Big Bang Theory .... Who lit the fuse?
- Thread starter bigarn
- Start date
sickboy
Active Member
And my favorite quote from the article:
"There are certainly theological questions linked to this," he said. "Everybody should be encouraged to investigate for themselves."
The original question was regarding evolution though, and in my opinion, if "God" gave man gifts to understand the world and become "like him",...how can religion dispute evolution? Maybe we are just using his tools correctly...
"There are certainly theological questions linked to this," he said. "Everybody should be encouraged to investigate for themselves."
The original question was regarding evolution though, and in my opinion, if "God" gave man gifts to understand the world and become "like him",...how can religion dispute evolution? Maybe we are just using his tools correctly...
coral keeper
Active Member
Originally Posted by DragonZim
http:///forum/post/3084401
Who said evolution was a religion? Its a scientific theory.
I thought someone here said it was a religion?
http:///forum/post/3084401
Who said evolution was a religion? Its a scientific theory.
I thought someone here said it was a religion?
i<3reefs
Member
I fail to understand why science and religion have to be at war with each other. Stephen Hawking believes in a God because he cannot solve his "Theory of Everything." I cannot believe the Big Bang Theory is even possible, due to its mass would have caused it to collapse on itself. You cannot escape physics. Red Line Shift Theory has had massive holes punched into it, so it is basically flawed in design.
The only theory I've heard for what caused the Big Bang, is the Multiverse Theory. The Theory describes the possibility of dimensions touching creating new verses, which is entirely possible, who am I to know.
The only theory I've heard for what caused the Big Bang, is the Multiverse Theory. The Theory describes the possibility of dimensions touching creating new verses, which is entirely possible, who am I to know.
coral keeper
Active Member
uneverno
Active Member
Originally Posted by I<3Reefs
http:///forum/post/3085852
I fail to understand why science and religion have to be at war with each other.
They don't. Unless perpetuating that war ensures political power.
Stephen Hawking believes in a God because he cannot solve his "Theory of Everything." I cannot believe the Big Bang Theory is even possible, due to its mass would have caused it to collapse on itself.
Mass of what?
You cannot escape physics.
True - doesn't however mean that our understanding of physics is entirely correct, or complete. In addition, there are substantial differences between Classical (the relationship of intermediate sized objects - planetary and solar systems) and Quantum (which explains the relationships of the miniscule (sub-atomic) and the galactic.)
Red Line Shift Theory has had massive holes punched into it, so it is basically flawed in design.
Red line is the visual equivalent of what Doppler is to sound. Both Classical theories which are not necessarily applicable to the Quantum world.
The only theory I've heard for what caused the Big Bang, is the Multiverse Theory. The Theory describes the possibility of dimensions touching creating new verses, which is entirely possible, who am I to know.
Mixture of metaphores. Big Bang may well have created the Multiverse as well as the Universe within which we live. I think what you're after is String Theory (and there are a number of them) with regard to the Multiverse thing.
http:///forum/post/3085852
I fail to understand why science and religion have to be at war with each other.
They don't. Unless perpetuating that war ensures political power.
Stephen Hawking believes in a God because he cannot solve his "Theory of Everything." I cannot believe the Big Bang Theory is even possible, due to its mass would have caused it to collapse on itself.
Mass of what?
You cannot escape physics.
True - doesn't however mean that our understanding of physics is entirely correct, or complete. In addition, there are substantial differences between Classical (the relationship of intermediate sized objects - planetary and solar systems) and Quantum (which explains the relationships of the miniscule (sub-atomic) and the galactic.)
Red Line Shift Theory has had massive holes punched into it, so it is basically flawed in design.
Red line is the visual equivalent of what Doppler is to sound. Both Classical theories which are not necessarily applicable to the Quantum world.
The only theory I've heard for what caused the Big Bang, is the Multiverse Theory. The Theory describes the possibility of dimensions touching creating new verses, which is entirely possible, who am I to know.
