| |
 |
Science Forum Forum Index » Astronomy & Cosmology » Origins of the Universe,,,,,,,,,,Bang or no Bang |
| Origins of the Universe,,,,,,,,,,Bang or no Bang |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| Harry Costas |
 Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:11 am Post subject: Origins of the Universe,,,,,,,,,,Bang or no Bang |
 |
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Posts: 107
Location: Australia
|
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz
The ultimate question is this.
Did the universe have an origin via the Big Bang?
_________________
Smile and live another day |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Pong |
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 1179
|
ooh. Free for all.
How about: Yes, our local bit of the universe originated via a big bang. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Steve Miller |
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:22 am Post subject: Re: Origins of the Universe,,,,,,,,,,Bang or no Bang |
|
|
Forum Bachelors Degree
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 466
Location: Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
|
| Harry Costas wrote: |
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz
The ultimate question is this.
Did the universe have an origin via the Big Bang? |
Hey jah!
I think could be, but, where was the spark being from? And what was lit? The big nothing?
Steve |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Arch2008 |
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:20 am Post subject: a.k.a. Iluvfizx |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 177
|
Let her rip, Pluto (I mean Harry)!
The ultimate question is "When will you get it?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cosmo |
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:24 am Post subject: Re: Origins of the Universe,,,,,,,,,,Bang or no Bang |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 520
|
| Harry Costas wrote: |
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz
The ultimate question is this.
Did the universe have an origin via the Big Bang? |
Well, the BB'ers say there was no explosion. Just an expansion of space because the catholic priest/PhD said so. Therefore, it had a divine beginning and than it is not a physical event but a cosmogony event.
Since the Laws of Physics say that Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it cannot be a physical event.
Cosmo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| (Q) |
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:36 am Post subject: Re: Origins of the Universe,,,,,,,,,,Bang or no Bang |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 12 May 2005
Posts: 1362
|
| Cosmo wrote: |
| Harry Costas wrote: |
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz
The ultimate question is this.
Did the universe have an origin via the Big Bang? |
Well, the BB'ers say there was no explosion. Just an expansion of space because the catholic priest/PhD said so. Therefore, it had a divine beginning and than it is not a physical event but a cosmogony event. |
In a classic explosion, the matter would be ejected by the release of energy; the energy has contact WITH the matter and accelerates it away from the point of origin. All the matter would accelerate away relatively equal in velocity, hence all the visible galaxies would be moving in the same direction and speed away from the point of origin. That is not observed.
But, the BB was not a classic explosion as all the galaxies in the universe are moving away from each other at different velocities from each other, with no point of origin. The only way this could take place is if there was no explosion in the classical sense, but instead, an expansion of the space around the matter carrying with it, the matter.
_________________
I may have no understanding of the current theory of evolution. But that's because science keeps changing it. A few weeks ago I read in the newspaper that it had once again been adjusted & just the other day I discovered a new book called "The New Theory of Evolution" ~~Steven Titchenell : W.V.B.I.G. President. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Steve Miller |
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Bachelors Degree
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 466
Location: Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
|
Hi (Q),
that's ok so far, but where did it all begin?
Steve |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kojax |
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 961
|
| Why are we so sure it had a beginning? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ruro |
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 18
Location: England
|
| kojax wrote: |
| Why are we so sure it had a beginning? |
As confusing as it is for me to imagine "No Start" to the Universe, it also makes sense in some bizare fashion. If there was a start, then nothing could occur before-hand, therefore nothing could initiate the start in the first place. Like some external force to the Universe spawned the Big Bang (and the Universe itself?), I know I've come across the theories on that business before -_- Like the Universe is a Leaf of some bigger Tree.
But if it's just our Universe and no "Tree"... then it has always been... it's like it was completely void and empty to begin with, and the Universe itself spawned something to compensate for the lack of... anything O_o I imply the Universe has some degree of Life in itself there.
Or, I havn't the foggiest XD
... if the Universe was completely empty, of everything, then it would collapse (Don't ask, I don't know how the Universe has a boundary!?) under the severe pressure of Zero pressure. So it implodes, till the... Walls of the Universe touch in a the TINIEST space, infact there would be no Space, the Walls on all sides of the Universe would meet, perhaps that spawned something to fill the space.
Or, I still havn't the foggiest  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Harry Costas |
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Posts: 107
Location: Australia
|
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz
Some people know me as Pluto and thats ok.
Hello arch2008
You said:
When will I get it? Get what mate? To agree with others on issues that I do not agree with?
