Can't believe universe came from size of marble!!

[Iamme]

I'm sure many of you already have heard the theory that the universe at the time of the Big Bang was only the size of a marble, when it exploded. In one trillionth of a trillionth of a second the Big bang expanded outward to beyond the size of the observable universe. (This information derived from the cover of one of my latest science magazines.)

Tell me another one.

Is this kind of stuff being printed just to entertain my brain? Or,am I from some other (sane)planet?

How could the entire mass of the known universe have been compressed into a marble, and not yet have caught fire or exploded, or fused, long before it was anywhere NEAR that compressed and small?

They never ever do say where the material came from...if it was just always there...if it contracted back from some previous expansion...etc.

One could suppose that the mass was actually larger and that due to relativity, we think it was that small due to the size of the known universe today. However this train of thought rasies a problem: Because scientists believe that it indeed was the size of a marble, that means the laws regarding what we know regarding what forces can do to something of a given size would have to apply...would they not? And that is why I said that one would think that this size mass, relative to the universe as we know it today, would have long before, either caught fire and turned to gas, or exploded long before reaching such a small size. Or, just fused together that way, as long as it was only that big anyway and made it that small without already coming apart by one force or another.

[Cecil]

Actually, it was far smaller than that. Like, on the order of 10^-43 metres. But a marble is pretty close in comparison.

It was really really really super hot, so hot it's beyond even your imagination's imagination.

It didn't explode/fuse/etc because explosion is a chemical reaction requiring atoms with electrons, and fusion is nuclear reaction requiring atomic nucleii. At the big bang, the temperature was so high that not only did neither of these things exist, protons didn't even exist. In fact, there wasn't even any meaningful distinction between matter and energy. At that point, all the mass in the currently observable universe was compressed into a super-small, super-hot, mass/energy soup.

Not unlike a bowl of chicken noodle soup, if you've just taken it out of the microwave. This is a good way to make some delicious chicken soup.

1 tablespoon vegetable oil
2 medium onions, cut into medium dice
1 whole chicken (about 4 pounds), breast removed and split; remaining chicken cut into 2-inch pieces
Salt
1 large carrot, peeled and sliced 1/4-inch thick
1 celery stalk, sliced 1/4-inch thick
1/2 teaspoon dried thyme leaves
2 cups (3 ounces) hearty egg noodles
Ground black pepper
1/4 cup minced fresh parsley leaves

Instructions
Heat oil over medium-high heat in a large soup kettle. Add half of chopped onions and all chicken pieces (reserve breast). Saute until chicken is no longer pink, 5 to 7 minutes. Reduce heat to low, cover and simmer until chicken releases its juices, about 20 minutes. Increase heat to high; add 2 quarts water along with whole chicken breast, 1 teaspoon salt and bay leaves. Bring to a simmer, then cover, reduce heat to low and barely simmer until chicken breast is cooked and broth is rich and flavorful, 20 minutes longer.

Remove chicken breast from kettle; set aside. When cool enough to handle, remove skin from breast, then remove meat from bones and shred into bite-size pieces; discard skin and bones. Strain broth into a large bowl and discard any remaining chicken pieces and bones. Skim fat from broth and reserve 2 tablespoons. (Broth and meat can be covered and refrigerated for up to 2 days.)

Return soup kettle to medium-high heat. Add reserved chicken fat. Add remaining onion, along with carrot and celery, Saute until softened, about 5 minutes. Add thyme, broth and shredded chicken. Simmer until vegetables are tender and flavors meld, 10 to 15 minutes. Add noodles and cook until just tender, about 5 minutes. Adjust seasonings, adding salt, if necessary, and pepper, stir in parsley and serve.

Just be careful you don't spill it on one of these.
http://www.sanfrandy.com/images/kitten.jpg

[Iamme]

Awwww...thanks. Very informative AND for fringe benefits, I do really love chicken noodle soup. AND I love cats. I used to have 3 at once. But then I went and drowned 3 new ones so I wouldn't have 6.

But tell me now: In your heart of hearts, do you really buy into this marble size business? That just sitting there was like this marble of mass, and then suddenly, blammo? Don't you suppose think tank Ph.D. physicists are congering this gobbletygook up just so they can get $110,000 a year grants to keep piling onto such theories? Sort of like a club of guys who have figured out how to bamboozle everyone because nobody else will be able to prove them wrong? Can you imnagine someone of the intellect of Bush saying, "Nahhhhh...I know better because X over the quadrangular tangent of the iotopic manashafrance times the power of the Getty effect in relation to the Hubble principle divided by the arc of the covenant...." :)

[cyborg]

But tell me now: In your heart of hearts, do you really buy into this marble size business? That just sitting there was like this marble of mass, and then suddenly, blammo? Don't you suppose think tank Ph.D. physicists are congering this gobbletygook up just so they can get $110,000 a year grants to keep piling onto such theories? Sort of like a club of guys who have figured out how to bamboozle everyone because nobody else will be able to prove them wrong? Can you imnagine someone of the intellect of Bush saying, "Nahhhhh...I know better because X over the quadrangular tangent of the iotopic manashafrance times the power of the Getty effect in relation to the Hubble principle divided by the arc of the covenant...." :)

Erm so basically you're appealing to our feelings about this and saying that there's all a big conspiracy to make up theories that seem wrong so scientists can keep getting money because everyone else is to stupid to realise they're being conned?

Don't you get the point yet that one's feelings on reality are irrelevant?

[Maxwell's Demon]

Yup, well done Iamme, you rumbled us.

I've just finished my PhD (passed my Viva Voce two weeks ago), although it was in condensed matter/photonics and not cosmology.

But you are right - the whole thing was made up - every last word was just baloney that I made up so that my supervisor and I could get a research grant. All those papers that I published were fakes, the peer reviewers let them through because they are in on it too and they don't want to lose their research grants - they just gave me weeks of corrections on each one, so as not to let the pretence slip.

I didn't really spend 4 years in the lab banging my head against a wall trying to get meaningful data from my samples - I spent the entire 4 years in the pub, drinking pint after pint of ice cold beer that I paid for using the research grant that I swindled from the governement - ha, so long suckers, and thanks for all the fish!

By the way Iamme, did I forget to mention that you are an idiot?

[Angus McPresley]

Your fundamental error is in trying to envision all the matter and energy as sitting there in a much larger space, which it then expands into.

What current theory actually says is that all of space itself existed as a very small thing, with all the matter and energy contained within. So it wouldn't matter what forces were going on in there, there was no space for them to expand into. When space itself then expanded, the pressure was relieved, so to speak.

...and not yet have caught fire or exploded, or fused, long before it was anywhere NEAR that compressed and small? ...would have long before, either caught fire and turned to gas, or exploded long before reaching such a small size.

(Emphasis mine.)

This is your other fundamental error -- you're looking at time backwards. All this stuff didn't necessarily collapse to this point; it may have started that way, if this was the beginning of time. (We don't know if it was or not; this is just one theory.)

There is still another theory, the the universe did in fact collapse this way, and has done so multiple times in the past as well. The objections you raise are still not a problem in this scenario, however. When all of SPACE is what's collapsing, all the mass and whatever can catch fire, turn into gas, etc. all it wants, but it's still going to be compressed, since it has an ever decreasing volume of space to work with.

[emperorchaos]

I'm sure many of you already have heard the theory that the universe at the time of the Big Bang was only the size of a marble, when it exploded. In one trillionth of a trillionth of a second the Big bang expanded outward to beyond the size of the observable universe. (This information derived from the cover of one of my latest science magazines.)

Which magazine?

For the most part what you say is true (in terms of what constitutes truth in theories); however, if I'm not mistaken, at the time (or before, whatever) the Big Bang, the universe was much much smaller than a marble. It was, after all, a gravitational singularity.

Tell me another one.

So this guy walks into a bar...
*continues joke for about five minutes*
...turns out it wasn't a woman at all. HE SLEPT WITH A MALE GOLDFISH!
*erupts into an uncontrollable guffaw*

Is this kind of stuff being printed just to entertain my brain? Or,am I from some other (sane)planet?

It makes sense as far as we can tell presently. Perhaps more advances in technology are required for us to be certain.

How could the entire mass of the known universe have been compressed into a marble, and not yet have caught fire or exploded, or fused, long before it was anywhere NEAR that compressed and small?

If you're referring to the Big Crunch, that is unclear. It's not certain if this has happened before. Other theories suggest that our universe exploded out of another universe. Or that it was the result of some friction between two other universes. This is getting into M-Theory and is a) beyond me, b) beyond most people, and c) beyond our current mathematical abilities.

If you're not refering to the Big Crunch but to the actual state of the universe being in such a compressed state, you should know that the laws of the universe as we know it today did not yet exist. Perhaps in its singularity, the temperature (if there was such a thing) was something akin to absolute zero. Or something even more bizarre. Occam's Razor is a great scientific tool, especially for explaining astronomy. But it would seem that it, like physics, breaks down in a singularity. Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_censorship_hypothesis), anyone?

They never ever do say where the material came from...if it was just always there...if it contracted back from some previous expansion...etc.


We just don't know yet. There are theories that exist, yes. But for the most part we lack capabilities sufficient enough to test those theories.

One could suppose that the mass was actually larger and that due to relativity, we think it was that small due to the size of the known universe today. However this train of thought rasies a problem: Because scientists believe that it indeed was the size of a marble, that means the laws regarding what we know regarding what forces can do to something of a given size would have to apply...would they not? And that is why I said that one would think that this size mass, relative to the universe as we know it today, would have long before, either caught fire and turned to gas, or exploded long before reaching such a small size. Or, just fused together that way, as long as it was only that big anyway and made it that small without already coming apart by one force or another.

