Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 48 of 48

Thread: How Do We Know (Big Bang Initial Size)... ?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    We do know that it happened. We have multiple lines of evidence that it happened. If it didn't happen we wouldn't be here :P
    Seriously the Big Bang is the best explanation for the observations we have and we have a ton of observations that all point to the same thing. That our observable universe was in a very hot dense state and that it had a rapid period of inflation...blah blah blah...current day cosmic expansion is not only happening but also increasing in its rate.
    I understand you have faith in your belief system, but science requires experimental verification. No verification exists for the Incredible Shrinking Universe belief system. We're not privy to all the previous states of the universe, the only thing we can say with certainty is that the universe obeys physical laws, whereas "big bang" myths violate virtually all known physical laws, for example the known incompatibility of solid and liquid matter, the "Isles of stability" principle of nuclear physics, ex nihilo creation and the list goes on and on.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    No, as I've said maybe six or seven times in various different
    threads, including previously in this one, I meant QM, not GR.

    And as I've said several times, we know for sure that QM has
    to be extended to account for whatever happened at the Big
    Bang. As it stands now, it can't do that. Extending it in that
    way might, for example, describe how all the matter-energy
    of the Universe came into existence over a period of time
    (maybe a second, or a picosecond), eliminating the infinite
    density predicted by GR. No change needs to be made to GR
    to change the result of GR's prediction. GR's prediction is
    calculated with the assumption that the mass-energy of the
    Universe doesn't change.

    If I have an apple (which I do), and multiply the number of
    apples I have by two every day, in less than two months I'll
    have over a quintillion apples. Certainly that number of
    apples doesn't exist in the whole world. Multiplication must
    be incorrect, mustn't it? It failed by predicting an impossible
    number of apples in a perfectly reasonable period of time.

    Or maybe one of the inputs into the multiplication was wrong.
    Maybe it wasn't a failure of multiplication, but a failure to
    account for the fact that I can't increase the number of apples
    I have in the way I assumed.

    GR might be incomplete, like QM, but the fact that it predicts
    a singularity and infinite density at t=0 is not a failure of GR.
    It is a correct prediction by GR from the assumption that the
    mass-energy of the Universe is unchanging.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    Your apt description of the disconnect between math and reality underscores the absolute requirement of experimental verification in science. Math is not science and is a good substitute for creative fiction, a **** poor substitute for scientific rigor.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    No, as I've said maybe six or seven times in various different
    threads, including previously in this one, I meant QM, not GR.

    And as I've said several times, we know for sure that QM has
    to be extended to account for whatever happened at the Big
    Bang. As it stands now, it can't do that. Extending it in that
    way might, for example, describe how all the matter-energy
    of the Universe came into existence over a period of time
    (maybe a second, or a picosecond), eliminating the infinite
    density predicted by GR. No change needs to be made to GR
    to change the result of GR's prediction. GR's prediction is
    calculated with the assumption that the mass-energy of the
    Universe doesn't change.

    If I have an apple (which I do), and multiply the number of
    apples I have by two every day, in less than two months I'll
    have over a quintillion apples. Certainly that number of
    apples doesn't exist in the whole world. Multiplication must
    be incorrect, mustn't it? It failed by predicting an impossible
    number of apples in a perfectly reasonable period of time.

    Or maybe one of the inputs into the multiplication was wrong.
    Maybe it wasn't a failure of multiplication, but a failure to
    account for the fact that I can't increase the number of apples
    I have in the way I assumed.

    GR might be incomplete, like QM, but the fact that it predicts
    a singularity and infinite density at t=0 is not a failure of GR.
    It is a correct prediction by GR from the assumption that the
    mass-energy of the Universe is unchanging.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    t = 0 is not a failure of math, you're right, it's a failure of the notion of counting time backwards to 0. We don't see any evidence the universe (or time) ever had an origin, so speculations about such an origin are straying off into hallucinatory terrain.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Quote Originally Posted by effingham View Post
    Until such evidence arises showing that the universe
    There are multiple lines of evidence.

    a) is expanding (Expanding into what, exactly?
    It is not expanding "into" anything. The distance between things is increasing.

    Ex nihilo creation myth, anyone?
    No.

    Expanding universe is "fact" yet expanding earth is met with hysterical crying?)
    The expanding universe is not a fact, it is a theory. In other words, it is supported by evidence.

    Consensus of belief systems is not a requisite of science.
    Did anyone say it was?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Quote Originally Posted by effingham View Post
    I understand you have faith in your belief system, but science requires experimental verification.
    If by that you mean, for example, the theory making a prediction that is later confirmed by observation then that is exactly why the big bang model is currently the accepted theory.

    whereas "big bang" myths violate virtually all known physical laws, for example the known incompatibility of solid and liquid matter, the "Isles of stability" principle of nuclear physics, ex nihilo creation and the list goes on and on.
    I don't know what most of the things on that list refer to but as "ex nihilo creation" is a strawman (i.e. not part of the big bang model) then I guess they are equally irrelevant.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    There are multiple lines of evidence.



    It is not expanding "into" anything. The distance between things is increasing.