Mixture of metaphores. Big Bang may well have created the Multiverse as well as the Universe within which we live. I think what you're after is String Theory (and there are a number of them) with regard to the Multiverse thing.
i<3reefs
Member
Well the Multiverse Theory was developed by Physicist who didn't find String Theory complete. Stephen Hawking has pretty much blown String Theory up.
You cannot have singularity point spew particles without them coming from something, and creating mass. Everything has mass, even everything between everything (the cosmic web). The Cosmic Web Theory really discounts red shift, and shows the universe as stable versus moving.
Really, the Big Bang needs a new name, because I don't see how there could be a bang in the first place. It had to be more like a huge theorized white hole.
You cannot have singularity point spew particles without them coming from something, and creating mass. Everything has mass, even everything between everything (the cosmic web). The Cosmic Web Theory really discounts red shift, and shows the universe as stable versus moving.
Really, the Big Bang needs a new name, because I don't see how there could be a bang in the first place. It had to be more like a huge theorized white hole.
uneverno
Active Member
Originally Posted by I<3Reefs
http:///forum/post/3085878
Well the Multiverse Theory was developed by Physicist who didn't find String Theory complete. Stephen Hawking has pretty much blown String Theory up.
Not true. Stephen has reversed his opinion on string theory more than once. His primary discipline is the theory of time, which is another discussion altogether.
You cannot have singularity point spew particles without them coming from something, and creating mass. Everything has mass, even everything between everything (the cosmic web). The Cosmic Web Theory really discounts red shift, and shows the universe as stable versus moving.
Mmmm, again, gotta disagree on both counts.
1) Energy does not have mass.
2) The Universe is definitely expanding. Red shift just doesn't explain that movement in its entirety. Not because it isn't, but because we can't accurately measure it. Gravitational lensing, among other things, is a factor in our perception once we get beyond our own galaxy.
Really, the Big Bang needs a new name, because I don't see how there could be a bang in the first place. It had to be more like a huge theorized white hole.
I agree, and white hole is as good a name for it as any.
My personal feeling on it is that the Universe (or Multiverse if you will) is an IDEA. It is therefore not only possible, but highly likely that it started from nothing material. Just a thought. Pun intended.
http:///forum/post/3085878
Well the Multiverse Theory was developed by Physicist who didn't find String Theory complete. Stephen Hawking has pretty much blown String Theory up.
Not true. Stephen has reversed his opinion on string theory more than once. His primary discipline is the theory of time, which is another discussion altogether.
You cannot have singularity point spew particles without them coming from something, and creating mass. Everything has mass, even everything between everything (the cosmic web). The Cosmic Web Theory really discounts red shift, and shows the universe as stable versus moving.
Mmmm, again, gotta disagree on both counts.
1) Energy does not have mass.
2) The Universe is definitely expanding. Red shift just doesn't explain that movement in its entirety. Not because it isn't, but because we can't accurately measure it. Gravitational lensing, among other things, is a factor in our perception once we get beyond our own galaxy.
Really, the Big Bang needs a new name, because I don't see how there could be a bang in the first place. It had to be more like a huge theorized white hole.
I agree, and white hole is as good a name for it as any.
My personal feeling on it is that the Universe (or Multiverse if you will) is an IDEA. It is therefore not only possible, but highly likely that it started from nothing material. Just a thought. Pun intended.
uneverno
Active Member
Originally Posted by I<3Reefs
http:///forum/post/3085880
uneverno,
Have you ever read or heard about the growing earth theory? Fun to read about, even if it is not true.
No - sounds interesting though. The planet is accreting about 30,000 tons of extraterrestrial material annually. Is that what it's about?
http:///forum/post/3085880
uneverno,
Have you ever read or heard about the growing earth theory? Fun to read about, even if it is not true.
