Teach me about the big bang theory.

[Lord Kenneth]

I am uneducated in this field.

Also, A question I have:

Creationists maintain that something had to createor cause matter/start creation/etc. Ignore the fact that their own beliefs are hypocrisy... but, is that false?

Something Happened, and now we're here.

[Walter Wayne]

Warning: what follows are the rantings of an armchair scientist.

You could probably find most of what you need by doing searches on the internet, though you might have to learn to filter the crap.

Here is the short "history" of the big bang. Others on here will be more accurate than myself.

1 ) Einstein general theory - doesn't predict a stable sized universe. The laws of physics demand that it either be contracting or expanding. To combat this Einstein initially theorized a "dark force" which caused some repulsion and resulted in a constant sized universe.

2) An astronomer (Hubble?) did some measurements that showed that the universe was expanding. Einstein's dark force was scrapped.

3) Scientists began to try to trace the universe back in time. From the current state of the universe and scientific theory they tried to calculate the state of the early universe. Far enough back you find that the universe was incredibly small space. Before that it would have been a point. To be accurate, the laws of physics as we know them breakdown before you can trace it all the way to being a point.



My knowledge of the evolution of the universe.

First we have the big bang. What caused it? We don't know. What pred-dated it? Probably nothing. No space, no time, nothing.

Very shortly we find the universe to be a dense quark soup. It is to hot for quarks to exist as stable protons neutron etc. Last I heard, our physics models are unreliable prior to the quark soup.

As the universe expands and cools, quarks are able to form stable bonds and become neutrons and protons and other junk, and eventually these can come to togethor and form atoms. Somewhere in here the universe becomes more or less transparent. Photons can travel with out being absorbed immediately, and it is this state of the universe which we the cosmic background radiation from.

Cooling and expanding continue, allowing more things to organize more into what we see today. When stars first form they become the breeding ground for heavier elements through fusion. Really heavy elements may be the results of collisions of heavy stars and such. But it are these events that start to fill out the periodic table. Super nova and these other catastrophic events are what spread these heavy elements until you get the state of things around our time and place that enable earth like planets.

I don't know if I explained well, I'm not sure if I explained it accurately, but that might be a good starting point. Hopefully people will speak up if I am talking nonsense.

[JAR]

The Big Bang Theory involves the universe expanding. There is the hot big bang model and the inflationary model. In Stephen Hawking's book, "A Brief History of Time", it says on page 162, "In the hot big bang model the rate of expansion is always decreasing with time, but in the inflationary model the rate of expansion increases rapidly in the early stages." I was told by my younger brother that it was found out recently that the universe is expanding at an ever quickening pace. This would fit in more with the inflationary model than with the hot big bang model.

[garys_2k]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
I am uneducated in this field.

Also, A question I have:

Creationists maintain that something had to createor cause matter/start creation/etc. Ignore the fact that their own beliefs are hypocrisy... but, is that false?
Awright, lemme' have a shot at it. :)

The universe, that is all the "stuff" we can see and touch, all the energy, all the "space" (that is, the actual dimensions themselves) and some other things (called "dark matter" and "dark energy" because we can't directly sense them) all originated from a single point, what is called a singularity. A single "dot" like the points we learned about in high school geometry, with EVERYTHING all scrunched up inside it.

No, we don't know where it came from, but some theories are that it may have been from a kind of extra-dimensional "hyperspace" that exists outside of our universe, like our universe is an expanding bubble inside some sort of cosmic glass of beer. That's my favorite way to look at it, we're all part of a bubble floating in beer, heading for the foam. I just hope it's a GOOD beer!

Anyway, as soon as that dot/point formed, the "universe" began to exist. Time started (no, it didn't exist "before" this, time is just another dimension, like the space ones, try not to think of some sort of time running in the background -- this isn't like a movie). OK, so we have the hot dot and then, according to the best theories, we entered an "inflationary" phase. This means that the dot swelled up VERY fast, faster than light speed (if light had existed then, but things were still to hot and dense for light). In an extremely small fraction of a second the universe went from this point to very, very, big. I don't know how big, but BIG, like light years in size (I think), but it took 10e-25 seconds to get there. That's a decimal with twenty-five zeros after it, then a one. A very small moment in time.

Then things slowed down and we get to the "regular" expansion which we are still in. The inflated ball grew larger and cooler (remember though, there is nothing "outside" this "ball," it really is the only thing around (except maybe the surrounding beer, but nothing IN the ball can get TO the beer, too bad for all of us). As far as the ball is concerned it could "sense" that it may be getting larger but it can't tell anything about the "outside" world.

After expanding this way for awhile, different "stuff" condenses out of the soup as it cools. At ~380,000 years of age atoms and light can form, and suddenly the entire ball is full of gamma radiation, light and heat. It is VERY hot (I don't know how hot, I don't have the book handy, but you get the idea).

It keeps expanding and cooling, and stars, galaxies, quasars and other things we know and see form from gravity. The original inflationary time set up the "structure" and distribution of the stuff that would form atoms to make this possible. As it continued to expand and cool the original gamma radiation got "stretched" from red shift and became the cosmic background radiation we now detect. In fact, the original ball has cooled generally to less than three degrees above absolute zero, with the exception of the hot spots in and near stars, planets, and the other members of the cosmic zoo. But overall the universe has become pretty cold.

That "dark matter" and "dark energy" are invisible to us but seem to be real. The dark matter is detected by its gravitational pull and seems to make up a lot of what holds galaxies together. Calculations show that most of them would've flew apart if this dark matter hadn't been there all along (and seems to still be there) to increase their gravitational pull. That, and all the visible regular matter, have also been slowing the outward motion of the matter in the universe, and was once thought to POSSIBLY be enough to cause it to eventually stop flying apart and drag it back in to an eventual "big crunch," the opposite of a big bang.

That won't happen, though, because of that "dark energy." This is a force that seems to cause everything to REPEL everything else, in direct opposition to gravity. It seems to be undetectable at relatively close distances (like between nearby galaxies), but becomes more significant as distances increase. It is only relatively recently (like the last few billion years) that a good deal of the universe has become far enough from some of the other parts that it has become significant.

The net result of that dark energy is that the expansion will continue, but also accelerate with time. We'll never have a big crunch, so we may end with a whimper, not a bang, after all.

Sorry this ran long, but you did ask about the origin of the universe! :D

[JAR]

Originally posted by garys_2k

A single "dot" like the points we learned about in high school geometry, with EVERYTHING all scrunched up inside it.

No, we don't know where it came from, but some theories are that it may have been from a kind of extra-dimensional "hyperspace" that exists outside of our universe, like our universe is an expanding bubble inside some sort of cosmic glass of beer. That's my favorite way to look at it, we're all part of a bubble floating in beer, heading for the foam. I just hope it's a GOOD beer!

Thanks for the input about what happened before the Big Bang. About a year ago I had a huge argument with a person who claimed that the Big Bang was the beginning of time and existence. I argued that it was not the beginning of time because if there was a Big Bang, there was motion, and without time there is no motion. So in order for time to move there would have to be motion to measure it by. Time is motion and motion is time. So there had to be time or motion in order for the Big Bang to occur because the Big Bang requires previous motion to trigger it. From there I argued that there was no beginning to time. This person I was arguing with just really wasn't getting it.

----
The Big Bang Theory involves the universe expanding.
----


Yeah, it expanded out of nothing!

Tell that one again, plleeeeaaassseee gramps! Pleeeeaaaassseeee!

I like that story.

[rwald]

Which story did you prefer? The one with the big magical being in the sky?

[susheel]

Well the Earth is actually a flat disc the rests on the backs of four elephants standing on agiant tortoise. Now while the sex of the tortoise for earth is unknown the fact remains that it must be either male or female.