Perhaps I misunderstood the entire gist of the OP.

At any rate, I should say that I'm not an astronomer. Just a guy with a fanatical interest in astronomy. I've taken a few classes on the subject, sure. But I've not nearly the knowledge of the physics required to truly understand why. I've read most of Stephen Hawking's work (when I say work I mean that which does not require an extensive education in astrophysics!), such as A Brief History of Time, Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays, and the most recent The Universe in a Nutshell. I recommend these books because not only is Hawking a brilliant theoretical physicist, but he's a damn good writer too! The titles of the only other works I've read pertaining to this subject currently slip my mind. One was a compilation of essays from researchers such as Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, Hawking, et alii. I think it is titled Astronomy, Physics, and Mathematics. It was, like I said, a compilation and so the name of the editor escapes me.

-=-=-=-

I started this reply about 40 minutes ago and got sidetracked. My apologies.

[Humphreys]

They never ever do say where the material came from...if it was just always there...if it contracted back from some previous expansion...etc.

Maybe because "they" do not know, and aren't fans of filling gaps in knowledge with mystical tripe, like some people.

[Angus McPresley]

But tell me now: In your heart of hearts, do you really buy into this marble size business? That just sitting there was like this marble of mass, and then suddenly, blammo?


Um, yeah, why not?

The fun thing about the big bang theory is that it:

was conceived based on observed evidence (backwards extrapolation of the fact that the universe is observed to be expanding)
makes further predictions that have been confirmed through further experiments (such as the levels of background radiation), like a good theory should


Do you really, in your heart of hearts, believe that this effort has all been a big con?

Do you have alternate theory to propose in its place, that you can provide us with some evidence for?

[emperorchaos]

Yup, well done Iamme, you rumbled us.

I've just finished my PhD (passed my Viva Voce two weeks ago), although it was in condensed matter/photonics and not cosmology.

Then you are the guy that should be answering this and not me! =P

But I do believe we are discussing cosmogony and not cosmology. Ahh, semantics.

I didn't really spend 4 years in the lab banging my head against a wall trying to get meaningful data from my samples - I spent the entire 4 years in the pub, drinking pint after pint of ice cold beer that I paid for using the research grant that I swindled from the governement - ha, so long suckers, and thanks for all the fish!


I spent a year and a half doing the same banging. Well, not the first year. But that one semester wrecked havoc on my frontal lobe.

"We Apologize for the Inconvenience."

By the way Iamme, did I forget to mention that you are an idiot?

I realize I've gotten into an argument with Iamme before that didn't go anywhere. Memory slips my mind as to what it was about...

At least, for the time being, Kilik seems to be gone. He brought me into this world as I was a lurker beforehand. *tear*

[emperorchaos]

Maybe because "they" do not know, and aren't fans of filling gaps in knowledge with mystical tripe, like some people.

"They" always know. You know that!

Oh wait, is this a different "they" that the "they" that orchestrated the attacks on the World Trade Center, the same "they" that had to get rid of Kennedy because he found out what happened before the Big Bang? The same "they", composed of a dozen or so extremely wealthy and very powerful individuals, who run the entire planet?

The same "they" that has been stealing my left socks? I'm convinced this is so as I have two years' worth of lonely right socks. That's my evidence. And all my friends have the same problem so you know this is true! You cannot deny the facts!

[Iamme]

By the way Iamme, did I forget to mention that you are an idiot?

Uhhh....ya, you did. Am I at least like an idiot savant?

[Hawk one]

Once again, Iamme does the "argument from ignorance" fallacy as his entire premise. This time it's "I can't understand how the universe was really, really small... So it can't have been." So bloody typical.

Shouldn't you have learned that this is not a good thing by now, Iamme? Are you really so dense as to not understand what is so hideously wrong with using that kind of fallacy over and over and over?

[Humphreys]

The same "they" that has been stealing my left socks? I'm convinced this is so as I have two years' worth of lonely right socks. That's my evidence. And all my friends have the same problem so you know this is true! You cannot deny the facts!

Are you speaking of the shape shifting lizard people?

I've actually met one of those. Oh, sure, he said he was just a regular homeless guy trying his best to survive, but that's what they want you to think, you know?

They're hardly going to come right out and admit shape-shifting into "smelly, homeless Johnny", are they?

[Iamme]

Um, yeah, why not?

The fun thing about the big bang theory is that it:

was conceived based on observed evidence (backwards extrapolation of the fact that the universe is observed to be expanding)
makes further predictions that have been confirmed through further experiments (such as the levels of background radiation), like a good theory should


Do you really, in your heart of hearts, believe that this effort has all been a big con?

Do you have alternate theory to propose in its place, that you can provide us with some evidence for?

Yes, I have alternative theories.

1. We are a mind and we are imaging things because all this was programmed into our heads in order to save space.

2. It was always here, basically as we see it.

3. God did it all and someday he will reveal to us that the universe at any one given moment really says, "I, your one and only God, have made all this", which is what the stars say. But we can't "see" this writing in the heavens because due to the speed of light, the the universe as we see it is not really in the position we see it because the farthest stars are farther away, in some direction, that what the nearest stars are, due to the speed of light. We have no idea, at any one given moment, what the universe looks like. And I feel there really is a good chance that a God, who smiles down on men who think they know everything, will one day reveal that he actually showed us he exists, but we have been too stupid or not carrying enough to figure it out.

[Iamme]

Once again, Iamme does the "argument from ignorance" fallacy as his entire premise. This time it's "I can't understand how the universe was really, really small... So it can't have been." So bloody typical.

Shouldn't you have learned that this is not a good thing by now, Iamme? Are you really so dense as to not understand what is so hideously wrong with using that kind of fallacy over and over and over?

No.


If we are supposed to go to school to learn from previous mistakes...to learn from history...if world leaders never learn and keep starting wars, then I think I am entitled to mere OPINIONS that harm no one...you nitwits, who keep calling me names.

[Beleth]

Yes, I have alternative theories.

1. We are a mind and we are imaging things because all this was programmed into our heads in order to save space. Is there evidence for this? What does this theory predict that we haven't verified yet?

2. It was always here, basically as we see it. How does this theory reconcile the observable events of redshifting and background radiation?

3. God did it all and someday he will reveal to us that the universe at any one given moment really says, "I, your one and only God, have made all this", which is what the stars say. Nice theory! I will believe it the instant this prediction comes true.

[Hawk one]

No.

If we are supposed to go to school to learn from previous mistakes...to learn from history...if world leaders never learn and keep starting wars, then I think I am entitled to mere OPINIONS that harm no one...you nitwits, who keep calling me names.

What was it someone once said? "You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts." You're trying to tell us it's a fact that the univers could never have been so small, which all current scientific theories disagree with.

And people with your mindset -ARE- hurting people. People with your mindset, but with political power, are trying each and every day to undermine our children's education, replacing facts and evidence with guesses and fantasies in science class.

And we -have- learned from previous mistakes. See, that's why don't think that the earth is the center of the universe any longer? Heck, even not in our own galaxy or solar system.

But people with your mindset are trying to reverse this, to keep on making the same mistakes. You and they are not learning, and whilst the real scientists are finding out more about this universe every day than you could hope for in your lifetime, you're still trying to drag us back from a piece of history that you're supposed to have learned was a mistake. You know, so that you won't repeat them.

So, do you have any actual and real evidence that goes against the theory of that the universe was once the size of... well, much less than a marble? Because hey, that theory does have a lot of evidence going for it. That's what makes it a real theory, as opposed to your "I can't imagine it could happen, so it can't be true" statement.

[Soapy Sam]

Iamme- Thinking about quantum fluctuations, singularities, black and white holes, inflation (not the monetary kind) and the like is fun, but makes your head hurt.
Do I buy into it? Yes and No. Yes- I accept that the people doing actual research in this field take these ideas seriously. No , I don't suppose they have it remotely right yet. Neither do they. But they're seriously trying to learn.
Yes, you have the right to reject it, but you must acknowledge there are two types of rejection. Rejection from informed disagreement and rejection from uninformed disagreement. Likewise, there are two forms of acceptance. Although uninformed, I accept the model till I hear one more convincing. Though equally uninformed, you choose to reject. Fair enough. So long as you accept that's what you are doing, I certainly won't criticise you for it.
I don't think you are any more qualified to teach your rejection to the unaligned than I am to teach them my acceptance.
Would you say that's fair?

[Outhere]

The Gracie Allen Theory of the Cosmos (if nobody remembers who she was, I'm too old to be posting on this thread).

At the moment of the Big Bang, we are asked to envision Everything condensed into an incredibly small space--yet if space and time began together, as some speculate, speaking of space means nothing. Likewise there was no "before" the Big Bang. Though there was an "after."

It's been said "Space is the arrangement matter makes in which to spread its parts." I'm still working on this.

Is it hubris to say you find the Big Bang theory not just incomprehensible, but unbelievable? Better worry about whether the Universe believes in you. (Note: it probably doesn't).

I do believe this is the secret cats know and is the reason they are so damned smug, why they laugh at us behind our backs and shamelessly exploit us.

[emperorchaos]

Are you speaking of the shape shifting lizard people?

I've actually met one of those. Oh, sure, he said he was just a regular homeless guy trying his best to survive, but that's what they want you to think, you know?

They're hardly going to come right out and admit shape-shifting into "smelly, homeless Johnny", are they?

Are you kidding me? I gave that guy money for booze! Now that I know he wasn't really a homeless guy but was in fact one of the SSLPs I realise the truth! He wasn't going to buy alcohol with that money but to further the war against my left socks! I've been supporting them this whole time!