No - sounds interesting though. The planet is accreting about 30,000 tons of extraterrestrial material annually. Is that what it's about?
tangman99
Active Member
There is the theory that does include the mass falling in upon itself and that is that the big bang has repeated itself more than once. The Red shift currently shows the universe is expanding but at some point the universe stops expanding and them collapses upon itself and repeats the process.
uneverno
Active Member
Although not proven wrong, that is a rather old theory.
Current postulations indicate that not only is the Universe expanding, but that the rate of expansion is also increasing at a rate which precludes a future collapse.
I.e. the Universe is expanding so fast that there is not enough mass in it to enable it to collapse.
Again, theory. At this point, we cannot even detect enough mass to hold a galaxy together let alone the Universe. Hence the Dark Matter and Energy postulations.
E=mc² was the pinnacle of Classical theory. We have yet to arrive at the Quantum equivalent.
Current postulations indicate that not only is the Universe expanding, but that the rate of expansion is also increasing at a rate which precludes a future collapse.
I.e. the Universe is expanding so fast that there is not enough mass in it to enable it to collapse.
Again, theory. At this point, we cannot even detect enough mass to hold a galaxy together let alone the Universe. Hence the Dark Matter and Energy postulations.
E=mc² was the pinnacle of Classical theory. We have yet to arrive at the Quantum equivalent.
i<3reefs
Member
The problem with Red Line Shift theory, or Red Shift objects is the theory doesn't apply to all objects. Quasars and objects larger like VY Canis Majoris do not seem to move. Some objects shouldn't be able to be stationary while everything else is moving. Black Holes and Super Black holes are stationary in their galaxies, however their Galaxies are considered moving. I don't know which has more mass, but I'm going to bet a super black hole has more mass than anything, including VY Canis Majoris the largest object known in the universe.
The Growing Earth Theory, yeah it takes all debris landing on this planet into consideration. It is a rival view for continental drift, and reasons for tectonic plate movement. It actually attempts to explain why some land masses share orders and family of creatures.
The Growing Earth Theory, yeah it takes all debris landing on this planet into consideration. It is a rival view for continental drift, and reasons for tectonic plate movement. It actually attempts to explain why some land masses share orders and family of creatures.
uneverno
Active Member
Depends what you mean by "large."
VY is the largest known star, not the largest known object, per se.
Size does not necessarily correlate to mass. Sagittarius A (the black hole at the center of the Milky Way), is far more massive, but also more volumetrically compact than VY. VY is ~ 2000x the size of our Sun whereas SagA would fit neatly inside Mercury's orbit.
Whether objects appear to move away from us also depends on where they are. If they're w/in the Milky Way, their relative movement is far slower (and not necessarily away) than if they're in another galaxy.
In that case, it's also the whole galaxy, not just the star in question, that is moving.
Additionally, I don't understand how accretion corresponds to a rival theory for tectonic movement and evolution. 30 x 10^3 tons of annual addition is nothing compared to the 5,973,700 x 10^15 tons of earth's current weight.
Seems to me that Pangea explains the evolutionary process fairly adequately. Much more complex than that and we're getting into Occam's Razor territory - i.e. some explanation is needed as to why the theory is more complicated than it needs to be.
VY is the largest known star, not the largest known object, per se.
Size does not necessarily correlate to mass. Sagittarius A (the black hole at the center of the Milky Way), is far more massive, but also more volumetrically compact than VY. VY is ~ 2000x the size of our Sun whereas SagA would fit neatly inside Mercury's orbit.
Whether objects appear to move away from us also depends on where they are. If they're w/in the Milky Way, their relative movement is far slower (and not necessarily away) than if they're in another galaxy.
In that case, it's also the whole galaxy, not just the star in question, that is moving.
Additionally, I don't understand how accretion corresponds to a rival theory for tectonic movement and evolution. 30 x 10^3 tons of annual addition is nothing compared to the 5,973,700 x 10^15 tons of earth's current weight.
Seems to me that Pangea explains the evolutionary process fairly adequately. Much more complex than that and we're getting into Occam's Razor territory - i.e. some explanation is needed as to why the theory is more complicated than it needs to be.