Science is fraught with huge assumptions. Scientists observe what they believe to be an expanding universe and immediately problems begin'in to become clear. Like if its expanding, then it musta been smaller at one time. (not too bad). So just naturally if'in it was smaller at one time, then of course it had to have been a tiny super chunk of almost limitlessly compressed matter or something. It then must have just blowed up fer some reason or other. Yeah thats it!
The problem is that so much of physics is described with mathematics. And cool as that is, its only a representation of reality. A somewhat less than perfect tool!
Like if its expanding, then it musta been smaller at one time. (not too bad). So just naturally if'in it was smaller at one time, then of course it had to have been a tiny super chunk of almost limitlessly compressed matter or something. It then must have just blowed up fer some reason or other. Yeah thats it!
Actually, yeah, that still is it. Even the BoingBoing article (not exactly my source for cosmology information) does nothing to dispute any of those things, only suggests an even longer timeframe before the major event we refer to as the big bang.
The problem is that so much of physics is described with mathematics. And cool as that is, its only a representation of reality.
What's the matter with math (hehe, matter, get it...)? A representation of reality is far better than just wild assertions.
A somewhat less than perfect tool!
But, in this case, BoingBoing is a perfect "tool"... ;)
The new theory (mathematically) shows that the whole expansion thing does not require a singularity that defies all description. In fact an eternal cycle works just as well to account for the current observed expansion.
OK ------ cling to your kernel of rubber popcorn that is largely indescribable and unknowable, and reject the possibility that new information has been uncovered. And good luck with that.
My contention with this fanciful notion is, apart from all the trillions of noughts being banded about the 'Achilles heel'' of the ''Big Bang'' theory is, from where did the ''Big bang'' emanate, and for that matter, how and why was the space available for all these eye-watering trillions of galaxies to occupy? Nothing from nothing = nothing, Nothing plus nothing = nothing, and so forth. The incalculable total masses of the planets in the cosmos all derived from some magic thingummy-jig smaller than the point of a pin. From where did this infinitesimally minute magic thingummy-gig originate?
Very good question. Not sure if he was created or maybe is origin is to much for us to think of. It's generally held that God exists in a separate plane from us. So he may have never been created.
While I'll need to do further reading on the subject, as it is interesting, the specific criticisms levvied against BBT in the article don't seem particularly well thought out.
The two examples given are:
1) A black hole that evidently formed inside of 900M years when accumulating mass that quickly should be more or less impossible. But given that the big bang concept theorizes that all matter and energy in the universe was originally (or just previously, in the cyclic big bang theory) in one location as is, it would seem to have pretty ready access to far more mass than is needed at one point in this history, and an uneven scattering with a particularly high concentration would be more than sufficient for the black hole to skip most of the accumulation time by virtue of having most of the mass it needed from the get-go.
2) Heavy elements that evidently formed inside of 700M years when the processes known to create them are only known to occur in stars much older than that. But, again, with all of the matter and energy that exists being concentrated into one spot at some point, certainly there would be enough pressure and energy for fusion processes to begin prior to, during, and even for some time after the big bang before the energy disperses. Similar to the black hole bit, in a way.
Both are also fundamentally rooted in the idea that we know exactly how black holes and heavy elements form, and further know that the known method(s) are the ONLY way(s) they can form.
Both of these discrepancies could also arise if we happened to be basing our predictions on the time the big bang allegedly occurred on a very limited area of the universe due to technical limitations.
Even that article suggests that possibly a number of 'smaller bangs' could be a normal part of the process. In this case, the big bang theory may well be correct, just wrong in scope, and be limited only to an area somewhat larger than what we can currently observe. This would be a case of the data being correct, but the conclusion being incorrect- the conclusion here being that this event is the origin of the entire universe. The whole thing may well be marriageable to a cyclic big bang theory as well, depending on the information we uncover.
That said, I'm not saying that they're wrong, just that I don't see how the information provided in the article actually discredits BBT without making further baseless assumptions. Honestly, I hope they're right- it's a wonderful thing when a previously held scientific theory is found to be untenable, because thats when a surge of new investigation and learning begins.
I have not seen that much on this site. On this site if you are wrong you just repeat yourself over and over again. It sucks because if you are right you would repeat yourself over and over again as well.
The discrepancies you point out, exist only if you assume that heavy elements could be part of a singularity. This is not shown in the BBT. Also a cause for uneven distribution is not shown in the BBT.
We do in fact have a sound theory that says the heavy elements are formed in stars.