-=-=-=-

We're getting waay derailed here, but I guess that's okay since Iamme started this thread. And I answered the OP all seriously... *sniffle* Wasted my time responding to it.

My friend lives in Essex, by the way Humphreys. A pretty young gal of 23, she is my English friend. Hurrah!

[Ladewig]

In one trillionth of a trillionth of a second the Big bang expanded outward to beyond the size of the observable universe. (This information derived from the cover of one of my latest science magazines.)


And I take it that it never occurred to you to read the article inside the magazine before formulating an opinion and posting it here?

[antmulder]

hey everyone - long time lurker 1st time poster

I've been reading about Alfred Wegener - you've probably heard of him.
Around 1912 he formulated the idea of plate tectonics yet the scientific establishment rubbished him. They used mathematics, geology and physics to say that there was no way the earths crust could move.
..thus I am always wary when scientists say THIS IS HOW IT IS. When i studied geography and geology in the late '80s there was no mention of how the theory of tectonic activity had arisen and i was 'gobsmacked' to learn of it later and how much resistance there had been to it.

...so i understand the OPs confusion with the current zeitgeist of the origin if the universe. Because thats really all it is.

[wollery]

hey everyone - long time lurker 1st time poster

I've been reading about Alfred Wegener - you've probably heard of him.
Around 1912 he formulated the idea of plate tectonics yet the scientific establishment rubbished him. They used mathematics, geology and physics to say that there was no way the earths crust could move.
..thus I am always wary when scientists say THIS IS HOW IT IS. When i studied geography and geology in the late '80s there was no mention of how the theory of tectonic activity had arisen and i was 'gobsmacked' to learn of it later and how much resistance there had been to it.

...so i understand the OPs confusion with the current zeitgeist of the origin if the universe. Because thats really all it is.The evidence for Universal expansion is overwhelming, and the evidence for the big bang is various and pretty convincing. That the Universe was once extremely small, dense and hot is almost incontravertable, but nobody knows how it got started, and to my knowledge no physicist or astronomer claims to know. More to the point it is generally believed that it is not possible to know how the Universe started, because conditions in the early Universe make it impossible for us to observe anything until after a particular point in its evolution. The cosmic microwave background (which was discovered by accident) is the furthest back in time we can directly observe, and it gives clues to how things were in the early Universe.

Yes, occasionally someone comes along with a theory that nobody takes seriously at first, but it used to happen a lot more than it does now. These days, provided you back up your idea with some evidence, or at least show a feasible scenario, you'll find a reputable journal that'll publish your work. If you get published people will start to examine your work and do follow up.

[UrsulaV]

...so i understand the OPs confusion with the current zeitgeist of the origin if the universe. Because thats really all it is.

If it was honest confusion, he'd get a much fairer hearing. Alas, it's Iamme.

Once you run into his posting history a bit, you'll probably get as annoyed with the constant "But...but...I can't imagine it! Therefore it can't possibly be true!" brand of hubristic ignorance and wild "hey, look at this cool theory I just thought up! It's cool, so it must be true!" posts as the rest of us. But hey, maybe you'll get lucky. *grin*

Welcome aboard!

[Angus McPresley]

Yes, I have alternative theories.


Hmmm, you must've missed the part where I said:

Do you have alternate theory to propose in its place, that you can provide us with some evidence for?

[Oolon Colluphid]

The same "they" that has been stealing my left socks? I'm convinced this is so as I have two years' worth of lonely right socks. That's my evidence. And all my friends have the same problem so you know this is true! You cannot deny the facts!

Egads! I was just in the process of reading the above, when 'IR: Cold Case Files' started going on about socks from a crime scene! *cue Twilight Zone theme music* :eek: lol

[emperorchaos]

hey everyone - long time lurker 1st time poster

I've been reading about Alfred Wegener - you've probably heard of him.
Around 1912 he formulated the idea of plate tectonics yet the scientific establishment rubbished him. They used mathematics, geology and physics to say that there was no way the earths crust could move.
..thus I am always wary when scientists say THIS IS HOW IT IS. When i studied geography and geology in the late '80s there was no mention of how the theory of tectonic activity had arisen and i was 'gobsmacked' to learn of it later and how much resistance there had been to it.

...so i understand the OPs confusion with the current zeitgeist of the origin if the universe. Because thats really all it is.

Hey, welcome to the forum!

Yes, it is Iamme. I've made the mistake of beginning a debate with him more than once. I just forgot that's all.

I hope you'll join us here and post more often.

Also, I've heard of Wegener, but I am unfamiliar with a lot of his work. Do you know of anything that you can recommend reading?

[emperorchaos]

Egads! I was just in the process of reading the above, when 'IR: Cold Case Files' started going on about socks from a crime scene! *cue Twilight Zone theme music* :eek: lol

Good god man! Those are my socks!

Actually, I planned it that way. I knew you'd be watching the program at the exact time that you would read that because I am psychic and stuff. I taught Sylvia Browne everything she knows.

And I would claim the $1 million dollar cash prize, but I happen to know that by the time I receive the recognition or check that the Earth will be destroyed by the warlike Makestuffupians from the other side of the galaxy.

[rjh01]

Everyone has forgotten about the smoking gun. I am talking about the background microwave radiation. The only way to explain this is via the big bang theory.

Unless of course you want to say 'God did it. QED.'

[Zep]

Can't believe universe came from size of marble!!

And I can't believe it's not butter!!

[Humphreys]

My friend lives in Essex, by the way Humphreys. A pretty young gal of 23, she is my English friend. Hurrah!

Neat.

What's her name, and which town? I live in Southend-on-sea.

You're right, we shouldn't be discussing this here, but this is a Iamme thread, so what the hell.

[wollery]

Neat.

What's her name, and which town? I live in Southend-on-sea.

You're right, we shouldn't be discussing this here, but this is a Iamme thread, so what the hell.My aunt live in Southend. What a remarkably small world! :)

[malbui]

My aunt live in Southend. What a remarkably small world! :)
I went out with a girl from Southend for a couple of years. She had the most wonderful, uh, personality ;)

[Mojo]

Am I at least like an idiot savant?:notm

[Ed]

OK, a few questions:

If, Mr. Know it all, the so called "Universe" was a marble, what kind of marble was it? A cat's eye? An aggie?

In a game of marbles, would shooting the "Universe" marble give you an advantage?

When you say "as big as a marble" did you mean a little round one or a much bigger marble rye? It makes a big difference.
http://www.hormel.com/images/glossary/b/bread_marblerye.jpg

If there was such a "big explosion" where were the cops?

Personally, and call me suspicious, but there are lots of hole in this "big bang" story. I for one am glad that someone had the guts to rip the cover off of this sordid affair.

[Zep]

I like cake. I like Ed's picture of a cake.

[Ed]

I like cake. I like Ed's picture of a cake.

Cake? You aren't Jewish, are you.:D

[Humphreys]

My aunt live in Southend. What a remarkably small world! :)

Lives or lived?

I went out with a girl from Southend for a couple of years. She had the most wonderful, uh, personality

Ah, she sounds like an Essex girl. Short skirt, stilettoes, blond hair, and thinks bus shelters are the best form of protection?

But really, they say the best way to make an Essex girl's eyes light up is to shine a torch in her ears, and the only difference between her and the Titanic is that less people went down on the ship.

I'm just kidding, by the way. I'm sure your girlfriend was lovely.

[Mrs. Hmmphries]

Somehow, after reading the opening post, I just knew it was going to be a god thing.

[T'ai Chi]

I'm sure many of you already have heard the theory that the universe at the time of the Big Bang was only the size of a marble, when it exploded. In one trillionth of a trillionth of a second the Big bang expanded outward to beyond the size of the observable universe. (This information derived from the cover of one of my latest science magazines.)


I've never read how it is ruled out that the bang has to be THE bang instead of merely a local bang.

[JohnF_73]

I'm sure many of you already have heard the theory that the universe at the time of the Big Bang was only the size of a marble, when it exploded. In one trillionth of a trillionth of a second the Big bang expanded outward to beyond the size of the observable universe. (This information derived from the cover of one of my latest science magazines.)


I'd love to know which science mag said that cause they should be taken out and shot.

The actual theory (as probably most of this thread goes to point out to you) is nowhere near as messed up as you synopsise.

We think the universe began as a singularity on the order of planck size (10^-43 metres wide) and began expanding. In an extraordinarily short time (10^-30 seconds) it expanded in size to about a beachball. (Maybe a metre in circumference)

This idea of expanding to the size of the observable universe, is rightly insane. Which is why I'd love to know which magazine said this. Or whether (as I suspect) you are merely creating a straw man argument because you don't actually know anything about the physics involved.


How could the entire mass of the known universe have been compressed into a marble,
Gravity.


and not yet have caught fire or exploded, or fused, long before it was anywhere NEAR that compressed and small?

There wasn't anything TO catch fire. And it didn't compress and get small (meaning it was big to begin with). You really have no idea what you're talking about here.


They never ever do say where the material came from...if it was just always there...if it contracted back from some previous expansion...etc.

Unlike religious people (and unlike what religious people love to claim) science DOESN'T have all the answers, and doesn't claim to.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I've been reading about Alfred Wegener - you've probably heard of him.
Around 1912 he formulated the idea of plate tectonics yet the scientific establishment rubbished him. They used mathematics, geology and physics to say that there was no way the earths crust could move.
Welcome, Ant.