This has lead scientists to conjecture that other worlds must also be floating on the backs of other tortoises, either male or female. These tortoises swim through the ocean of space towards a final destination where they will all indulgen in an orgiastic mating that has been referred to as the BIG BANG!

---apologies to Terry Pratchett

[rwald]

The question is, of course, what happened to the fifth elephant...

Originally posted by rwald
Which story did you prefer? The one with the big magical being in the sky?


No, I prefer the big nothing that existed in space that suddenly exploded. Yes, the one where nothing existed and exploded.

That is so much better than saying a god did it.

[rwald]

At least we're only claiming one impossible thing...

Wait, if God created the universe, than what created God? Oh, God's allowed to be immortal. But the universe isn't? Is that the sound of shifting goalposts I hear?

----
Wait, if God created the universe, than what created God?
----


Maybe the "Big Nothing That Existed Then Exploded".


----
Is that the sound of shifting goalposts I hear?
----


No, that was the sound of me undoing a severe 'frontal wedgie' I created from sitting down too long.

[gmol]

Something that people aren't mentioning is that to really understand the theory you have to learn some advanced math.
It is not as simple as talking about nothing coming into somethingness. Very counter inuitive, but many things in science are. But the neat thing is that once you do understand, you are often able to do useful things and make accurate predictions.

---------------------------------------------------------
WR to the posts that have been made so far:
Note that when people talk about the universe starting from a "point" it is not true. Singularities aren't physically "real", the are what happen when our theory is not accurate enough to predict the outcome.

I believe Michio Kaku talks about the lack of need for "first cause" in Hyperspace. Something to do with gauge theory which I don't understand.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Even non-cosmologists like you and me, can appreciate that the theory has many subtle predictions, some of which have been confirmed.

You can verify that things like the 3 deg background radiation were being predicted before they were discovered. Other predictions include the energies required detect certain kinds of particles in accelerators. Astronomical measurements of the galaxies, their speeds of recession and spatial distrubution also let us know if our theory about how the universe started is consistent with what we can observe.

The short story is that we don't know exactly how the universe started, but out picture keeps getting clearer as more experiments are done. I believe that the big bang theory (which of course, encompasses many different specific plausible/consitent histories) is largely accepted and there are have been no observed data that strongly suggest an alternate origin. Remember that the timescales involved during the initial bang are phenomenally fast (10 to the -ve 10's of exponents), and the farther we go back, the less confident we are that our model accurately predicts the true picture.

Remember just becuase most people don't understand something completely, doesn't mean it isn't true; some things take a long time to understand. It is important to remember that scientists have used the model of the big bang to make important (and difficult) predictions; which is why we have confidence in the model.

That's not to say that there is a lot we don't know about the universe (i.e. why the surface of the sun is so damn hot)...even though we have things we can't explain, none of them suggest that the universe started in a different way.

P.S.
Have you tried ordering that pizza yet DC?

[DanishDynamite]

Whodini:No, I prefer the big nothing that existed in space that suddenly exploded. Yes, the one where nothing existed and exploded.

That is so much better than saying a god did it.Indeed it is. Guth, the father of inflationary theory, explains:

The Universe is the ultimate free lunch (http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth3.html)

An excerpt:
This borrowing of energy from the gravitational field gives the inflationary paradigm an entirely different perspective from the classical Big Bang theory, in which all the particles in the Universe (or at least their precursors) were assumed to be in place from the start. Inflation provides a mechanism by which the entire Universe can develop from just a few ounces of primordial matter. Inflation is radically at odds with the old dictum of Democritus and Lucretius, "Nothing can be created from nothing" If inflation is right, everything can be created from nothing, or at least from very little. If inflation is right, the Universe can properly be called the ultimate free lunch.

[FireGarden]

garys_2k,
A little careless, I think:
but it took 10e-25 seconds to get there. That's a decimal with twenty-five zeros after it, then a one.
10^-1 = .1
10^-2 = .01
10^-3 = .001
.....
.....

And some calculators (the one with win98) would have
10e-25=10*10^-25=1*10^-24=1e-24
so decimal point, 23 zeros, 1

[Larspeart]

Well, when one considers that 2800 years ago, it was believed the earth was on a tortoises back. . .

and 2200 years ago it was believed it was carried by a cursed man named Atlas. . .

and 1200 years ago it was believed to have been created by the hand of God. . .

and today it is believed to have been created by the Big Bang. . .

I think it stands to reason that in 1000 years:

1. There will be a different, newer, 'better' theory out there.

and

2. They will mock, redicule and laugh at all of the 'stupid ancients' who believed in that Big Bang hoo doo.


Look, as time and 'True' science change every hour, I get mroe and more skeptical of EVERYTHING science tells us is true. What, we are supposed to just believe for all eternity when they tell us something new and profound that, indeed, "THIS time, we are SURE we're right!"?

Come on!


Argue all you want, the Greeks were SURE the Earth was carried on the back of a giant tortoise. No question. Absolutely as positive, if not MORE positive then we are today of the Big Bang.


Oh, and hi all. My first post.

[roger]

Welcome to the forum Larspeart.

Okay, starting with a pedantic point, it wasn't the Greeks that believed that the universe was on the back of a turtle.

The difference between beliefs and science is that science, by testing its assumptions, gets successively closer to how the world works. Science offers provisional truth, always subject to revision or negation. However, with science, this is based on new evidence, not changing beliefs. I'm sure many on this board will respond much more elegantly on this point than I will, so I will let them.

My question for you is: you just typed your answer on a computer, which uses a lot of engineering developed by science, all of which any competent scientist would describe as true (not True). Do you think in 1000 years that science will be laughing at us, calling them not true at all? Remember, computers really do work.

There is a huge change in methadology in the last 300 years or so of your timeline. The scientific method allows us to accumulate knowledge, not just change our beliefs. In 1000 years the science of our computers, for example, will still be correct (for example, how n-p-n junction transisters work). New science will be based on this knowedge, and of course the computers of that time will work in a different manner, but that makes today's semiconductor technology obsolete, not wrong.


So I don't see why in 1000 years scientists will be laughing at today's scientists. Current models on the beginning of the universe are based on incomplete data, and it is certainly possible that as more data comes available that theories may change. For example, Newton was quite wrong about the behavior of objects at relativistic speeds, but no one laughs at him or mocks him, for his work was based on scientific principles, and it remains correct at the non-relativistic speeds in which he performed his experiments.

Roger

[DanishDynamite]

Larspeart:Well, when one considers that 2800 years ago, it was believed the earth was on a tortoises back. . .

and 2200 years ago it was believed it was carried by a cursed man named Atlas. . .

and 1200 years ago it was believed to have been created by the hand of God. . .

and today it is believed to have been created by the Big Bang. . .

I think it stands to reason that in 1000 years:

1. There will be a different, newer, 'better' theory out there.

and

2. They will mock, redicule and laugh at all of the 'stupid ancients' who believed in that Big Bang hoo doo.I certainly hope that there will be a better theory. It would be a sad state of affairs if there was suddenly nothing new to discover.

However, I doubt any educated person would laugh at the current theories. No one laughs at the achievements of the ancient Greeks. Au contraire.
Look, as time and 'True' science change every hour, I get mroe and more skeptical of EVERYTHING science tells us is true. Skepticism is important. However, when a theory is backed by evidence, peer-reviewed, etc, etc, its safe to assume that it describes reality fairly well.
What, we are supposed to just believe for all eternity when they tell us something new and profound that, indeed, "THIS time, we are SURE we're right!"?