Finally black hole theory has one big hole in it. Namely that it does not seem like a hole at all. Matter seems to accumulate, rather than pass through a hole. Black holes are known to increase in size as they draw in matter. All they are sure of is that in BHT a powerful gravity well exists. What's inside it is pure speculation.
The discrepancies you point out, exist only if you assume that heavy elements could be part of a singularity.
You'll note that I noted the formations could occur during or just after the big bang as well, while all the material is still reasonably close. We also don't know what the initial matter that expanded from the big bang looked like- some of it may well have originated as heavy elements at the moment of the big bang.
Further
Also a cause for uneven distribution is not shown in the BBT.
Do we have any reason to believe that the distribution of mass and energy from the big bang was 100% uniform and perfect? If not, then we're working with an uneven distribution.
We do in fact have a sound theory that says the heavy elements are formed in stars.
I'm not contesting that- I'm contesting the idea that this is the only way that they can possibly form. If it is possible for these to form during the course of the/a big bang, then it's pretty obvious we don't have a way to directly observe that yet.
Further, nothing you've said speaks anything regarding the possibility of an inaccurate timeframe.
Finally black hole theory has one big hole in it. Namely that it does not seem like a hole at all. Matter seems to accumulate, rather than pass through a hole. Black holes are known to increase in size as they draw in matter. All they are sure of is that in BHT a powerful gravity well exists. What's inside it is pure speculation.
This isn't a hole in the theory. Black holes were named long before we had any understanding whatsoever of what they are, because they literally appeared as distant 'holes' in the night sky as observed by a telescope, due to their gravity preventing light from escaping. Nobody who is informed at all seriously believes these are actually holes of some kind.
It's a relic of the individual terminology used, and we continue to use this terminology because we don't yet know enough about the phenomena to give them a 'more accurate' name.
Doesn't really contest anything here- this shows the conclusions some have drawn from available data, but do not speak to heavy elements being ONLY formed in old stars, nor does it actually assert that their presence in the immediate aftermath of the big bang was impossible; even if only .0000001% of the mass contained within the big bang formed heavy elements during the initial expansion, that is still a massive raw quantity of heavy elements.
Black holes have never been seen (link)
Of course they haven't been seen. To see something requires viewing light either emitted or reflected by it, neither of which occurs with these particular phenomena. As I said, they were called black holes initially because they appeared to be actual holes- as in regions where there should be detectable emissions, but none exist. The phenomena were initially detected and their nature inferred due to the fact that light 'falls' into it.
You may be right about the uneven distribution if the BBT is correct
What are you trying to say here, exactly?
There can't be an uneven distribution of matter after a big bang if no big bang occurred; that's non-sensical.
If a big bang occurred, the distribution of matter and energy was almost certainly uneven. Asserting a perfect distribution of all matter and energy in all directions is quite a claim to make.
I don't see how any of this constitutes actually disputing my position either, care to clarify that?
1) A black hole that evidently formed inside of 900M years when accumulating mass that quickly should be more or less impossible. But given that the big bang concept theorizes that all matter and energy in the universe was originally (or just previously, in the cyclic big bang theory) in one location as is, it would seem to have pretty ready access to far more mass than is needed at one point in this history, and an uneven scattering with a particularly high concentration would be more than sufficient for the black hole to skip most of the accumulation time by virtue of having most of the mass it needed from the get-go
EXCEPT the only other elements around were the lightest elements, requiring even more time to build a singularity. Can't really conclude any less time is needed. But the heavy elements as well most certainly could have existed with no BB.
2) Heavy elements that evidently formed inside of 700M years when the processes known to create them are only known to occur in stars much older than that. But, again, with all of the matter and energy that exists being concentrated into one spot at some point, certainly there would be enough pressure and energy for fusion processes to begin prior to, during, and even for some time after the big bang before the energy disperses
Again nothing is known about the state of matter in the theoretical singularity before the BB .
The notBB idea completely accounts for the matter in the universe, without some unknown and unexplained super singularity exploding and creating the universe. Soooooo I'm liking the more complete explanation, that doesn't require an unexplained BB. I believe it has long been the case in theoretical physics that most often the most elegant and simple explanation turns out to be the strongest.
EXCEPT the only other elements around were the lightest elements, requiring even more time to build a singularity. Can't really conclude any less time is needed. But the heavy elements as well most certainly could have existed with no BB.
Oh, you were there? It's theorized that the overwhelming majority of elements were hydrogen and helium, but not the entirety. A black hole/singularity is a concern of overall mass- not the individual mass of each atom and molecule. Whether it's predominately heavy elements, predominately iron, or predominately helium, the condition for a black hole/singularity is simply that the mass is sufficient that gravitational attraction compresses the whole beyond the schwarzchild radius.