Wegener did not propose plate tectonics in 1912. He proposed the idea of continental drift: That the continents were at one time one large land mass that broke up and drifted apart on top of the ocean floor. His evidence was continent shape, fossil distribution, and rock similarity.

The problem was that there was no explanation for how continents might move. He was strongly attacked by some, but did have his supporters, such as Alexander Du Toit. Du Toit wrote a book about it.

It took about 50 years for the scientific community to accept land mass movement on the basis of the discovery of plate tectonics. Fifty years is not that much time. Note also that Wegener's theory of "continental drift" was actually incorrect.

~~ Paul

[This Guy]

I'd love to know which science mag said that cause they should be taken out and shot.

{SNIP}

This idea of expanding to the size of the observable universe, is rightly insane. Which is why I'd love to know which magazine said this. Or whether (as I suspect) you are merely creating a straw man argument because you don't actually know anything about the physics involved.

Had a guy ask me if I had read the article in our local paper yesterday, about new views on the Big Bang. He also stated that the article indicated the expansion took a very small amount of time. His info was sketchy at best.

My first thought was about the whole speed of light thing....

Anyway, I don't have that paper, and not likely to find a copy. I've been doing a bit of searching, but haven't found anything on the Net about any new announcements regarding the big bang.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Neat.

What's her name, and which town? I live in Southend-on-sea.

You're right, we shouldn't be discussing this here, but this is a Iamme thread, so what the hell.

I don't know how to quote multiple posts in a reply, so this applies to Wollery too. Remarkable!! I used to live in Basildon, then Billericay, and as a child I spent many happy days at Southend-on-sea. We even lived in Westend when we first moved to England, till our house in Basildon (actually, Vange) was ready. We also used to day trip to Canvey Island. Happy days. :)

[wollery]

Lives or lived?Both, technically! :p

[Humphreys]

I don't know how to quote multiple posts in a reply, so this applies to Wollery too. Remarkable!! I used to live in Basildon, then Billericay, and as a child I spent many happy days at Southend-on-sea. We even lived in Westend when we first moved to England, till our house in Basildon (actually, Vange) was ready. We also used to day trip to Canvey Island. Happy days. :)

Sweet. It's pretty weird, the amount of people who've visited this thread who know or have been to Southend.

I've been to all the places mentioned above :)

I think Southend is the nicest, though, and we have the best football team (and the longest pier in England).

[wollery]

Sweet. It's pretty weird, the amount of people who've visited this thread who know or have been to Southend.My grandparents used to live in Southend too, and they had a beach hut. We used to spend several weeks there during the summers when I was young.

...snip....
we have the best football team (and the longest pier in England).Yes, the pier is long..........




and fairly flammable!!!! :)

[Humphreys]

Yes, the pier is long..........

and fairly flammable!!!! :)

Yeah, it's always on fire. I don't think they've even bothered to fix it this time, I've not been down there in so long. The beach is nice in the summer, but in the winter, it's all dog poo and trouble makers.

[Piggy]

This idea of expanding to the size of the observable universe, is rightly insane. Which is why I'd love to know which magazine said this. Or whether (as I suspect) you are merely creating a straw man argument because you don't actually know anything about the physics involved.
Well, that's a conclusion from the most recent WMAP data.

I believe the article being referenced is this one (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0317_060317_big_bang.html).

That's from National Geographic. Here's the CNN version (http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/03/16/cosmic.inflation.ap/), which contains this description: "In that trillionth of a second after the big bang, the universe expanded from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space".

I don't see any reason to dismiss these conclusions out of hand. It's true that there's no known force w/in the universe that could cause such mind-blowingly rapid inflation, but there may be causes outside our universe.

For instance, imagine if our universe is like a bubble in a bottle of cola. Some "external" event -- the "uncapping event" :D -- suddenly changes the environment, and you get a "bubble", a new universe.

A wild and untested idea. But this data makes it seem less wild. After all, our history has been one of constant decentralization. We discovered that we were only one planet among many, in one star system among many, in one galaxy among many, in one cluster among many. Why should it not also be so that our universe is one of many in a sea of universes floating in some hyperdimensional ocean (being metaphoric here).

To me, this is fascinating stuff. I also can't comprehend this rate of expansion. But that don't mean it ain't so.

[UrsulaV]

I also can't comprehend this rate of expansion. But that don't mean it ain't so.

And that's the key bit, right there...

I can't comprehend the number of grains of sand on any given beach, but unlike Iammee, we don't go saying "Therefore, sand doesn't exist and this whole beach thing is just crazy talk."

[Piggy]

I can't comprehend the number of grains of sand on any given beach, but unlike Iammee, we don't go saying "Therefore, sand doesn't exist and this whole beach thing is just crazy talk."
Aye. And have you noticed that those theists who use this pseudo-reasoning (pseasoning?) also freely admit that God is beyond human comprehension, yet they don't then go on to say we shouldn't believe in this whole God business because no one fully understands it.

[Zep]

Cake? You aren't Jewish, are you.:DI'll just check...






No, not really. Not that I'm aware of anyway. Why do you ask?

PS. I still like your cake picture. It IS cake, isn't it?

[ynot]

I think to attribute any size to the theory of a singularity is meaningless. At least one other thing needs to exist to make a comparison with and apparently the singularity was everything. The best that can be theorised is that the singularity was smaller than existence is now.

[hellaeon]

Is it so hard to be humble towards the greater minds that understand the origins of the universe? Why is it people who fail to understand something will constantly assume since they dont, it cant be true.

[ynot]

Is it so hard to be humble towards the greater minds that understand the origins of the universe? Why is it people who fail to understand something will constantly assume since they dont, it cant be true.

By “greater minds” that “understand” do you mean the scientists, the deities or the aliens?

Are you saying that if one doesn't understand something that one should automatically believe the claims/beliefs of someone else, regardless of how hard they are to believe? (that's faith isn't it?)

[emperorchaos]

By “greater minds” that “understand” do you mean the scientists, the deities or the aliens?

Are you saying that if one doesn't understand something that one should automatically believe the claims/beliefs of someone else, regardless of how hard they are to believe? (that's faith isn't it?)



Well if it is faith then I have faith in the work of the astrophysicists. I cannot comprehend that stuff. I do understand the implications their work has on general astronomy and I try to grasp that as best I can.

But to some degree, I think that many of us do humble before great minds (and I'm assuming scientists here). I mean, as much as I'd like to, and as hard as I try, I cannot actually learn and understand everything.

[ynot]

Well if it is faith then I have faith in the work of the astrophysicists. I cannot comprehend that stuff. I do understand the implications their work has on general astronomy and I try to grasp that as best I can.

How sad - You’re essentially a science theist.

But to some degree, I think that many of us do humble before great minds (and I'm assuming scientists here). I mean, as much as I'd like to, and as hard as I try, I cannot actually learn and understand everything.

YUK! I don’t humble before anyone. I have great respect for the talents and knowledge of others but to humble is something you might do before a god (if one existed).

[emperorchaos]

How sad - You’re essentially a science theist.


Are you saying that you can understand everything science has to say?

I do not view science as a god. So no, I am not a science theist. That is not to say, however, that I do not have "faith" in science. This is not the same faith that theists have, but it is faith nonetheless.


YUK! I don’t humble before anyone. I have great respect for the talents and knowledge of others but to humble is something you might do before a god (if one existed).


Humble was a bit strong of a word. Perhaps, give props to? Or a thumbs up? "Great respect" is a good one. I can go with that.

[senorpogo]

To those non-science types interested in the Big Bang theory, I recommend the book "Big Bang" by Simon Singh. It presents the evolution of the Big Bang theory in an extremely accessible manner.

[ynot]

To those non-science types interested in the Big Bang theory, I recommend the book "Big Bang" by Simon Singh. It presents the evolution of the Big Bang theory in an extremely accessible manner.

A common statement I receive from theists is that I am “denying god”. The word “denying” suggests that the existence of god is proven and I am denying the fact (that’s why they like to use it). I am not denying god however, I simply have no evidence that a god exists and don‘t accept the belief/theory as fact. Also, the overall concept of a god makes no sense to me and doesn’t fit with what I would call an “intelligent overview“.

Similarly I am not denying science. I am simply not prepared to accept/believe that some of the beliefs/theories that some of the science community present. Incredible claims need to be supported by incredible evidence. That all the matter of existence can be compressed into the size of a marble is an incredible claim. From what I know and understand of the evidence, I am not prepared to accept/believe it. This is NOT the same as saying that the theory is wrong.

“If you’re not with us, you’re against us” should not be a maxim of science. This sort of approach belongs more with the theists.:D

[ynot]

To those non-science types interested in the Big Bang theory, I recommend the book "Big Bang" by Simon Singh. It presents the evolution of the Big Bang theory in an extremely accessible manner.

Why do you assume that because one doesn't accept something, it automatically means one doesn't understand it. I suspect it is because you believe you are “right”.

[emperorchaos]

It seems more like you are trying to drag people into an argument with you here.

[ynot]

It seems more like you are trying to drag people into an argument with you here.

So what’s wrong with constructive argument? I would prefer to call it debate.

I find comments like “Why is it people who fail to understand something will constantly assume since they dont, it cant be true.“ to be derogatory and condescending. Its just as puerile as theists saying “If you would just accept god in to your life etc”.

My previous post ("A common statement etc") was meant to be in reply to your earlier post. care to respond?

[emperorchaos]

Well, this isn't really the right topic for the discussion. Nor is it a topic that I feel the need to debate with you. I am an atheist. I am not denying god. I don't even say "I don't believe in God" anymore because that is representative of the Judeo-Christian deity. I will either make the assertive "There are no gods" or the more passive "I don't believe in any divine beings, supreme deities, (insert word of choice here)". From my perspective, no power like that ever existed.