Come on!No scientist has this opinion. Science is an iterative process. No one laughs at Newton's gravitational theory, despite the fact that Einstein came along with a theory which explained more than Newton's. Heck, you can still send a rocket into space and a probe to Jupiter using just Newton's theory.
Argue all you want, the Greeks were SURE the Earth was carried on the back of a giant tortoise. No question. Absolutely as positive, if not MORE positive then we are today of the Big Bang.Really? Odd, given that the circumference of the Earth was measured by the Greeks.
Oh, and hi all. My first post. Hi, and welcome aboard.

[Larspeart]

Okay, excellent point. Now for my counterpoint.

Einstien had a number of very good views and points, most of which were/are true to this day in our thinking. However, there have (in just 50-80 years) been numerous ones that were widely held to be true, and are just now proving to be untrue. Take the speed of light, and the fact that, as he puts it, nothing can go faster. Twas a huge blow to time-travel buffs, but everyone looked at his theories and said 'yup, by Jove, the chap is right'. WRONG. We now have witnessed both in nature and in labs, faster then light travel, at the atomic and the subatomic level.

So, in not 300, but rather 50 years, what was once held as hard fact, is now somewhere between mostly true and incorrect.

Want more? The age of the universe. First, it was 8000 or so years old. Then, it was 1 billion years old, then 12. then 14. Just recently, I read that now, we think it is 14.4-16 billion years old, and another university believes it is at least 20 billion. So, you're going to tell me that in 1,000 years, they will still think it is 14.4 billion years old? Yet, hundreds upon hundreds of very respected scientists and math guys point to gobs upon gobs of 'hard evidence.

Humans believe that they can figure out the really good questions in life if they devote enoguh thought and math to the problem. The fact is, our brains are prone to several things, one being fallability. The other is ego. We believe that humans can figure out anything due to our greatness, and neglect that we are more often wrong in life then right.

I'm sorry, but just because we invented a computer for me to type on doesn't mean i believe that in 10,000 of true society, we have everything figured out yet.

----
Want more? The age of the universe. First, it was 8000 or so years old. Then, it was 1 billion years old, then 12. then 14. Just recently, I read that now, we think it is 14.4-16 billion years old, and another university believes it is at least 20 billion. So, you're going to tell me that in 1,000 years, they will still think it is 14.4 billion years old? Yet, hundreds upon hundreds of very respected scientists and math guys point to gobs upon gobs of 'hard evidence.
----


Good points.

My prediction is that people will keep extending that estimate, and keep extending it on and on and on...

Then the people in the future will look back and say 'those people who thought the age was infinite or that the universe always existed were so ahead of their time'

[DanishDynamite]

Larspeart:Einstien had a number of very good views and points, most of which were/are true to this day in our thinking. However, there have (in just 50-80 years) been numerous ones that were widely held to be true, and are just now proving to be untrue. Take the speed of light, and the fact that, as he puts it, nothing can go faster. Twas a huge blow to time-travel buffs, but everyone looked at his theories and said 'yup, by Jove, the chap is right'. WRONG. We now have witnessed both in nature and in labs, faster then light travel, at the atomic and the subatomic level. I have no idea what you are talking about. No experiment done has challenged Einstein's theories.
So, in not 300, but rather 50 years, what was once held as hard fact, is now somewhere between mostly true and incorrect. You don't seem to understand the nature of science.
Want more? The age of the universe. First, it was 8000 or so years old. Then, it was 1 billion years old, then 12. then 14. Just recently, I read that now, we think it is 14.4-16 billion years old, and another university believes it is at least 20 billion. So, you're going to tell me that in 1,000 years, they will still think it is 14.4 billion years old? Yet, hundreds upon hundreds of very respected scientists and math guys point to gobs upon gobs of 'hard evidence. As measurement techniques improve and theories refined, these numbers get closer and closer to the actual value. What is the problem?
Humans believe that they can figure out the really good questions in life if they devote enoguh thought and math to the problem. The fact is, our brains are prone to several things, one being fallability. The other is ego. We believe that humans can figure out anything due to our greatness, and neglect that we are more often wrong in life then right. What are the "really good questions in life"? The fact that humans are fallible is well known and one of the reasons for the peer-review process of science.
I'm sorry, but just because we invented a computer for me to type on doesn't mean i believe that in 10,000 of true society, we have everything figured out yet.I agree. We certainly haven't figured everything out yet. In some ways I find that irritating because I'd like to know everything before I die. On the other hand, I suspect it would make life boring.

[garys_2k]

Originally posted by GoodPropaganda
garys_2k,
A little careless, I think:

10^-1 = .1
10^-2 = .01
10^-3 = .001
.....
.....

And some calculators (the one with win98) would have
10e-25=10*10^-25=1*10^-24=1e-24
so decimal point, 23 zeros, 1
Yeah, I was sleepy and I figured it out too fast. But what's an order of magnitude or two when we're talking amongst friends, eh? :)

My misteak, mea culpa.

[wollery]

Quote
----
Want more? The age of the universe. First, it was 8000 or so years old. Then, it was 1 billion years old, then 12.
then 14. Just recently, I read that now, we think it is 14.4-16 billion years old, and another university believes it is
at least 20 billion. So, you're going to tell me that in 1,000 years, they will still think it is 14.4 billion years old? Yet,
hundreds upon hundreds of very respected scientists and math guys point to gobs upon gobs of 'hard evidence.
----

The problem here isn't that people don't agree on the age of the universe. The problem is that the numbers that you need to use to calculate it, such as the Hubble constant (the expansion rate of the universe) are uncertain and vary depending on what technique is used to measure them. The recent results from the MAP satellite give the age of the univerese as 13.7 billion years (+ or - about 0.2 billion years). Have a look at the NASA website - [URL=http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html]

[diddidit]

Originally posted by Larspeart
We now have witnessed both in nature and in labs, faster then light travel, at the atomic and the subatomic level.


You would seem to be privy to information unknown to the rest of the world. A recent experiment showed a pulse of light passing through a medium apparently at faster-than-light speeds, but the transmission was such that no information could be passed. No material particles were involved.


Want more? The age of the universe. First, it was 8000 or so years old. Then, it was 1 billion years old, then 12. then 14. Just recently, I read that now, we think it is 14.4-16 billion years old, and another university believes it is at least 20 billion. So, you're going to tell me that in 1,000 years, they will still think it is 14.4 billion years old? Yet, hundreds upon hundreds of very respected scientists and math guys point to gobs upon gobs of 'hard evidence.

Recent announcements based on observations from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe have narrowed the age of the universe to 13.7 billion years with a 1% margin of error (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_age.html). Prior estimates were based on less accurate data or outright guesses. It's reasonable to expect that future measurements will only decrease the margin of error.

did

----
As measurement techniques improve and theories refined, these numbers get closer and closer to the actual value. What is the problem?
----


The problem is that you will find statements that claim that the numbers are THE numbers. A prime example of this is in some school textbooks.


http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ContentMedia/990053b.jpg

Yeah, infinite temperature... that makes sense.

:rolleyes:

[garys_2k]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Okay, excellent point. Now for my counterpoint.

[Snippage about a misunderstanding re. Einstein's special theory of relativity and susequent experiments.]

Want more? The age of the universe. First, it was 8000 or so years old. Then, it was 1 billion years old, then 12. then 14. Just recently, I read that now, we think it is 14.4-16 billion years old, and another university believes it is at least 20 billion. So, you're going to tell me that in 1,000 years, they will still think it is 14.4 billion years old? Yet, hundreds upon hundreds of very respected scientists and math guys point to gobs upon gobs of 'hard evidence.

We're getting better answers all the time. The present one is that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, after correcting for the effects of "dark energy" that causes increased speed with distance.

Some of the problems we'd seen earlier with nailing down a better value were related to imprecision of measurement: we didn't have the technology to measure things closely enough to get a good value. That seems to now have been fixed.