I read this link emailed to me, read it for interest sake.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2635
Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation
May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47
The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique [Part I] [Whole]
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D., Brad Harrub, Ph.D., and Branyon May
_________________
Smile and live another day |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kojax |
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 961
|
| Ruro wrote: |
| kojax wrote: |
| Why are we so sure it had a beginning? |
As confusing as it is for me to imagine "No Start" to the Universe, it also makes sense in some bizare fashion. If there was a start, then nothing could occur before-hand, therefore nothing could initiate the start in the first place. Like some external force to the Universe spawned the Big Bang (and the Universe itself?), I know I've come across the theories on that business before -_- Like the Universe is a Leaf of some bigger Tree.
|
I think you're nailing the problem pretty well. If there's anything prior to the beginning, then we'll want to know when that thing started, and the thing before it, and the thing before it, etc..
Trying to pass the buck off to a pre-big bang even is just procrastinating the inevitable. Something somewhere must have had no beginning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Steve Miller |
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Bachelors Degree
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 466
Location: Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
|
| kojax wrote: |
| Why are we so sure it had a beginning? |
You see, this is the craziness with it. If we accept BB the universe has a beginning.
The only other thing we could do was to push our mental boundaries for the sake
of reasoning. But this would mean to say good by to BB firstly I think.
Steve |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pong |
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 1179
|
| One way or the other, it's religion isn't it? And this is scary: those who "get" infinity "have seen the light" and are a very small minority. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Harry Costas |
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Posts: 107
Location: Australia
|
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz
This link is an eye opener:
Alternative Cosmology Group Newsletter - April 2008
http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2008.04.htm
Are old galaxies smaller, bigger or neither?
| Quote: |
Three new papers on galaxy size deepen the contradiction between expanding-universe predictions and measurements. Van Dokkum et al look at very massive galaxies at a redshift of about 2.3 and find that on average they are 5- 6 times smaller in radius and hundreds of times denser than massive galaxies in today’s universe. The densest of these high-z galaxies have densities five times that of any galaxies that now exist. The authors speculate that perhaps mergers may result in less dense galaxies, but mergers would also result in more massive galaxies, and some of the high-z galaxies are as massive already as the most massive galaxies observed today. So, if they merged, they would create galaxies larger than any we see. Since massive galaxies are easy to find, getting rid of either extremely massive or extremely dense galaxies is difficult, akin to hiding an elephant under a rug.
Sirocco et al confirm these results, reporting that at z=1.5 the surface brightness of galaxies, as determined with the conventional cosmology assumptions, is 2.5 magnitudes brighter than for nearby galaxies, which implies that, for a given luminosity, the galaxies have radii that are 3.2 times smaller.
On the surface, these results, taken in the context of conventional cosmology imply that smaller galaxies form first and then merge into larger ones. But more and more observations are showing that the oldest galaxies are the largest ones. Rakos et al find that in cluster galaxies that the most massive galaxies are the oldest ones, exactly the opposite of what would be expected if they are formed by merger of smaller galaxies. In addition, they find that galaxies in more massive clusters are also older, implying the clusters formed before the galaxies, again contradicting the conventional ideas of mass accumulating “bottom-up”.
To add to the puzzles presented by these papers, the average ages of the stellar populations measured by Rakos extend all the way up to the standard “age of the universe” of almost 14 Gy. This is a problem, since even in elliptical galaxies, there is some star formation going on. Since some stars in these populations are a lot younger than 14 Gy, there must be some older than 14Gy for the average to be that age. This creates the conundrum of having stars older than the universe.
These puzzle all find easy resolution if the universe is not in fact expanding. In a non-expanding universe, a galaxies physical size is proportional to its angular size times the redshift. If this formula is used for the samples studies by van Dokkum and Sirroco, rather than the formula based on the expanding universe, the galaxy sizes are almost exactly the same at high redshift as at the present time. As well, if the universe is not expanding, and there was no Big Bang, stars can be older than 14 Gy. |
_________________
Smile and live another day |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Steve Miller |
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Bachelors Degree
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 466
Location: Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
|
| Pong wrote: |
| One way or the other, it's religion isn't it? And this is scary: those who "get" infinity "have seen the light" and are a very small minority. |
Whether religion or not. Religion was some science that students do study in fact. So everything was included, any science I mean, and there are relevant aspects the least of each field of knowledge within single sciences, that, at the end, have to be taken into account.
So was my experience.
And not only on BB research I can tell you.
Steve |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Science Forum Forum Index » Astronomy & Cosmology » Origins of the Universe,,,,,,,,,,Bang or no Bang |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