Yet I still want to explain things around me. For that reason, I put something akin to faith in science. It can answer my questions for now to the best of its ability. And if further evidence is found to support the preexisting theory, rock out; it strengthens its credibility and thus my belief. If new evidence is shown to significantly rebuke the existing theory, I'll change my mind.

The problem with the Big Bang is what it was before it happened. We're simply unable to ascertain what happened before it. That's not to say we don't have a pretty good idea of what it was. But we certainly don't have the tools to know with much certainty. The theory itself is a little more than half a century old. And though astronomy has come a long way over many centuries, only in the 20th century did it seem to come out of its infancy and into something more.

There. I actually didn't mean to reply to everything, but at least I tied it back into the OP at the end there.

[emperorchaos]

Then again, this was Iamme's topic. So I suppose it doesn't mind what we discuss here.

[ynot]

Well, this isn't really the right topic for the discussion. Nor is it a topic that I feel the need to debate with you. I am an atheist. I am not denying god. I don't even say "I don't believe in God" anymore because that is representative of the Judeo-Christian deity. I will either make the assertive "There are no gods" or the more passive "I don't believe in any divine beings, supreme deities, (insert word of choice here)". From my perspective, no power like that ever existed.

I was merely using interaction with theists as an example. Didn’t mean to imply you were god religious (but perhaps science religious).

Yet I still want to explain things around me. For that reason, I put something akin to faith in science. It can answer my questions for now to the best of its ability. And if further evidence is found to support the preexisting theory, rock out; it strengthens its credibility and thus my belief. If new evidence is shown to significantly rebuke the existing theory, I'll change my mind..

Are you taught science or do you learn it? Learning involves a degree of independent thought, investigation, questioning and challenging. Good to here you are an atheist. Next step is to become a sceptic.

The problem with the Big Bang is what it was before it happened. We're simply unable to ascertain what happened before it.

Exactly! So why describe it as being the size of a marble? Or more importantly, why believe someone else when they say it was the size of a marble?

[emperorchaos]

Are you taught science or do you learn it? Learning involves a degree of independent thought, investigation, questioning and challenging. Good to here you are an atheist. Next step is to become a sceptic.


Most of what I know I've taught myself. I am a college dropout you see, but I do a lot of reading and whatnot.

Why do you keep assuming what I am? I'm a skeptic as well. I'm just not overly skeptical as you seem to be (I can make assumptions too).

Exactly! So why describe it as being the size of a marble? Or more importantly, why believe someone else when they say it was the size of a marble?


Have you read anything I've written on this thread? I never once said it was the size of a marble. That was from the poster in the OP.

I did say, however, that it was a gravitational singularity. That would defy description in a physical sense. For one thing, it would have existed before the laws of physics were firmly in place.

I ask that you go back and read (or reread) my initial response to the OP.

[Lothian]

Can't believe universe came from size of marble!! I don’t think we know it was once that size, but all available evidence suggests it was.

The universe, as we know it, is consistent with the big bang theory. Obviously the universe is also consistent with the bible. God made the stars then he made the earth.

This latter theory however does not explain why the universe is expanding. Neither does it explain how he made the earth. It does not explain why the earth goes round the sun. (Obviously some god theories do cover this and the sun might just be a cleverly disguised flaming chariot.)

So we want to know if our sun will run out of gas (or the wheels will fall off the chariot !) Does the god theory help us ? No.

Of course, the god theory might be right but it is of no use in answering any of the questions we have in regard to the universe. In contrast the big bang explains a lot. It predicted a radiation that at the time was not detected but was subsequently found.

Your inability to comprehend the consequences of the big bang are shared by me. Fortunately for us however, those that can comprehend it are able to develop the theory and to look further and further back in time (albeit tiny fractions of fractions of a second each step). Ultimately these people may be able to provide the answers we look for. Unless of course before then God decided to fess up !

[Piggy]

That is not to say, however, that I do not have "faith" in science.
I don't think it's faith. Science as a discipline passes the options test.

Eg, the moon landing. Was it faked? Before digging into all the details, you just have to ask yourself "What would have to be true for the moon landing to be real?" and "What would have to be true for the moon landing to be fake?" (the options test). Doesn't take long to realize that faking something like this and continuing the fraud til now, with reflectors on moon's surface and everything, would be impossible.

Because science is peer-reviewed and test follows upon test, shams get caught pretty quick, eg the Korean genetics hoax.

So when I look at reports of the WMAP data, and hear interpretations of that data in the context of previous data and analysis, I'm going on something more than (indeed, other than) faith when I accept that -- although the initial interpretation may not be correct -- it's not just snake oil.

[aggle-rithm]

2. It was always here, basically as we see it.



And, basically, we see it to be expanding.

If it has ALWAYS been expanding, as you say, then the further back you go in time, the smaller it will be.

So how is it possible that it was NOT much smaller than a marble at some point in time?

[Iamme]

I'd love to know which science mag said that cause they should be taken out and shot.

The actual theory (as probably most of this thread goes to point out to you) is nowhere near as messed up as you synopsise.

We think the universe began as a singularity on the order of planck size (10^-43 metres wide) and began expanding. In an extraordinarily short time (10^-30 seconds) it expanded in size to about a beachball. (Maybe a metre in circumference)

This idea of expanding to the size of the observable universe, is rightly insane. Which is why I'd love to know which magazine said this. Or whether (as I suspect) you are merely creating a straw man argument because you don't actually know anything about the physics involved.


Gravity.


There wasn't anything TO catch fire. And it didn't compress and get small (meaning it was big to begin with). You really have no idea what you're talking about here.


Unlike religious people (and unlike what religious people love to claim) science DOESN'T have all the answers, and doesn't claim to.

I tried looking for the magazine this morning. Where in the heck did I put it?! You wouldn't believe the clutter I live in. I have hundreds or thousands of writings, drawings and magazines and newspapers in my place. I'll find it though.

And yes, they did indeed say that the universe expanded from marble size to greater than the observable universe in one trillionth of a trillionth of a second! For sure...they said this. Because I was really into trying to figure out at what kind of expansion rate that would be and if that would be greater than the speed of light itself.

What do you mean there wasnt anything to catch fire? What was that marble made out of? I find it all like double talk, refering to words like energy and mass and in the same breath saying that it is before atoms existed. What the hell was the stuff????!!!!!!

Regarding science not having all the answers.....I agree with the premise that one really shouldn't jump to conslusions with everything unexplainable, claiming God did it, when it is currently unexplainable. But........because all of science is based on one thing explaining something else...if one can't explain the most fundamental of where all this energy came from, I think it is easy to see why people believe in a God, because basically they are substituting the word energy for an infinite God. If energy was always (it sounds ludicrous to believe energy just got here by itself), does not that very thing sound God-like? Isn't it easy then to say that God was always, and God is all things, and everything derived from God? There really isn't even a conflict here, is there? I find the only possible fallicy in being that if a God caused things to happen to man because of sin, and felt he had to save us from this sin. But as far as equating God to infinity, raw energy, and all of that...I see no reason why we can't assume that God is what this energy is. The God part comes into play a little more than abstract energy, though, if you care to believe that what came out of the energy behaved how it did beyond random chance.

[Iamme]

And, basically, we see it to be expanding.

If it has ALWAYS been expanding, as you say, then the further back you go in time, the smaller it will be.

So how is it possible that it was NOT much smaller than a marble at some point in time?

*I* surely can't answer that last sentence! I don't even know what the marble mass was made out of. Maybe due to certain laws it couldn't get any smaller without exploding. After all, this was the size at the Big Bang, is what is claimed.

Regarding your first sentence...much of their beliefs stem from the fact that scientists know that the universe is expanding outward. And for some reason, the farther the objects are that are away from us, the faster at which they are expanding. This is going on now, as we type and read in this thread.

[Iamme]

Someone yesterday asked me if I had any better theories, and I obliged. Remember? Now I have yet another theory:

It might be possible that all the mas of the universe never existed in the beginning! Pretty wild eh? Consider this? How many people were originally on the earth? Or, better still; how much organic mass was on the earth in the beginning? A: Like about 1 living cell..originally. Somehow, this cell multiplied and made more cells and in time these cells changed and forked off and created other different looking things. (Supposedly).

So...would it be too much of a stretch to expand on this concept of the birthing process...the multiplying process... and say that somehow, by means we do not yet know, that like a father and mother energy gave birth to more energy until it got more and more massive? I wonder if Stephen Hawking has ever thought about that possibility?

[DrMatt]

Okay, so Iamme has a hypothesis that the conservation laws of the universe are all wrong. (It's a hypothesis, not a theory)

Yes, we've thought about it. Now go out and play.

[Psi Baba]

In Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe, he likens the beginning of the universe (as inflationary models become refined, the word "bang" is becomming less appropriate every day to describe the event) to supercooled water suddenly crystalizing. A quantum fluctuation would have broken the symmetry triggering the inflation.

[JohnF_73]

And yes, they did indeed say that the universe expanded from marble size to greater than the observable universe in one trillionth of a trillionth of a second! For sure...they said this. Because I was really into trying to figure out at what kind of expansion rate that would be and if that would be greater than the speed of light itself.


I think, even by current inflationary theory, Space is allowed to expand faster than the speed of light.

If the article you're talking about truly makes such a claim, of such a large increase in volume during the inflationary period, then I think it has to be quite new. And I'm a little bit shocked at it, to be honest.


What do you mean there wasnt anything to catch fire?

For fire, you need combustible elements, and oxygen, and some heat.