In fact, this "dark energy" was originally proposed and then rejected by Einstein, but it turns out his original idea on it may have been correct: something that REPELS objects, very weakly, but works over vast distances. When we were going on the assumption that there was no such thing we found other measurements that didn't add up. Putting it back in made everything (including stars that seemed older than the universe) consistent again.

I have no idea what they'll be thinking the age of the universe will be in another one thousand years, but I'd be willing to bet the farm that a lot of our existing scientific theories will still be accepted as firmly established at that time.

We STILL accept Galileo's work (within the limits of his measuring capability), as well as that of Copernicus and Hubble. These people did good work and we've found nothing to fault in it WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE TECHNOLOGY THEY HAD TO WORK WITH.

We're on the verge of gaining new understandings of the universe all the time, and when the new accelerator at CERN goes online in a few years we'll learn even more. Perhaps we'll arrive at a Theory of Everything at that time, as we can finally experiment with black holes.

Humans believe that they can figure out the really good questions in life if they devote enoguh thought and math to the problem. The fact is, our brains are prone to several things, one being fallability. The other is ego. We believe that humans can figure out anything due to our greatness, and neglect that we are more often wrong in life then right.

Some people do, yes, but that's where the scientific method shines. We question, question, challenge and challenge. Ask for proof, try to disprove. THAT is science, to not accept poorly qualified information as true, ever.

I'm sorry, but just because we invented a computer for me to type on doesn't mean i believe that in 10,000 of true society, we have everything figured out yet.
But those scientists in 1,000 years won't doubt that your computer worked, that it was designed to function with electronics and nanotechnolgy and that the ideas we used to develop it didn't explain adequately (to us) its function consistent with reality. We don't laugh today that explorers 500+ years ago DIDN'T fall off the edge of the earth, that they went around. We don't consider it humorous that Eratosthenes measured the diameter of the earth fairly accurately by measuring shadows. I am certain they won't think what we're doing is wrong, either.

[scotth]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Okay, excellent point. Now for my counterpoint.

Einstien had a number of very good views and points, most of which were/are true to this day in our thinking. However, there have (in just 50-80 years) been numerous ones that were widely held to be true, and are just now proving to be untrue. Take the speed of light, and the fact that, as he puts it, nothing can go faster. Twas a huge blow to time-travel buffs, but everyone looked at his theories and said 'yup, by Jove, the chap is right'. WRONG. We now have witnessed both in nature and in labs, faster then light travel, at the atomic and the subatomic level.

So, in not 300, but rather 50 years, what was once held as hard fact, is now somewhere between mostly true and incorrect.

Your point is completely incorrect. Nothing has been shown or observed to move faster than the speed of light in a vacuum (c).

Particles can and do travel faster than the speed of light in glass, water, or some other medium. There is nothing in relativity that would prohibit that.

Edited to add:
To be completely correct, relativity doesn't prohibit things from going faster than the speed of light either. What is specifically prohibits is anything crossing the speed of light threshold. In other words, once slower than the speed of light always slower than. Conversely, if ever faster than the speed of light then forever faster than the speed of light.

It is still true that nothing has been observed to go faster than the speed of light (in a vacuum) and certainly nothing has been observed to cross it.

[garys_2k]

Originally posted by JAR


Thanks for the input about what happened before the Big Bang. About a year ago I had a huge argument with a person who claimed that the Big Bang was the beginning of time and existence. I argued that it was not the beginning of time because if there was a Big Bang, there was motion, and without time there is no motion. So in order for time to move there would have to be motion to measure it by. Time is motion and motion is time. So there had to be time or motion in order for the Big Bang to occur because the Big Bang requires previous motion to trigger it. From there I argued that there was no beginning to time. This person I was arguing with just really wasn't getting it.
Time is motion? So if nothing was moving there'd be no time?

Time is another dimension, just like up/down, left/right and front/back. Exactly like them. All of that started, for our universe, with the big bang. There was no "before" that, at least for anything we could interact with.

[gmol]

Oh please.

Those kind of diagrams are often a result of people who are trying to communicate what the latest understadning is about the universe. Like many articles about popular science, they are seldom prefaced with "Well are best guess right now is....".

Sure kids will often take such things as scripture, but as we grow older we realize that there is no such thing as infinite temprature; the theory simply fails to predict the temprature at 0s since the assumptions we are making are probably untrue.

Please differentitate between a fair mistake in science communication with the actual science being done.

Originally posted by Whodini
----
As measurement techniques improve and theories refined, these numbers get closer and closer to the actual value. What is the problem?
----


The problem is that you will find statements that claim that the numbers are THE numbers. A prime example of this is in some school textbooks.


http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ContentMedia/990053b.jpg

Yeah, infinite temperature... that makes sense.

:rolleyes:

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
As measurement techniques improve and theories refined, these numbers get closer and closer to the actual value. What is the problem?
----


The problem is that you will find statements that claim that the numbers are THE numbers. A prime example of this is in some school textbooks. That is the problem? Doesn't seem very serious. Although, I agree that a good school science book should say "about 14 billion years", or similar.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ContentMedia/990053b.jpg

Yeah, infinite temperature... that makes sense.

:rolleyes: I suspect that the actual temperature is unknown, only that it is many orders of magnitude above the previous one on the chart.

[Edited to add: BTW, didn't you learn in elementary school that pi = 22/7? And then later you learned this was an approximation?]

[garys_2k]

In this case infinite temperature does make sense, as the intial singularity also had infinite density and zero volume. This is what life is like in a singularity: very hot, very tight and really, really cramped.

[roger]

Originally posted by Larspeart
I'm sorry, but just because we invented a computer for me to type on doesn't mean i believe that in 10,000 of true society, we have everything figured out yet.

Who's said we have?

There's plenty of room for argument about issues like the big bang. There's no room for argument about issues like whether the Earth is round or flat. The strength of science is that it recognizes that it can be wrong, and accepts new evidence that discounts old theories. Tone of 'voice' is hard to read in posts, but you seem to be criticizing science for changing theories, and for absolute certainty. The former is a strength (to me), and the latter just sounds like a strawman argument.

Might I suggest you watch Nova sometime, if you are in the States, or otherwise have access to it. Watch when they interview some astronomer. The conversation usually goes along the lines of:

"Our latest measurements suggest an age of the universe of between X and Y billion years. These measurements were done in manner Z, which haves inaccuracies A. Some interesting work is being done by Professor B which gives a value of 2Y or more. Most scientists suspect that he is not accounting for the w factor, and experiments are being designed to test this hypothesis. Early results indicate this is the case, but more works need to be done."

Which is rather different than a statement that we "have everything figured out".


The fact is, our brains are prone to several things, one being fallability. The other is ego. We believe that humans can figure out anything due to our greatness, and neglect that we are more often wrong in life then right.
On the contrary, the scientific method is based on the assumption that we are most often wrong, and works around that (imperfectly) by requiring ample evidence, peer review, double blind experiments, falsafiability, etc. Ego is also a positive force - if you suggest a theory that is new, every scientist in your field will try to prove you wrong. Sort of like what is going on right here. You think you have a better understanding of how science works than scientists do, and forum posters like me are responding with alternative ideas. Shouldn't that process generally lead to truth rather than changable beliefs?

roger

[gmol]

Originally posted by garys_2k
In this case infinite temperature does make sense, as the intial singularity also had infinite density and zero volume. This is what life is like in a singularity: very hot, very tight and really, really cramped.

No it doesn't.
As I have stated in my previous posts, it just tells us the assumptions of our model are flawed at that point and do not provide an accurate prediction.

[Keneke]

BOOM ::splat::

The sound of another exploding debate on Life, the Universe, and Everything and little soppy bits hitting Dark Cobra.

Just to separate it out:

Science & BB theory is an explanation how.
God (or no God) is an explanation why.