Again nothing is known about the state of matter in the theoretical singularity before the BB
The notBB idea completely accounts for the matter in the universe, without some unknown and unexplained super singularity exploding and creating the universe. Soooooo I'm liking the more complete explanation, that doesn't require an unexplained BB. I believe it has long been the case in theoretical physics that most often the most elegant and simple explanation turns out to be the strongest.
I think you're talking out of your ass. You can't even name the idea in question- WHAT idea? The poorly explored one in the article, you mean? No, that doesn't begin to completely account for all the matter in the universe.
Also, let's look at these two quotes of yours:
"nothing is known about the state of matter in the theoretical singularity before the BB"
"EXCEPT the only other elements around were the lightest elements:
There is no need for you to be rude and insulting. If you don't agree, then don't agree. This sort of behavior is not your norm, so maybe you are having a bad day. Hmmmmmm
You're right, and I owe you an apology. I didn't even realize at the time that I was being nasty. Sorry for that, I sometimes don't even realize how much my mood is coloring my speech as it's happening.
In our obsession of trying to understand the how and why of our existence and the enormity of infinity it will only be a matter of time before another theory or hypothesis is developed.
In the meantime lets just try to enjoy that we are here and do the best we can to make it worthwhile.
That's how science works. You don't know what the hell you are talking about until you do research and figure it out. They didn't have a complete picture before the BBT, they don't have it now, we won't ever have it. There will always be something else to learn, and that's why there is always ongoing research. But, I can see how an idiot would think that means it is wrong.
No, that is wrong. Maybe a single aspect of religion beats science, but the overall argument is way better for science. I would love to hear you tell me that again though. ;)
I did read it. read the part about creating a worm hole and traveling through it to another universe before it pinches off. Then tell me that science is any different than religion.
Says the guy with the Kool-Aid mustache and colored tongue. There are 2 choices. One involves the idea that you can observe what happens in the world. The other idea has you believe that there is another plane of existence that is impossible to observe. Those are the only differences. At some point you might realize it has nothing to do with the Kool-Aid.
Are you seriously suggesting that the Garden of Eden isn't a story pulled out of an ass? I am suggesting that both science and religion give you fantastic stories to believe.
Fantastic stories based on what we have observed that get updated when more things are observed are better than what we get from religion. That's why religion should stick to spirituality.
None of that was said by "NERDS". Just because you don't understand what smart people are talking about doesn't mean you have to feel like it is attacking you.
So, scientists want us to believe that everthing, I mean, EVERTHING, every galaxy, every star, every planet, etc., came from a point smaller than a pin head. Scientist are modetn day priests.
Scientists want you to believe that everything has always existed in the natural world and priests want you to believe that their is another world that can't be observed in any way that influences the natural world.
Science and religion have explanations for the world. Just because they both try to explain the same things doesn't make them the same.
Agreed. One gets updated over time with better ideas and the other sticks to the same principle that everything is caused by a completely unobservable being. One is better than the other, and since both are man made, that distinction is ok to make.
Let's say that fish fell out of the sky. The scientist will tell you that using math he can work backwards and determine that the fish fell from space, reached terminal velocity and landed on the ground. He will claim all this is known through the current knowledge of trajectories, gravity, extrapolation, etc. Then they find out about water spouts and wind currents.
The only real difference is that change happens in science a lot quicker than it does in regular religion but that's because religion is trying to explain something that is more complicated than building an atom bomb (i.e., what happens after death). And that discovery is going to take a lot longer than it took to discover the atom.
The only real difference is that change happens in science a lot quicker than it does in regular religion but that's because religion is trying to explain something that is more complicated than building an atom bomb (i.e., what happens after death). And that discovery is going to take a lot longer than it took to discover the atom.
Therefore, science is better because it is always updating with better information.
Except, we are talking about which argument is better for information. Science stays out of the soul department. If religion can see it's way out of the information department everything would be better. Baseball bats are better with the hitting baseballs qualifier, but I wouldn't claim that it is better to use baseball bats in a football game.
You are the one who assumed that "better for information" qualifier. The people for the other side may probably be arguing about which is better for spiritual/ethical matters.
Getting religion out of the information department would take away one of the checks and balances used to keep science in check. It would give science a monopoly on that department. And if science doesn't concern itself with "spiritual/ethical" matters, then we can go around creating clones that are slaves without ever having a discussion about the ethical aspects of that.
You are the one who assumed that "better for information" qualifier.
No, it isn't an assumption. This is a debate about information.