There weren't any combustible elements. There wasn't any oxygen.

Therefore, it follows with elegant simplicity, that there was nothing to catch fire.


What was that marble made out of?

You are taking the analogy of a marble, and demanding we tell you what the analogy was made from????

There was no 'marble' made out of something.

It was basically, the entire universe. Just really really small, and really really hot.

I recall there's some possibility that if the amount of matter in the universe happens to be exactly the same as the amount of negative gravitational energy in the universe, then the sum of energy in the universe is zero, and we could all be living in a quantum fluctuation that ran away with itself.


I find it all like double talk, refering to words like energy and mass and in the same breath saying that it is before atoms existed.


Then I'd suggest you learn some science. Energy and mass are equivalent, and yes, it was about 700,000 years before atoms existed.


What the hell was the stuff????!!!!!!

Space/time and energy.

if one can't explain the most fundamental of where all this energy came from, I think it is easy to see why people believe in a God, because basically they are substituting the word energy for an infinite God.

Not necessarily. As I said, there's a chance that the sum of everything comes out to zero anyway.


If energy was always (it sounds ludicrous to believe energy just got here by itself), does not that very thing sound God-like?

No. For one thing, there's no 'always was' since Space/Time has a begining.
Secondly, energy is not self-aware and handing out commandments to people.


Isn't it easy then to say that God was always, and God is all things, and everything derived from God?

You've taken an incorrect premise and stretched it to the breaking point.
Short answer, no.

[Lothian]

Someone yesterday asked me if I had any better theories, and I obliged. Care to share it. ?

[JohnF_73]

It might be possible that all the mas of the universe never existed in the beginning!


So you're suggesting the mass of the universe came into being and didn't cause a catastrophic gravitational collapse immediately?


Pretty wild eh? Consider this? How many people were originally on the earth? Or, better still; how much organic mass was on the earth in the beginning? A: Like about 1 living cell..originally. Somehow, this cell multiplied and made more cells and in time these cells changed and forked off and created other different looking things.

This is done by a well understood mechanism, and requires both energy and raw materials to work.

I fail to see how this applies to the universe at large.


So...would it be too much of a stretch to expand on this concept of the birthing process...the multiplying process... and say that somehow, by means we do not yet know, that like a father and mother energy gave birth to more energy until it got more and more massive?

Yes, it would be too much of a stretch.

It's true that the matter (not mass) of the universe came about through energy, but that is a far cry from violating the laws of conservation of energy and 'birthing' more energy and all that stuff.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Sure those scientists have made measurements, and even taken pictures, but whenever I look at the ground, it looks flat to me!! I've even driven across the USA several times, and it's flat all the way!!

[UrsulaV]

Sure those scientists have made measurements, and even taken pictures, but whenever I look at the ground, it looks flat to me!! I've even driven across the USA several times, and it's flat all the way!!

Particularly Nebraska!

Seriously, all those scientists use all that double speak about "round" and "curvature of the earth." Why is it any different than believing in God? Just substitute "god" for "round" and it's all the same! You're believing in stuff!

Stupid roundists.

[Stir]

I'm not an astrophysicist or a cosmologist, but I think there are some ongoing misunderstandings in this thread that could be somewhat clarified. Let me make an attempt:

1. 'marble size' : 10^-43 meters is not marble size. A marble is approximately 10^-2 meters, or roughly 100,000 trillion trillion trillion (American trillion) times bigger than the very early universe.

2. There is no 'before' the Big Bang. The BB is not just the beginning of matter, but also the beginning of space and of time. Asking what's before it is like asking what is north of the north pole ... the question doesn't even make sense.

3. Inflation does not require matter to move faster than the speed of light. Rather it is the creation of space. Two point separated by distance d1 before inflation become separated by d2 after not because they moved through space but because new space (not previously in existence) was created between them.

4. To understand how so much matter/energy can occupy such a small volume: read the excellent biography (I don't recall the title) of the amazing physicist Chandrasekar who investigated the various possible states of compressed dark matter, and the equilibria possible. He realized that there were several internal 'pressures' acting against gravity ... but as more mass is added, each of these pressures is eventually overcome and further collapse occurs ... until a singularity is reached: infinte density, all internal pressures have been overcome. Of course at such density concepts like atom, proton, photon, quark have no meaning.

5. Early in history, consistent with #4 above, there were no atoms or even fundamental particles. Matter/energy was in a state that has no meaningful description.

6. Science is not a thing we believe in, but rather a process or way of thinking which we have come to respect (though always producing only theories, not absolute proofs). And since no individual can understand all of it, we decide to trust the process to produce good theories (good in the sense that they have survived testing and can produce testable predictions) ... which sometimes require revision.

End of rant!

[Nyarlathotep]

Yes Iamme, you are so smart that if you can't understand it, it's obviously wrong.:rolleyes:

[Hellbound]

Just thought I'd add a bit:

The inflationary period was not thought to me the first thing to happen, but rather started once the singularity had already expanded to about the size of a marble. I believe this is where some confusion is coming in.

Of course, I could be wrong :)

[senorpogo]

Why do you assume that because one doesn't accept something, it automatically means one doesn't understand it. I suspect it is because you believe you are “right”.


I never assumed anything about anyone in this post. I never asserted anything beyond the fact that "Big Bang" by Simon Singh is an excellent book for those interested in the evolution of the Big Bang theory. Why the anger?

[aggle-rithm]

*I* surely can't answer that last sentence! I don't even know what the marble mass was made out of. Maybe due to certain laws it couldn't get any smaller without exploding. After all, this was the size at the Big Bang, is what is claimed.


I am eternally grateful that the universe is not constrained by what you can imagine/understand.


Regarding your first sentence...much of their beliefs stem from the fact that scientists know that the universe is expanding outward. And for some reason, the farther the objects are that are away from us, the faster at which they are expanding. This is going on now, as we type and read in this thread.

Well, DUH!!

[aggle-rithm]

I never assumed anything about anyone in this post. I never asserted anything beyond the fact that "Big Bang" by Simon Singh is an excellent book for those interested in the evolution of the Big Bang theory. Why the anger?


I highly recommend this book to Iamme. It explains, step by step, WHY scientists believe what they do about the big bang, and WHY it just doesn't make sense, given the evidence, to believe anything else. It describes all the competing theories which went by the wayside, one by one, as better and better evidence was collected. Only after all this work did we end up with a single theory that best describes what must have happened billions of years ago. It's ludicrous to suggest that a bunch of scientists just got together and made it up just to get a research grant.

[wollery]

I am eternally grateful that the universe is not constrained by what you can imagine/understand. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the best way to decide whether or not a particular theory is correct is to tell it to Iamme, and if he says, "I don't understand that, it must be wrong!" you know you're on the right lines. :D

[senorpogo]

I highly recommend this book to Iamme. It explains, step by step, WHY scientists believe what they do about the big bang, and WHY it just doesn't make sense, given the evidence, to believe anything else. It describes all the competing theories which went by the wayside, one by one, as better and better evidence was collected. Only after all this work did we end up with a single theory that best describes what must have happened billions of years ago. It's ludicrous to suggest that a bunch of scientists just got together and made it up just to get a research grant.

It is a great book. And it is STAGGERING when you realize the amount of work, the countless man hours, the hundreds of men and women, and the pure genius it all took to end up with the Big Bang theory. Just the sheer magnitude of it all gives me goosebumps.

I haven't taken a science class since high school so it really gave me a new found appreciation for the scientific method. I also found it remarkably relevent in the current debate on evolution. Opponents of the Big Bang employed tactics very similar to those now being used by the anti-evolution crowd. The more things change...

[Jimbo07]

I also found it remarkably relevent in the current debate on evolution. Opponents of the Big Bang employed tactics very similar to those now being used by the anti-evolution crowd. The more things change...

Sadly, the ID crowd is doing exactly the same thing. :(


advocates of intelligent design like to paint themselves as the lone heroes fighting against scientific dogma. They got a really revolutionary idea, and they're gonna convince everybody in science... maybe they will... they cite the Big Bang as an example of an idea that was once regarded with suspicion, or as heresy, and gradually won over. But the interesting thing, is not the question... whether or not revolutionary ideas occasionally win out in science... the interesting question, is *how* do revolutionary ideas win out. And the Big Bang won out because of scientific research,


from: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/US/98_discovery_institute_and_thomas_10_23_2005.asp

The Discovery Institute often makes me go, "gngngngn..." :mad:

[Maxwell's Demon]

If energy was always (it sounds ludicrous to believe energy just got here by itself), does not that very thing sound God-like? Isn't it easy then to say that God was always, and God is all things, and everything derived from God? There really isn't even a conflict here, is there? I find the only possible fallicy in being that if a God caused things to happen to man because of sin, and felt he had to save us from this sin. But as far as equating God to infinity, raw energy, and all of that...I see no reason why we can't assume that God is what this energy is.

So, Iamme, what you are proposing is that all the matter and energy in the Universe is God itself? The chair I'm sitting on, the computer I'm typing on is God? The petrol I put in my car, the corn on the cob I ate for dinner and the excretia I passed into the toilet some 20 minutes ago is God? Who could believe God could smell so bad?

Sure, you can play semantic games if you want and call all the known "stuff" in the Universe "God" - it still doesn't mean anything and it doesn't add any credence to the nutty "theories" you are proposing. By the way, a theory has to make predictions - what does your theory here predict?

I'll be the first to admit my knowledge of cosmogony/cosmology is very shakey - as an undergraduate my head started to melt when we reached brane theory. But what I have seen I find deeply intellectually satisfying - it explains the data we have seen, it made predictions since verified - it is consistent with other theories (as far as can be tested) - and that is as much as can be reasonably hoped for.

