poincare using topography and hyperbolic geometry, based on given geometric rules to which the Universe appears to abide (which aren't Euclidean).

The second part focused almost entirely on plasma and the idea that dark energy and dark matter don't exist and are simply "fudge factors" in Big Bang mathematics.

Noootttt quite. I wonder how specifically it was worded.

"Dark matter" or "dark energy" is essentially the general variable scientists have used to account for gravitational anomalies, such as the fact that the expansion of the universe is ostensibly accelerating when a traditional conception of gravity would predict the opposite, or the fact that light appears to roll toward large objects like planets, as though those objects were sinking into a pliant substance and the light were travelling along that substance's surface.

So, I'm less convinced about Big Bang than I was 24 hours ago... A steady-state plasma universe is suddenly plausible. What does DDO think? Are you so certain about Big Bang?

What does that mean, "steady-state plasma universe"?

Pretty sure current theory holds that 99 percent of the universe is plasma. It's the fourth state of matter. It radiates off of the sun in flares and bombards us all the time. Some scientists at NASA predicted that a flare of plasma might penetrate the magnetosphere this year, in fact, potentially knocking out power grids in entire countries.

Not sure what that has to do with the Big Bang theory -- please elaborate?

Great response Ren. Are you in the field somewhere?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 12:05:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 7:06:02 PM, tvellalott wrote:
The Big Bang never made a lot of sense to me, but I simply believed that I wasn't knowledgeable about the subject enough to get past the hurdles I was facing. That the science was simply too complex for me...
It happens, but one should always make an attempt to understand and the internet is an awesome place to do that.

Questions like, what was before the Big Bang?
Well, it depends how you want to approach this: if time began at t=0 of the BB, then that question is actually meaningless; it isn't even really a question. This is because the phrase "before the Big Bang" has no meaning: there cannot time before the beginning of time.

On the other hand, if you think that there was a time before the BB, then the question is valid BUT how can we answer it if science cannot even speak to what's going on at t=0! Actually, physics BEGINS at t=Planck Time; so scientifically we really can't say much.

Then of course, there are the various flavors of String Theory (ie M-Theory in particular) that entail a Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Within these frameworks, one can say that before the BB there were other BB that occurred/occur at the intersection of branaes (structures in 11-Dimensional Multiverse.) Actually, within theses frameworks one can say just about anything! This theory is of course HIGHLY speculative and has little to no empirical evidence to support it.

Well, I watched a rather sensationalist documentary last night, called "Universe: The Cosmology Quest". As with any sensationalist documentary, I kept an open mind. Last time I just bought into what the documentary was telling me, I began questioning all of human history but I digress.

The documentary was divided into two parts. The first part was about supposed companion galaxies and the possible flaws in judging distances by redshift. The second part focused almost entirely on plasma and the idea that dark energy and dark matter don't exist and are simply "fudge factors" in Big Bang mathematics.
Well, I honestly don't know how dark-anything has anything to do with the BB; the BBT does not mention dark matter or energy. Dark-anything simply refers to things that we THINK should be there but we haven't or can't measure it and hence do not know for sure. I think these might more aptly be described as "fudge factors" in String or M-Theory.

I honestly don't know what you mean by plasma and ow it applies to an alternative to the BB. Can you explain this?

So, I'm less convinced about Big Bang than I was 24 hours ago...
I wouldn't be. I think you should reconsider.

A steady-state plasma universe is suddenly plausible. What does DDO think? Are you so certain about Big Bang?
The SST (steady-state theory) is mostly disproved by the discovery of the CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation), which was predicted by the BBT.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.