It's Apples and Oranges. I think Creationists and "Strong Atheists" (as compareds to agnostics or "Weak Atheists") are opposite sides of the same coin: each is trying to get into the other kid's playground.

[garys_2k]

Originally posted by gmol


No it doesn't.
As I have stated in my previous posts, it just tells us the assumptions of our model are flawed at that point and do not provide an accurate prediction.
As a "singularity" is outside of our understanding, then so would be the conditions within it. It's not so much that our models are flawed but that no model exists that could contain all of the "stuff" we have into so small a space.

Is it really infinite? Maybe not, sure, in a mathematical sense. I can agree with that, but it's as close to that as physically possible even under those conditions (whatever "those" were).

----
Sure kids will often take such things as scripture, but as we grow older we realize that there is no such thing as infinite temprature;
----


So you are saying that the people at NASA haven't grown up?

They are quite competent, I assume you.


----
the assumptions we are making are probably untrue.
----


And there ya go.

----
Doesn't seem very serious.
----


It is very serious if generations of kids and adults think the universe is 14 billion years old.


----
BTW, didn't you learn in elementary school that pi = 22/7? And then later you learned this was an approximation?]
----


No, I started off being taught that 22/7 was an approximation.

----
In this case infinite temperature does make sense, as the intial singularity also had infinite density and zero volume. This is what life is like in a singularity: very hot, very tight and really, really cramped.
----


You know what life is like in a singularity??

Cmon now.

List 10 other things in real life where:

a) there is infinite temperature

b) infinite density

c) and zero volume


I'll wait patiently and make a cricket sound.

[garys_2k]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
In this case infinite temperature does make sense, as the intial singularity also had infinite density and zero volume. This is what life is like in a singularity: very hot, very tight and really, really cramped.
----


You know what life is like in a singularity??

Yeah, it's awfully hot, thick and tight! See, with everything scrunched up like that it's just tough to get a cab, let alone take a walk in the park (which is really right nearby, you know).

Cmon now.

List 10 other things in real life where:

a) there is infinite temperature

The coffee I just tried to drink but burned my tongue, my OLD car's vinyl seat after it's been in the hot sun a while, the oil I overheated when I dropped the mondu I was cooking, all sorts of things.

b) infinite density

Well, we have some peoples' closed mindedness, some of the mud I've had to scrape off my boots, the snow I had to shovel last week...

c) and zero volume

AH HAH! A single point!

I'll wait patiently and make a cricket sound.
:)

But anyway, who said the original singularity could be anything like something in today's "real life?"

[garys_2k]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
As measurement techniques improve and theories refined, these numbers get closer and closer to the actual value. What is the problem?
----


The problem is that you will find statements that claim that the numbers are THE numbers. A prime example of this is in some school textbooks.


http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ContentMedia/990053b.jpg

Yeah, infinite temperature... that makes sense.

:rolleyes:
Why not take it up with the authors of that diagram and let us know what they have to say?

[jj]

Originally posted by Whodini



No, I prefer the big nothing that existed in space that suddenly exploded. Yes, the one where nothing existed and exploded.

That is so much better than saying a god did it.

Do you understand either the entropy of absolutely nothing at all, or the quantum implications of same, even intuitively?

[jj]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Okay, excellent point. Now for my counterpoint.

Einstien had a number of very good views and points, most of which were/are true to this day in our thinking. However, there have (in just 50-80 years) been numerous ones that were widely held to be true, and are just now proving to be untrue. Take the speed of light, and the fact that, as he puts it, nothing can go faster. Twas a huge blow to time-travel buffs, but everyone looked at his theories and said 'yup, by Jove, the chap is right'. WRONG. We now have witnessed both in nature and in labs, faster then light travel, at the atomic and the subatomic level.


Never mind, you've been shredded already.

[DanishDynamite]

Whodini:It is very serious if generations of kids and adults think the universe is 14 billion years old.Why is that serious? It is, approximately.
No, I started off being taught that 22/7 was an approximation.Well, good for you.

Look, certainly it would be best to prefix every measurement by "about" or "ca.". But this doesn't always happen, probably because people get lazy. Thus, I might say that the GDP of the US is 10 trillion dollars. Or that I weigh 220 pounds. Or that I'm 6' 1". These are of course not accurate, but I rarely hear people object.

[patnray]

Originally posted by Larspeart

I think it stands to reason that in 1000 years:

1. There will be a different, newer, 'better' theory out there.

and

2. They will mock, redicule and laugh at all of the 'stupid ancients' who believed in that Big Bang hoo doo.



Theories change as our knowledge and information changes. We do not mock believers in disproved theories, for we know the theory was the best explanation for the AVAILABLE evidence. Only those who cling to outdated theories and deny contradicting evidence are subject to ridicule.

We know that our theories will always be imperfect. It is always possible to ask questions that can not be answered within any logical system (Godel's theorem). We do not reject logic and science because of this. We try to construct the "best" explanation to fit the available evidence. And we seek additional evidence.

Science is not absolute, it is our best guess. If a textbook states that the universe is 14 billion years old as an indisputable fact, without qualification, then it is the textbook, not the science, that is bad...

I once read a science fiction story in which an alien race's robot spaceship had crashed on the far side of the moon thousands of years before. The ship's motors, which distorted space-time, had continued to run. When the alien's discovered it still in operation they realized that the local distortion of space-time explained why Earth's scientists beleived that faster than light travel was not possible. They did not mock their earthly conterparts, for they realized their theories were appropriate given the information they had...

[scotth]

And if you use the news to keep up with science..... watch out!

Almost without fail a quote is given something like this: "We are still very early in this investigation, but the results are promising. If our hypothesis is indeed correct, it could point to or be a useful anti-cancer therapy or cure."

News story version: "...our hypothesis is indeed correct... ...it... ...(is) a useful anti-cancer therapy or cure."

Ok, a slight exageration and they are at least getting better with cancer new specifically. But damn they screw it up alot.

[gmol]

For the love of freaking god,
just becuase something at a NASA website which has a diagram, which probably isn't as correct as it should be, and obivously meant for public education doesn't mean all of bloody NASA
hasn't grown up.

Originally posted by Whodini
----
Sure kids will often take such things as scripture, but as we grow older we realize that there is no such thing as infinite temprature;
----


So you are saying that the people at NASA haven't grown up?

They are quite competent, I assume you.


----
the assumptions we are making are probably untrue.
----


And there ya go.

No one suggested any other way.
Yes the assumptions are not completely correct, but as your well aware of how physical theories are refined over time.

[rwald]

I've got nothing specific to add. I just wanted to post to congradulate everyone on debunking Whodini's image and Larspeart's comprehension of science. I couldn't have done a better job myself.

[JAR]

Originally posted by garys_2k

Time is motion? So if nothing was moving there'd be no time?

Yep. If there was no motion, the past, present, and future would be the same because everthing would be in the same place. So in order for there to be time, there would have to be motion.

[garys_2k]

Originally posted by JAR


Yep. If there was no motion, the past, present, and future would be the same because everthing would be in the same place. So in order for there to be time, there would have to be motion.
Hmm, I don't see any need for motion to "create" a time dimension in the equations. Care to explain further? IOW, I assume you can have other dimensions without motion, so how would you at least posit an analogy to a spatial dimension? For example, if you had only one irreducibly small point in the universe, would that be the analogy for not having height, width and depth?

Originally posted by rwald
I've got nothing specific to add. I just wanted to post to congradulate everyone on debunking Whodini's image and Larspeart's comprehension of science. I couldn't have done a better job myself.


Rwald,

Interesting avatar. I guess you come not to send peace, but a sword.

I'd reply in more length, but I'm exhausted. It is like infinity degrees here today.

;)

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Whodini
It is like infinity degrees here today.Your jokes don't help your cause .

Perhaps one last time......