I know you are renowned for never reading any of the books people suggest to you, but I URGE you to read Chapter 7 of "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose - it's a short, very readable account of the big bang theory - it's a very good starting point.

[Jimbo07]

So, Iamme, what you are proposing is that all the matter and energy in the Universe is God itself? The chair I'm sitting on, the computer I'm typing on is God? The petrol I put in my car, the corn on the cob I ate for dinner and the excretia I passed into the toilet some 20 minutes ago is God? Who could believe God could smell so bad?


Umm... spluh!

That's the Omnipresent portion of OOOC. Not that my phrasing grants OOOC any more predictive power, but the serious theologians've got their G-thang covered.

:p

[Iamme]

Sorry I missed posting last night. I was too busy helping people on the web figure out how to repair problems in their house (my ultimate hobby).

I found the article. Tadda! Sorry gang. it was NOT a science magazine article. It was a recent newspaper article, that probably ran nationally. I see there are some new threads that talk about microwaves and expansion, and I haven't clicked on these new threads, but perhaps the threads authors have found stuff related to this very subject?...as these are in the article.

"Physicists announced that they now have the smoking gun that shows the universe went through extremely rapid expansion in the moments after the big bang, growing from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all the observable space in less than a trillion-trillionths of a second. (next paragraph) The discovery-which involves an analysis of variations in the brightness of microwave radiation-is the first direct evidence to support the two-decade old theory that the universe went through what is called inflation."

Key words/people in the sizeable article are: Michael Turner, assistant director for mathematics and physical sciences at the National Science Foundation; Brian Greene, a Columbia University physicist, who said the findings are "stunning"; "that the glow, known as the cosmic microwave backround, was produced when the universe was about 300,000 years old-long after inflation had done it's work."; conference at Princeton University; spaceborne instrument called the Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe, or WMAP, launched by NASA in 2001."; determined universe is 13.7 billion years old; strong indication of inflation, but no smoking gun (until now); "The data favors inflation"...Charles Bennett, a John Hopkins University physicist who announced the discovery; .joined by two Princeton colleages, Lyman Page (name sounds familiar to me) and David Spergal, who also contributed to the research; .....

...The measurements are sceduled to be published in a future issue of the Astrophysical Journal.

Stuff for any of you who are interested, to take the time to look into further.

MY big questionn is...did God do it? It says in the Bible that God said, "Let there be...and there was." Well, a trillion-trillionths of a second is as fast as "Let the be", I think. Wouldn't you say? :) Also my BIG question is if that expansion exceeded the speed of light.

[Iamme]

So, Iamme, what you are proposing is that all the matter and energy in the Universe is God itself? The chair I'm sitting on, the computer I'm typing on is God? The petrol I put in my car, the corn on the cob I ate for dinner and the excretia I passed into the toilet some 20 minutes ago is God? Who could believe God could smell so bad?

Sure, you can play semantic games if you want and call all the known "stuff" in the Universe "God" - it still doesn't mean anything and it doesn't add any credence to the nutty "theories" you are proposing. By the way, a theory has to make predictions - what does your theory here predict?

I'll be the first to admit my knowledge of cosmogony/cosmology is very shakey - as an undergraduate my head started to melt when we reached brane theory. But what I have seen I find deeply intellectually satisfying - it explains the data we have seen, it made predictions since verified - it is consistent with other theories (as far as can be tested) - and that is as much as can be reasonably hoped for.

I know you are renowned for never reading any of the books people suggest to you, but I URGE you to read Chapter 7 of "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose - it's a short, very readable account of the big bang theory - it's a very good starting point.

I really don't know. I am in constant turmoil trying to piece together a puzzle that is very difficult, in my mind.

We know from the description of God, by any religion, as he is the most powerful of anything and can do anything. "Energy" fits. For it is only energy that we know. Energy has been dubbed sort of an infinite (at least billions of years old) property that can be neither gained nor lost. Neither can God be gained nor lost. Now, whether God created even energy itself, or if God IS energy itself, and therefore since all matter contains enerrgy and therfore we then could automatically assume that a piece of God is in everything?....I don't know. But so far, that is all we have to go on and the energy thing equating to God doesn't seem very far out of line. To believe that energy itself was created (from what though?) is ...well, now we get into that Huth guy who claims he mathematically figured out how the universe came from absolutely nothing (theory)...which sounds more preposterous than actually believing in God, IMO.

[Jimbo07]

MY big questionn is...did God do it? It says in the Bible that God said, "Let there be...and there was." Well, a trillion-trillionths of a second is as fast as "Let the be", I think. Wouldn't you say?

The problem with a 'god-of-the-gaps' is that it is weak. Occassionally, the gaps get filled and the idea pushed back. Since time did not exist before the big bang (crazy: there was no before), we're not even sure what questions are relevant. Two ways to go:

i) Godidit
ii) It just happened

I'm romantically inclined to buy into the first option, but again, god-of-the-gaps is a historically weak position, and I'm at least open to the idea that, "it just happened."

[Iamme]

I just spotted the word 'evolution' in a post maybe 3 or so up. I don't get hung up on evolution as to my belief as to whether this disproves a God or not. It says nothing in the Bible exactly of the method God used to create, other than saying God created Adam from dust of the earth and Eve from Adam's rib. There wasn't a heck of a lot said how God created anything other than uttering commands like , "..and God said....". We have to remember that God himself did not write the Bible and men were used, inspired by God, which is a terminology in itself that can have broad interpretation, as is to what is exactly meant by "inspired". If one is a part of God himself, then it's easy to see how we would AUTOMATICALLY have to interpret through the mindset of this God.

Personally, PROOF of evolution would not destroy any faith I have as much as say us finding life on other planets or moons. THIS I have a problem with as this would mean that man and the Jews no longer would be proven (according to the Bible) to be this central focus of God...that everything was done for and given to man. Such a discovery then would make it seem like life is simply tied into this energy force and life can randomly spring forth anywhere, given the right circumstances, *with no real rhyme or reason for it*.(which is the key to a belief in God ...a meaningful THINKING type God, that had a plan or methodology.

[Iamme]

I haven't ruled out "it just happened", just so you know. That is why all this stuff intrigues me...heck, intrigues all of us. We all want answers...and we want them NOW!!!..before we die, so we know before we die! I demand! :)

[Piggy]

I found the article. Tadda!
Links to the articles were already posted - post #50.
We know from the description of God, by any religion, as he is the most powerful of anything and can do anything.
You need to read more. This is inaccurate.

[Elind]

How could the entire mass of the known universe have been compressed into a marble, and not yet have caught fire or exploded, or fused, long before it was anywhere NEAR that compressed and small?

They never ever do say where the material came from...if it was just always there...if it contracted back from some previous expansion...etc.



There are plenty of theories about "where it came from", if you explore further. As to the size, the problem really resides in our minds, not in the universe. For example, have you ever seriously tried to contempate just how large the universe is (the known one)? If you have no problem with that, you should have no problem with the small part which is just the other end of the equation. (Try checking on how much "empty" space there is in any given atom, for example).

[Wowbagger]

All models are inaccurate. Some models are merely more useful than others. As a model, The Big Bang Theory is incredibly useful for explaining what has been observed in the Universe. Could a more accurate model be developed in the future that would make The Big Bang look rather quaint and "inaccurate"? Of course. But, for now, this is the model that fits the evidence the best.

What evidence? You can start your evidence gathering by reading a good pop-physics book, like something written by Stephen Hawking.

You don't have to believe in the Big Bang, if you don't want to. But, to refer to all the hard work that went into verifying it as "just a conspiracy" is doing a serious injustice to real science.

And your Argument from Personal Incredulity won't work, either. Just because you can't figure out how something is possible, doesn't mean someone else (who has examined the evidence further) can't.

[MattusMaximus]

Uhhh....ya, you did. Am I at least like an idiot savant?

No, I think he just meant to say that he thinks you're the standard, garden-variety type of idiot ;)

But seriously, if you want to look up some more on this "the-universe-expanding-rapidly-in-trillionths-of-a-second" thing, also called the "Inflationary Theory", you might want to read up on these links...

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101inflation.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060323.html

There were recently data received from the WMAP mission from NASA that confirmed the Inflationary Hypothesis - and this was an extensive set of observations, carried out at the highest resolution to date of the night sky over the last three years. So, yup, even though it sounds pretty damn weird, the science holds true.

Now, I just have to find a way to explain this all to my astronomy class in a few weeks when I start the unit on cosmology :o

Cheers - Mattus

[MattusMaximus]

MY big questionn is...did God do it? It says in the Bible that God said, "Let there be...and there was." Well, a trillion-trillionths of a second is as fast as "Let the be", I think. Wouldn't you say? :) Also my BIG question is if that expansion exceeded the speed of light.

Iamme,

First off, if you wish to have a serious discussion from the standpoint of science, you need to do the following:

1) clearly define what are the quantities you wish to measure,
2) define "God" in terms of these measurable quantities, and
3) designate what set of criteria will falsify your "God" hypothesis.

If you cannot do ALL THREE of these things, then from the standpoint of science the discussion is dead, since there is no way to test it out. Period. The key thing here is that you must come up with a method of falsifying "God" - something which pretty much all religious folks don't want to do.

Beyond that, we can talk philosophy all you want... but don't call it science.

As for the Bible, there are all sorts of ways to falsify the Bible, provided that you're willing to allow such scrutiny of a supposed holy book. But that's for another thread, I suppose.