The people for the other side may probably be arguing about which is better for spiritual/ethical matters.
That seems kind of strange in a debate about the Big Bang.
Getting religion out of the information department would take away one of the checks and balances used to keep science in check.
There are no checks and balances. Religious information is completely thrown out when you actually discuss real information.
It would give science a monopoly on that department.
Science is the information department. It is supposed to be a monopoly.
It would give science a monopoly on that department. And if science doesn't concern itself with "spiritual/ethical" matters, then we can go around creating clones that are slaves without ever having a discussion about the ethical aspects of that.
Spiritual and ethical are 2 different things. Nice try though. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on ethics.
Since created the debate, should I be the one who decides what's it's about?
Whenever you have a debate about science, religion is brought up.
There are scientists who keep the faith.
Science is faulty at best.
Correct. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on ethics. As it should be. And science shouldn't have a monopoly on "information." Once you allow those institutions to establish a monopoly, then people stop questioning the crap they put out.
Since created the debate, should I be the one who decides what's it's about?
You did, and you chose information. Good choice. Should you be allowed to change your mind again and say that bacon is better than science and religion since the criteria should be what is tastier? No.
Whenever you have a debate about science, religion is brought up.
I already mentioned that. It is because religion is trying to venture into the wrong monopoly.
There are scientists who keep the faith.
There are religious people that kill others. What's your point? Scientists are humans. Humans have spirituality. Religion has the monopoly remember.
Science is faulty at best.
This word faulty. You use it, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
Correct. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on ethics. As it should be. And science shouldn't have a monopoly on "information."
Science has departments that check themselves. Religious checks are worthless. Science discovers a dinosaur bone. Religion says that dinosaur bones can't exist because the world is only 6000 years old. Science shows dinosaur bone to religion. Religious check was useless.
Once you allow those institutions to establish a monopoly, then people stop questioning the crap they put out.
That is true with religion. This debate is proof that it isn't accurate with science. It is quite amazing that you can create a debate about how science has questioned itself and also complain that science doesn't question itself. That's impressive. Don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back.
The Big Bang Theory is about information, not soul. It started with the title.
If science checks are as good as you claim, then was a world flat? Why did the BBT last so long?
I am sorry that it takes centuries to develop what really happened billions and billions of years ago. How fast is it supposed to be? 1 year to figure out the exact start of our incredibly old universe? Is that all. Or is that too long? Knock it out on a weekend with an all nighter?
I'm saying that science claims to question itself but when you look at the evidence you are left wondering.
Only if you are an idiot. You are ignoring the evidence. You even provided the evidence. Ask yourself what would happen if science questioned itself. Do it. Actually answer that question. You will find that the answer is that an old theory about the start of the universe will be revised.
The BBT is about a group of people believing that everything you see around you and in the universe was once on the head of a pin.
Only if you are an idiot. lol
How rigorous is science's introspection when the headlines on the media that take the form of "Scientists say this is bad" on a given week and the following week it's "Scientists say this is good." This questioning you speak of is really just lips service.
The BBT is about a group of people believing that everything you see around you and in the universe was once on the head of a pin.
Just keep telling yourself that. Maybe it will come true.
lol
He who laughs last thinks slowest.
How rigorous is science's introspection when the headlines on the media that take the form of "Scientists say this is bad" on a given week and the following week it's "Scientists say this is good." This questioning you speak of is really just lips service.
Oh no, more evidence that science is always trying to find the correct answer. Darn you to heck. I can't take all this evidence that you are wrong. You are burying me.
When you have one group of scientists declaring Global Warming is real and another group declaring it's not, then you come to the realization that it's just a crock.
Ah, now we have the real problem. You are too old to care about the planet and you don't care if it is at a point where all human life will die. It all comes down to a political agenda. You don't care about science, you just want to keep your money. Let's imagine that global warming is true. What do we do? We spend a bunch of money to fix it. Who loses in this situation? Older people who want their government handouts after retirement. You know global warming will be a problem in the future, but you realize that your future is shorter than younger people. So, you want to delay the money for global warming. How do you get that done? Hire scientists to question global warming. Scientists provide evidence that global warming might not be man made and boom, taxpayer money stays where it is. Mission accomplished.
So now you're into conspiracy theories? It sounds like you'll believe anything as long as it's presented as a theory. Maybe because that way you can just point to it and not do any serious thinking.
Yes the universe seems to be expanding, but from what.
The new (mathematical model) shows that the whole expansion thing does not require a singularity that defies all description. In fact an eternal cycle works just as well to account for the current observed expansion.