Relativity theory predicts infinite temperature, infinite mass and infinite compression at the Big Bang. That is true.
But "infinity" is a sure sign to mathematicians that there is something wrong with a theory. And so it is with relativity theory.

So listen up.....

We KNOW that Relativity theory breaks down at very small distances
Here we have Quantum Theory.

Get it? And.....

It is a well known fact that Relativity theory and Quantum theory are incombatible.
Which is why there is a search for a Theory of everything (TOE) to supercede both Relativity theory and Quantum theory but in which Relativity theory and Quantum theory are very good approximations in the macro and micro world respectively.
Competitors for TOE include String Theory and M Theory.


For example.....
The mathematics of String theory is the same for distances below the planck length as it is for distances above the planck length so that reducing the length below the planck length is the same, mathematically, as increasing it above the planck length. In a sense, then, there is no length below the planck length. So maybe this is a way of escaping the mathematically inelegant concepts of infinite mass and infinite compression at the Big Bang.


The difference between Religion and Science is that Religious Belief is a stopping place whereas Scientific "belief" is a starting place.
So you have a choice.....

Stop off with your dead-end God or start off with Science on an exciting journey of discovery.


regards,
BillyJoe

----
Your jokes don't help your cause .
----


My "cause"? LOL.


----
But "infinity" is a sure sign to mathematicians that there is something wrong with a theory.
----


Yeah, like that is my whole point and stuff.


----
The difference between Religion and Science is that Religious Belief is a stopping place whereas Scientific "belief" is a starting place.
----


You are claiming religions haven't changed over all these years? LOL.


----
Stop off with your dead-end God or start off with Science on an exciting journey of discovery.
----


Who said I believe in god(s) ?

Don't let your own belief system compromise what has been said or not said Sillyjoke.

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
Creationists maintain that something had to createor cause matter/start creation/etc. Ignore the fact that their own beliefs are hypocrisy... but, is that false?

I'd like to adress that.

If the world needs a creator, then why shouldn't the creator need a creator? If the creator doesn't need a creator, then why does the world? By postulating the need for a creator, we automatically postulate the need for an infinite chain of prior creators, and we create a lot of work for ourselves, looking for evidence of such a thing.

But "needs a creator" is an ad hoc hypothesis based not on actual observation of the universe but on a vague feeling. There's no evidence one way or another, but until some such evidence shows up, "needs a creator" is just one of an infinite number of unjustified suppositions we could make, one no better than the Invisible Pink Unicorn Theory (http://www.geocities.com/ipu_temple).

A favorite bit of nonsense often comes in the form "when you find a wristwatch on the beach, you know it had a creator, well, how much more wonderful is the universe, and it must have a creator too". A variation on that which I heard recently was "It takes a man to build a house, it must take a creator to build the universe." I debunked the latter form the same way as one unfolds the former form. What sets a watch or a house apart from its surroundings is all those characteristics which suggest that a human or humans took preexisting natural ingredients and formed them to human ends. The surroundings, which clearly aren't a watch or a house, are naturally pre-existing materials, which don't suggest the action of an intelligence at all--otherwise, on what basis would one distinguish a house or a watch as special? But, the second half of the nonsense always assumes that the preexisting natural world DOES imply an intelligent creator--in which case, there's no need to suppose a human was involved in making a watch or a house, so the first part of the nonsense would have to be abandoned! No matter how you look at it, the analogy between the two halves breaks down because the thing is internally inconsistent.

To summarize: "needs a creator" is an extraordinary claim which leads to circular arguments and doesn't add anything to any scientific model. Because it isn't a scientific hypothesis, science cannot test it against real-world observations--unlike any scientific hypothesis. There is no place for it in serious scientific discussions or science education.

Can anyone list any other things (non mathematical, you know, actually real stuff) where:

a) there is infinite temperature

b) infinite density

c) and zero volume


I'll mail a Ruby Red Shasta to anyone who can.

Originally posted by Whodini
Can anyone list any other things (non mathematical, you know, actually real stuff) where:

a) there is infinite temperature

b) infinite density

c) and zero volume


I'll mail a Ruby Red Shasta to anyone who can.

Your head.

Sorry, couldn't resist. :D

Originally posted by sunburnt


Your head.

Sorry, couldn't resist. :D


So in other words, no, you cannot list anything and you have utterly failed at the task.

So why should we believe anything else has those properties if you can't even list ONE example which supposedly does?

Your absurd-magical-nothing-which-exploded-which-I-can't-prove-either seems to be the only thing that does.

Please, keep resorting to ad homs or jokes. They only make you look better. Really.

:D
:( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Whodini


Please, keep resorting to ad homs or jokes. They only make you look better. Really.

:D
:( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes:

I will. Unlike you, I know to stick to what I know.

No, I just can't resist a perfect setup line when I see it.

Originally posted by bumdog,


----
Unlike you, I know to stick to what I know.
----


Unlike you, I question authority and keep asking questions instead of sticking solely to my belief system.


----
No, I just can't resist a perfect setup line when I see it.
----


Me too.

[rwald]

Whodini, no one thinks that the universe was ever infinitely hot or infinitely dense. Yes, that's the conclusion you would draw if you tried to use relativity to describe the entirety of the Big Bang. But that's why scientists know that relativity isn't the whole picture. We know that the moment of the Big Bang wasn't infinite anything. We just don't yet have the theories to describe what it really was.

Infinity is nature's way of telling you to develop a new theory...

Originally posted by Woodini
Originally posted by bumdog,


----
Unlike you, I know to stick to what I know.
----


Unlike you, I question authority and keep asking questions instead of sticking solely to my belief system.


----
No, I just can't resist a perfect setup line when I see it.
----


Me too.

You know, I could modify an Eliza program to follow your thought patterns and produce your posts for you, if you'd like.

As a matter of fact, that gives me an idea.

----
But that's why scientists know that relativity isn't the whole picture. We know that the moment of the Big Bang wasn't infinite anything. We just don't yet have the theories to describe what it really was.
----


So why does everyone always talk about infinite this, infinitesimally small that, etc.?

Originally posted by sundog


You know, I could modify an Eliza program to follow your thought patterns and produce your posts for you, if you'd like.

As a matter of fact, that gives me an idea.


Sundog,

Any time you actually want to contribute to this thread instead of resorting to semi-ad homs, let us know.

Until then, claim materialism is The Truth (tm) but offer no proof.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[rwald]

That's the nature of science. You can't ever say, "We know for a fact that x is true." All you can say is, "X is the best theory we have to explain and account for all the available evidence." As of now, we don't really know what the universe was like at t=0. We may never know. Does that mean that science is flawed? No. If we were making assertions about things we had no evidence for...we'd be doing religion.

[SpaceLord]

A excellent thread a few months back contained a fairly good discussion of Big Bang, Inflation Theory, etc.

The Origin of the Big Bang? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10084)

I know I started it, but it does have good info in there. :D

----
That's the nature of science. You can't ever say, "We know for a fact that x is true." All you can say is, "X is the best theory we have to explain and account for all the available evidence."
----


Exactly! I don't even need anyone to translate that from Rwaldian.

That is precisely correct Rwald!

So why do the scientistic pretend that science is THE way?


----
As of now, we don't really know what the universe was like at t=0.
----


Exactly! But apparently it was infinitely dense, hot, small, and then it magically exploded. Then life magically came.


----
If we were making assertions about things we had no evidence for...we'd be doing religion.
----


Yeah, science just makes assertions about things they have extremely minimal evidence for.

[gmol]

Originally posted by Whodini
Can anyone list any other things (non mathematical, you know, actually real stuff) where:

a) there is infinite temperature

b) infinite density

c) and zero volume


I'll mail a Ruby Red Shasta to anyone who can.

Whodini, you're well aware of my reponse, there of course is no such physical thing that satisfies your criteria. Who is saying that there is? other than guy who made that poster (quite likely and artist/educator) and not a cosmologist.

Spacelord,

That article basically replaces the Big Bang with

"era of quantum gravity".

What came before that?


Looks like scientists are still saying babies come from a maternity ward.

Gmol,


----
Whodini, you're well aware of my reponse, there of course is no such physical thing that satisfies your criteria.
----


There is no such thing, EXCEPT the origin of the universe, of course!

So they say...

:)

[gmol]

WTF?
Who is "they"?
I don't and no physicist does either.

Originally posted by Whodini
Gmol,


----
Whodini, you're well aware of my reponse, there of course is no such physical thing that satisfies your criteria.
----


There is no such thing, EXCEPT the origin of the universe, of course!

So they say...http://groups.google.com/groups?q=sci.math&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en

:)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by rwald
At least we're only claiming one impossible thing...

Wait, if God created the universe, than what created God? Oh, God's allowed to be immortal. But the universe isn't? Is that the sound of shifting goalposts I hear?

If the universe is closed, Big Bang should be followed by Big Crunch, then repeat, repeat, repeat. ;)

Also, string theory gets rid of the singularity probem, with everything squeezed down to the size of a single string. Result, very very hot, very very dense, but no infinities.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by hammegk

Also, string theory gets rid of the singularity probem, with everything squeezed down to the size of a single string. Result, very very hot, very very dense, but no infinities.

Certainly is elegant.

I, for one, would love for there to be a "big crunch" at the end of time. I just don't see it the cards.

[JAR]

Originally posted by garys_2k

Hmm, I don't see any need for motion to "create" a time dimension in the equations. Care to explain further? IOW, I assume you can have other dimensions without motion, so how would you at least posit an analogy to a spatial dimension? For example, if you had only one irreducibly small point in the universe, would that be the analogy for not having height, width and depth?

The next time I am under temptation to try to say something smart on a subject I am not that familiar with, I will try my best to resist the temptation.

[scotth]

Originally posted by hammegk


If the universe is closed, Big Bang should be followed by Big Crunch, then repeat, repeat, repeat. ;)

Also, string theory gets rid of the singularity probem, with everything squeezed down to the size of a single string. Result, very very hot, very very dense, but no infinities.

A big crunch appears to be quite unlikely. It was getting pretty unlikely anyway and the recent MAP observations have nearly put the idea in the dust bin.

GMOL, why did you post that link

http://groups.google.com/

etc.

in my message?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by scotth


A big crunch appears to be quite unlikely. It was getting pretty unlikely anyway and the recent MAP observations have nearly put the idea in the dust bin.

Let us know when "nearly" becomes "100% certainly"..... ;)

[rwald]

Whodini, you're confused. Science is The Way. However, scientific facts are not The Truth. Confused? What I'm saying is that the scientific method is the only way to find out facts about reality. However, those facts will always be provincial, since we can only work with the evidence at hand, and there is always evidence missing. So, just because science cannot ever know the whole truth about reality, doesn't mean that science isn't the best way to find out the truth about reality.

Actually, I noticed something unusual about your replies to my assertions. You said, "This scientist says that the universe was infinitely hot, but that makes no sense!" I said, "OK, so science say that the universe wasn't infinitely hot." You said, "But how do you know it wasn't infinitely hot? You're just making that up." I said, "OK, OK, so science doesn't know if it was infinitely hot or not." Then you said, "But if science can't ever know anything, why do you think it's so great?" It seems to me that nothing I can say will make you happy.

[rwald]

Hammegk, science never has 100% certainty. I'm sure I've told you that before. However, we can have nearly 100% certainty.

As far as the closed/open universe question, I think that all the evidence found so far points to an open or a flat universe. That doesn't mean that the universe isn't closed, just that it's very unlikely. If you ever find evidence showing that the universe is closed, be sure to tell us.

Rwald,


----
Whodini, you're confused.
----


You state your case so well. :rolleyes: :eek: :D


----
Science is The Way.
----


For the scientistic, it is the way, the truth, and ...


----
It seems to me that nothing I can say will make you happy.
----


Rwald, you make me happy. :)

So why can science figure things out and religion can't figure things out?

[rwald]

How could religion ever figure out things? I mean, what method would it use? Sure, I'd buy that religion may have some insights into how humanity works (in the same sense that psychologists do), but saying that religion can figure things out about reality as a whole? How?

Oh, and I'm not exactly the only one to resort to ad-homs, there...

Originally posted by Whodini

----
I don't have any understanding or misunderstanding. I don't know what they are! I'd never heard of them before today!!
----


Ian,

You apparently don't speak the uber-skeptical language of Rwaldian.

In that language, one tells people what they know, then argues against it.

To get a better understanding of it, also study Strawmanian and Blahblahish.

I think it is more difficult to name something religion hasn't 'figured out'.


----
Oh, and I'm not exactly the only one to resort to ad-homs, there...
----


We can have a dual New Year's resolution to stop together! How bout it mofo?

(starting right now)

[rwald]

OK, Woo-woodini, I'll stop right after this post.

Well, what has religion told us about biology? Astronomy? Math? What has it told us about anything even remotely related to science?

I'll tell you what religion has said on those topics. In biology, it told us that bats are birds and that crickets have 4 legs, as well as that plants can exist without the sun (not to mention that all species were created individually, instead of evolving). In astronomy, it told us that the sun revolves around the earth, that all stars exist only for the purposes of navigation (and also that they're small and near enough for many of them to fall to earth in Revelations), and that the earth is flat. In math, it told us that pi is exactly 3. Now, do I need to again state why religion hasn't told us anything about the universe as a whole?

And if you want to claim that all the above come from a too-literal interpretation of the Bible, I still ask that you cite one example of a scientific concept that was originated by religion.

Rwald,


You raised some very thought-provoking points. Please grant me the opportunity to address them in a most rational manner.


----
,what has religion told us about biology? Astronomy? Math? What has it told us about anything even remotely related to science?
----


I believe that religion and spirituality do not address those issues. The areas that they do address have more to do with turning inside and asking and answering questions about how people feel and what decisions they make, rather than questions about the physical world.


----
In biology, it told us that bats are birds and that crickets have 4 legs, as well as that plants can exist without the sun (not to mention that all species were created individually, instead of evolving). In astronomy, it told us that the sun revolves around the earth, that all stars exist only for the purposes of navigation (and also that they're small and near enough for many of them to fall to earth in Revelations), and that the earth is flat. In math, it told us that pi is exactly 3. Now, do I need to again state why religion hasn't told us anything about the universe as a whole?
----


That is what early forms of Christianity has told us (and some others), but not religion in general. Many religions, for example, say things vaguely similar to a Big Bang type of explosion/start.


----
,I still ask that you cite one example of a scientific concept that was originated by religion.
----


There have been many great things invented by the religious, who were motivated by religion.

I will answer your question with a question, and that is why do things need to be related back to science to be useful to humankind?

[rwald]

You basically agreed with me. I said that religion can have an understanding of humanity. And you cited some examples of religion having some understanding of humanity. So we agree: religion can have an understanding of humanity, but not of science.

Science isn't the only thing which is "useful" to humanity. Art is clearly "useful" to humanity, to start. I never claimed that science has a monopoly on utility.

Oh, and I agree that some science may have been religiously-inspired (for example, Darwin was looking to find the way that God created all the species on earth; his faith was reaffirmed by his discovery). But for science to be useful as science, it must be seperate enough from religion that it sticks to the scientific method.

[scotth]

Originally posted by rwald
for example, Darwin was looking to find the way that God created all the species on earth; his faith was reaffirmed by his discovery.

This is certainly not my understanding.

Could you provide any support for that?

[rwald]

Maybe that was an exagerration. I remember seeing some quotes in Origin of Species regarding how Darwin saw evolution as a process used by God...maybe I spoke too strongly in my previous post.

Rwald,


Yes, I definitely agree with you on the majority of points raised.

I am not too confident about my knowledge about Charles Darwin, so I cannot comment on that for certain.

I do know that Wallace had more spiritual inclinations that motivated his work at times (based on what I read from Shermer's book).

[gmol]

How odd....I must've accidentally middle clicked in my reply (unix thing). Apologies.

Please respond to the original post who are "they"?
It's not anyone I know.

Originally posted by Whodini
GMOL, why did you post that link

http://groups.google.com/

etc.

in my message?

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Whodini
But "infinity" is a sure sign to mathematicians that there is something wrong with a theory.
----
Yeah, like that is my whole point and stuff. Yeah, but my point is that you seem to think that scientists don't think so. :)

Originally posted by Whodini
The difference between Religion and Science is that Religious Belief is a stopping place whereas Scientific "belief" is a starting place.
----
You are claiming religions haven't changed over all these years? LOL. No, I'm talking about progress. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Whodini
Stop off with your dead-end God or start off with Science on an exciting journey of discovery.
----
Who said I believe in god(s) ?If you don't believe in God then don't speak for those who do otherwise don't blame me if I mistake you for someone who does. :mad:

Originally posted by Whodini
Don't let your own belief system compromise what has been said or not said Sillyjoke. What you have said reveals a pretty mistaken belief system about science, Whodini (can't think of a silly joke about you name unfortunately :( )


regards,
BillyJoe

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
The problem is that you will find statements that claim that the numbers are THE numbers. A prime example of this is in some school textbooks.Cite one such example, please.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
Please, keep resorting to ad homs or jokes. They only make you look better. Really.Whodini should consider taking his own advice.

Really.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
Yeah, science just makes assertions about things they have extremely minimal evidence for. If Whodini could provide an example, it might be possible to show him the evidence he has overlooked -- or ignored.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
For the scientistic, it is the way, the truth, and ...No scientist makes such a claim. Whodini's straw man is recognized and discarded.
Originally posted by Whodini
So why can science figure things out and religion can't figure things out? Because science is self-correcting, and religion is not.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Unas
No scientist makes such a claim. Whodini's straw man is recognized and discarded.Actually, Whodini refers to the "scientistic", which is a good term for those who use the trappings of science but avoid the actual hard-work asking-questions checking-answers part.

Not that we know anyone like that :rolleyes:

Posted by Pixy :


Actually, Whodini refers to the "scientistic", which is a good term for those who use the trappings of science but avoid the actual hard-work asking-questions checking-answers part.

Not that we know anyone like that .


That isn't what the word means.

http://www.kheper.net/topics/worldviews/scientism.htm


Scientistic Materialism accepts only one reality: the physical universe, composed as it is of matter and energy. Everything that is not physical, measurable, or deducible from scientific observations, is considered unreal. Life is explained in purely mechanical terms, and phenomena such as Mind and Consciousness are considered nothing but epiphenomena - curious by-products, of certain complex physical processes (such as brain metabolism)

Scientistic Materialism asserts that all the claims of the religious and spiritual traditions of humanity throughout the ages are false. There is no God, no survival of physical death, no non-physical realities, and no ultimate meaning or purpose to life

Scientistic Materialism, then, is the belief, the irrational belief (for all dogmatically held beliefs are irrational in the truest sense of the word), that only that which can be observed and measured through the technique of Scientific Method is real, and everything else is unreal (or "Superstition"; or "Mysticism", using the term in a derogatory sense). This is basically the same attitude as that taken by the religious fundamentalist, who claims that only the Bible is true and valid. In both cases there is this absolute limiting standard, which is used to measure everything in existence, even when, as in most cases, it is not even applicable


Not that we know anyone like that. :D

Unas :


RE: science just makes assertions about things they have extremely minimal evidence for.

If Whodini could provide an example, it might be possible to show him the evidence he has overlooked -- or ignored.


A good example is in yesterdays New Scientist. For decades now it has been geological orthodoxy to believe that volcanic island chains like Hawaii were the result of a tectonic plate moving slowly over a 'mantle plume'. This was based on one scientist having a bright idea that seemed to make sense, and soon became entrenched in nearly all textbooks which spoke of volcanic island formation. Much more recently we have been able to probe the density of the rock formations where these supposed mantle plumes exist and it is looking very much like the theory is completely wrong. Underneath Iceland there is no long, thin, deep plume of molten rock. Instead there is a broad shallow pool. It turns out that Iceland sits on a geological crossroads where the mid-atlantic ridge bisects an ancient now-silent fault (or "suture") where North America and Europe collided 400 million years ago. It now seems possible that most cases of volcanic island chains that were believed to be the result of mantle plumes are in fact nothing of the sort. What is interesting is that when the researcher who produced the Iceland results first tried to get her work published she had a very hard time. This wasn't because there was anything wrong with her work, which is now becoming much more widely accepted, but because the scientific mainstream has a tendency to be dogmatic, resistant to change and once an idea has become part of accepted scientific wisdom it can be very difficult to overturn it, regardless of the fact that there is often little hard evidence to support it and emerging evidence that it is actually wrong.

This is just one example. Many others exist, especially with regard to difficult subjects like issues of randomness and non-directionality in evolution and the ubiquitous issues surrounding consciousness (which I don't want to go into in this thread).

The point is that science often makes claims based upon quite flimsy evidence, and then forgets how flimsy the evidence is. This isn't actually a problem with science itself, but with psychological inflexibility of some scientists, especially if they have invested many years of work barking up the wrong tree.

[Wolverine]

[off topic]
*cough* (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15105)
thank you =)
[/off topic]

[Larspeart]

Sorry. I guess I was wrong.

:)

Originally posted by Unas
Because science is self-correcting, and religion is not.


What is being corrected exactly?

Thanks for the good example UCE.

Unas tells me to provide examples, etc., yet he/she doesn't seem to have any interest in doing basic research for him/herself.
(and blames that lazyness on me making the claim)

[scotth]

Originally posted by Whodini



What is being corrected exactly?

science theories.

In the simplest terms, most of the research work in science is trying to find evidence that contradicts current theories. That contradicting evidence is what will guide the formation of better/more complete theories.

A common misconception is that scientists are generally trying to confirm their own theories. The reality is they are trying to push them to their breaking point.

It is much more interesting to find something unexpected as that is when something is really learned.

[DanishDynamite]

Thanks, UCE, for an example of how science is self-correcting. In regard to this bit:What is interesting is that when the researcher who produced the Iceland results first tried to get her work published she had a very hard time. This wasn't because there was anything wrong with her work, which is now becoming much more widely accepted, but because the scientific mainstream has a tendency to be dogmatic, resistant to change and once an idea has become part of accepted scientific wisdom it can be very difficult to overturn it, regardless of the fact that there is often little hard evidence to support it and emerging evidence that it is actually wrong. Do you have any facts regarding how hard a time she had in getting her work published? If her paper was rejected, do you have the reasons given by the journal(s) for the rejection? Otherwise your opinion on what happened and why it happened, is just that: your opinion.

[DanishDynamite]

Larspeart:Sorry. I guess I was wrong.

:) :) I can't count the number of times I have said these very words. Life is a learning experience.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Thanks, UCE, for an example of how science is self-correcting. In regard to this bit: Do you have any facts regarding how hard a time she had in getting her work published? If her paper was rejected, do you have the reasons given by the journal(s) for the rejection? Otherwise your opinion on what happened and why it happened, is just that: your opinion.

No, I just have the anecdotal evidence from the researcher and the journalist who wrote the article. But this sort of thing does happen quite regularly in science.