Concerning your "faster than lightspeed" question, it points out a fundamental misconception in understanding the entire concept of the inflation.

The inflation in the first few trillionths-of-a-second post big bang was supposed to be an actual expansion of space itself. When discussing the speed of light as the "cosmic speed limit", we talk about it in terms of light traveling *through* space. But in this case, space itself was expanding rather, ahhh, rapidly by comparison.

Think of it like this - a loaf of bread is rising in the oven, and this represents the rapid inflation of space after the big bang. Now, within that loaf, say that there is a critter, which represents our photon of light, that can only move at a specific speed *within* that loaf. I think you can see that the limitation on the speed of the critter (light) has no bearing on the inflation of the loaf (space).

Besides, this entire discussion is a bit moot - according to the current cosmological models, photons of light couldn't have traveled any appreciable distance in those first moments of the universe because it was too dense, even after inflation.

Anyone on the forum care to correct me on any of this? I'm just going off the top of my head, and I want to make sure I am saying the right things.

Cheers - Mattus

[MattusMaximus]

I haven't ruled out "it just happened", just so you know. That is why all this stuff intrigues me...heck, intrigues all of us. We all want answers...and we want them NOW!!!..before we die, so we know before we die! I demand! :)

Patience, young Jedi. The universe doesn't conform itself to your whims or your schedule.

As for a stab at a non-religious explanation, though one that is entirely speculative and mathematically theoretical at this stage, you might want to read up on M-Theory...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse (M-Theory is halfway down the page)

Of course, this view of M-Theory just leaves it open to more questions. But science is kind of funny that way :)

On a philosophical (and clearly not a scientific) note, if you just accept the notion that "God did it", then it naturally begs the obvious question - from whence came God?

And please don't respond that "God is eternal and always has been" because if that kind of logic is allowed, then why not just skip a step and say that the universe (in whatever form) is eternal and always has been. Why complicate the entire process by making up "God"?

Cheers - Mattus

[Jimbo07]

As for a stab at a non-religious explanation, though one that is entirely speculative and mathematically theoretical at this stage, you might want to read up on M-Theory...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse (M-Theory is halfway down the page)

Of course, this view of M-Theory just leaves it open to more questions. But science is kind of funny that way :)

On a philosophical (and clearly not a scientific) note, if you just accept the notion that "God did it", then it naturally begs the obvious question - from whence came God?

And please don't respond that "God is eternal and always has been" because if that kind of logic is allowed, then why not just skip a step and say that the universe (in whatever form) is eternal and always has been. Why complicate the entire process by making up "God"?

Cheers - Mattus

Um, the rebuttals to most of what you're saying are contained in the link you provided :boggled:

"the set of such meta-laws is infinite, so we have merely replaced the question “why this universe?” with “why this meta-law?”. There would seem to be little point in invoking an infinity of universes when it would be simpler to postulate a single universe with a single principle."

This does nothing to answer the question, "Why something rather than nothing?" Let people believe in gods for all I care, just don't let them shove their dogma down my throat :mad:

[MattusMaximus]

Um, the rebuttals to most of what you're saying are contained in the link you provided :boggled:

"the set of such meta-laws is infinite, so we have merely replaced the question “why this universe?” with “why this meta-law?”. There would seem to be little point in invoking an infinity of universes when it would be simpler to postulate a single universe with a single principle."

This does nothing to answer the question, "Why something rather than nothing?" Let people believe in gods for all I care, just don't let them shove their dogma down my throat :mad:

Yup, I can only agree with you. My only defense is that I prefaced my post with the fact that M-Theory and all the multiverse stuff is highly speculative & mathematically theoretical (i.e., not tested) and that it only leads to more questions.

But it does make for some rather cosmic reading ;)

Cheers - Mattus

[emperorchaos]

Yup, I can only agree with you. My only defense is that I prefaced my post with the fact that M-Theory and all the multiverse stuff is highly speculative & mathematically theoretical (i.e., not tested) and that it only leads to more questions.

But it does make for some rather cosmic reading ;)

Cheers - Mattus

Isn't it true that the mathematics needs to fully test M-theory have not yet been developed? I thought I remembered reading that somewhere months ago. It may very well be contained within the wikipedia article but I haven't bothered to look at the moment.

[Complexity]

Isn't it true that the mathematics needs to fully test M-theory have not yet been developed? I thought I remembered reading that somewhere months ago. It may very well be contained within the wikipedia article but I haven't bothered to look at the moment.
My understanding is that mathematical techniques for solving equations in M-theory are still needed. Solving these equations wouldn't test M-theory but it would provide the predictions that could be tested. Experiments to test these predictions would require far greater energies than we can now muster, unless someone becomes quite clever.

[Jimbo07]

I was going after this quote.

As for a stab at a non-religious explanation, though one that is entirely speculative and mathematically theoretical at this stage,

There may simply be no non-religious explanations. In fact, religious explanations might not be true. We might have to face the fact that It just Is. Not much difference between this and a God-as-first-cause. I choose to accept the latter, while considering the former. Neither has an implication on wether or not I'll look both ways before crossing the street :cool: .

BTW, the same Linear Alg prof who gave us the awesome map/complexity analogy ruminated that humans were given string theory 100 years too early. Mathematicians are struggling to catch up, and there are no experiments. My program by design is training me to be highly biased towards experimental physics (that, and I personally don't think I have the chops to delve into the deepest theoretical physics).

I will be the curmudgeon who continues to say that until there is an experiment for any of: Dark Energy (closest, I suspect, due to observation), String theory, M-theory, etc. we're not much better off than "Godidit." :D

[Hellbound]

My understanding is that mathematical techniques for solving equations in M-theory are still needed. Solving these equations wouldn't test M-theory but it would provide the predictions that could be tested. Experiments to test these predictions would require far greater energies than we can now muster, unless someone becomes quite clever.

To my understanding, this still affects most string theories, as well. Many of the solutions end up with multiple infinities, and renormalization techniques haven't been edeveloped for all of these occassions. I may be a bit behind, though :)

However, I seem to recall that this was part of what led to M-theory in the first place. IN working with some of the string theories, it was found that several were "mirror-images" depending on the value of the coupling constant they used. Heterotic A with a low coupling constant, for example, equates to Heterotic B with a high one (as far as predictions). It was this similarity that led to the idea of combining them, which resulted in M-theory.

[DrMatt]

Apropos the original posting on this thread: The universe has far more in it than is dreamed of in your philosophy. Speeds that don't simply add, forces that drop off by the inverse square law and others that drop off by sharper curves implying dispersion over more than 3 dimensions, just for starters. If you cannot line up a slingshot, measure the retraction force on it and the height and direction and then get out a calculator and work out where the marble it shoots will first hit the floor and put a tiny dab of putty there to catch the marble and then let it loose and have the marble stick to the putty, you've got a lot of catching up to do just to start to understand the basics. Fortunately, this catching up is a whole lot of fun.

[DrMatt]

I'm not an astrophysicist or a cosmologist, but I think there are some ongoing misunderstandings in this thread that could be somewhat clarified. Let me make an attempt:

1. 'marble size' : 10^-43 meters is not marble size. A marble is approximately 10^-2 meters, or roughly 100,000 trillion trillion trillion (American trillion) times bigger than the very early universe.

2. There is no 'before' the Big Bang. The BB is not just the beginning of matter, but also the beginning of space and of time. Asking what's before it is like asking what is north of the north pole ... the question doesn't even make sense.

3. Inflation does not require matter to move faster than the speed of light. Rather it is the creation of space. Two point separated by distance d1 before inflation become separated by d2 after not because they moved through space but because new space (not previously in existence) was created between them.

4. To understand how so much matter/energy can occupy such a small volume: read the excellent biography (I don't recall the title) of the amazing physicist Chandrasekar who investigated the various possible states of compressed dark matter, and the equilibria possible. He realized that there were several internal 'pressures' acting against gravity ... but as more mass is added, each of these pressures is eventually overcome and further collapse occurs ... until a singularity is reached: infinte density, all internal pressures have been overcome. Of course at such density concepts like atom, proton, photon, quark have no meaning.

5. Early in history, consistent with #4 above, there were no atoms or even fundamental particles. Matter/energy was in a state that has no meaningful description.

6. Science is not a thing we believe in, but rather a process or way of thinking which we have come to respect (though always producing only theories, not absolute proofs). And since no individual can understand all of it, we decide to trust the process to produce good theories (good in the sense that they have survived testing and can produce testable predictions) ... which sometimes require revision.

End of rant!

Dang, this reads like a post I would have written had I gotten here before it was written, and back when I had infinite patience. It's the sort of gentle, patient explanation that would always cause people to decide they hated me. Nowadays I just try to point a finger in the general direction of better information and if my direction is ignored I tend to feel the ignoramuses have some ridicule coming their way. Seems fair to me!

Of course, that sort of thing is why I support the JREF. Let 'em deal patiently with folks for whom I have no patience! :D

[gnome]

And I feel there really is a good chance that a God, who smiles down on men who think they know everything, will one day reveal that he actually showed us he exists, but we have been too stupid or not carrying enough to figure it out.

Ok... so he's going to send us a big "Gotcha" for refusing to abandon reason for spiritually inspired wild-guessing, and arbitrary decisions about which versions of scripture is the real Word? Pull the other one.

[Stir]

It's the sort of gentle, patient explanation that would always cause people to decide they hated me. Nowadays I just try to point a finger in the general direction of better information and if my direction is ignored I tend to feel the ignoramuses have some ridicule coming their way. :D

Yeah, it comes across as pretty darned arrogant doesn't it. Thaks for the good advice.