    No.



    The expanding universe is not a fact, it is a theory. In other words, it is supported by evidence.



    Did anyone say it was?
    Your belief system not only proposes the ridiculous notion that the universe is "expanding" but also that there is space outside (i.e. more universe) it into which it can expand. If you do not see the absurdity of this idea, I doubt anyone can help you see it.
    Last edited by effingham; 2014-Jul-26 at 06:32 PM.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Quote Originally Posted by effingham View Post
    Your belief system not only purposes the ridiculous notion that the universe is "expanding" but also that there is space outside
    There is nothing "outside".

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    There is nothing "outside".
    There is not even an "outside" into which this nothing you reference can (not) exist.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,312
    Quote Originally Posted by effingham View Post
    Your belief system not only proposes the ridiculous notion that the universe is "expanding" but also that there is space outside (i.e. more universe) it into which it can expand. If you do not see the absurdity of this idea, I doubt anyone can help you see it.
    Totally and utterly wrong. The theory has no need for space outside the universe to expand into. Suggest you read up on metric expansion or start your own thread asking about this because you are very, very far from the mark here.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by shaula View Post
    totally and utterly wrong. The theory has no need for space outside the universe to expand into. Suggest you read up on metric expansion or start your own thread asking about this because you are very, very far from the mark here.
    esad

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Quote Originally Posted by effingham View Post
    esad
    I assume that is short for "that's what he said" (in reference to my earlier post)

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I assume that is short for "that's what he said" (in reference to my earlier post)
    No, it's short for [censored]
    Last edited by slang; 2014-Jul-27 at 10:20 AM. Reason: filth removed

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Quote Originally Posted by effingham View Post
    No.
    I assume you are trying to get banned so that you can claim that your "scientific" ideas were censored.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,692
    Quote Originally Posted by effingham View Post
    Until such evidence arises showing that the universe

    a) is expanding (Expanding into what, exactly? Do you even realize the logical absurdity of "expanding universe"? The universe is all that exists, into what can it expand if it encompasses all that exists? Ex nihilo creation myth, anyone? Expanding universe is "fact" yet expanding earth is met with hysterical crying?)

    and/or b) the universe has an origin, edge, limit, side, top, bottom, inside, outside and/or an end, both these notions may safely be deemed riotous fantasy.

    Consensus of belief systems is not a requisite of science. It doesn't matter how many people believe in a creation myth, it is still a myth until some evidence arises supporting it.
    Forgetting the rest of the tirade of straw men you put up in all these posts I'll focus on the "expanding into what" portion. This clearly shows that you have absolutely no understanding of General Relativity beyond those 2 words and maybe that Einstein discovered the theory. GR predicts that the manifold of a universe would not be static. That it should, in fact, change. In this case it is expanding. It doesn't say and doesn't need to expand into anything. Saying it does is an indication that you think the big bang is some type of explosion in a preexisting space. Before anyone calls anything that the majority of experts in the relative field, no pun intended, agree upon perhaps you should actually learn what the theory actually says and not rely on the inaccurate representation of the theory you have in your head.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,470
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    Does "infinite density" make sense to you?

    It is the prediction of infinite density, among other things, that demonstrates GR has gone off the tracks.
    This seemed like quite an interesting discussion but seems to have derailed a bit. But in reference to this issue, there is something I've considered and though it's not mainstream, would offer it as speculation. Now if the universe is made of an infinite hierarchy of particles, like those Russian dolls (something for which there is no physical evidence) then you never get to the infinity because there is always something deeper to collapse. It also explains away the fact that the gravitational force of a point particle becomes infinite at the point. Do others find this absurd, or merely speculative?
    As above, so below

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,692
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    This seemed like quite an interesting discussion but seems to have derailed a bit. But in reference to this issue, there is something I've considered and though it's not mainstream, would offer it as speculation. Now if the universe is made of an infinite hierarchy of particles, like those Russian dolls (something for which there is no physical evidence) then you never get to the infinity because there is always something deeper to collapse. It also explains away the fact that the gravitational force of a point particle becomes infinite at the point. Do others find this absurd, or merely speculative?
    What happens when you get stuff that has to be smaller then the planck length?

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,470
    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    What happens when you get stuff that has to be smaller then the planck length?
    My impression is that the Planck length is a length beyond which you cannot measure length. I don't think the physical significance is known, but it does mean that it would perhaps in principle be impossible to prove or disprove the existence of smaller sub-particles.
    As above, so below

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    But still, I have
    no problem with idea of the matter in the center of a black
    hole becoming more and more dense without limit as it is
    continually crushed more and more by its own weight.
    It would only reach infinite density in infinite time, which
    does seem like a sort of cop-out...
    Part of the problem is that it would not require an infinite time, GR predicts the density would pass any given limit in a finite, and indeed rather short, amount of time. But it's clear that our simplistic notions like "volume" and "density" aren't going to work then anyway, so "infinite density" has essentially no meaning. Einstein himself worked on theories that would have different physics than GR, and there is zero reason to think that GR would be right in those limits, since that's not how physics works.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2014-Aug-02 at 07:22 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •