Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Misconceptions about the Big Bang
Scientific American ^ | March 2005 | Charles H. Lineweaver and Tamara M. Davis

Posted on 02/24/2005 3:54:37 AM PST by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-223 next last
How many times will the analogy to evolution be mis-quoted, or mis-understood? Doesn't matter. Also, our own Physicist has used the Annie Hall line: "Brooklyn is not expanding!"
1 posted on 02/24/2005 3:54:38 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
Science Ping! An elite subset of the Evolution list.
See list's description in my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail to be added/dropped.

2 posted on 02/24/2005 3:55:56 AM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
At Earth's surface, the outward acceleration away from the planet's center equals a tiny fraction (10–30) of the normal inward gravitational acceleration

Well I have always said that.

J/K...need my morning cup of coffee to make coherent sense of this stuff.

3 posted on 02/24/2005 4:06:31 AM PST by mattdono ("Crush the democrats, drive them before you, and hear the lamentations of the scumbags" -Big Arnie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Hey, if you believe something came out of nothing, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you, real cheap!
4 posted on 02/24/2005 4:12:28 AM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Then we won't discuss how virtual particle pairs appear spontaneously from the neutral vacuum!
5 posted on 02/24/2005 4:24:54 AM PST by SubMareener (Become a monthly donor! Free FreeRepublic.com from Quarterly FReepathons!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SubMareener
Then we won't discuss how virtual particle pairs appear spontaneously from the neutral vacuum!

Please don't, I do not think I could handle that much nonsense this early in the morning.

By the way, want to buy a bridge?

6 posted on 02/24/2005 4:27:19 AM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

"I believe in th ebig Bang theory-- The Bible declares
In the beginning God said let there be be. . . and BANG it was good.


7 posted on 02/24/2005 4:29:32 AM PST by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SubMareener

Then we won't discuss the philosophical difference between "nothing" and the neutral vacuumn.


8 posted on 02/24/2005 4:34:14 AM PST by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

First there was NOTHING and then NOTHING exploded!


9 posted on 02/24/2005 4:35:30 AM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Hey, if you believe something came out of nothing, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you, real cheap!

What's wrong with believing in something coming out of nothing? Sure, the odds are, literally, astronomical. In fact, it would take a... a... a miracle?

10 posted on 02/24/2005 4:37:19 AM PST by SlowBoat407 (Give Lebanon back to the Lebanese!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

This is a good article, thanks for posting.


11 posted on 02/24/2005 4:39:01 AM PST by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth

"First there was NOTHING and then NOTHING exploded!"


Intelligent design?


12 posted on 02/24/2005 4:41:35 AM PST by spectrout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
At Earth's surface, the outward acceleration away from the planet's center equals a tiny fraction (10–30) of the normal inward gravitational acceleration.

So, is light expanding too, or is it unaffected by the expansion?

13 posted on 02/24/2005 4:41:59 AM PST by SlowBoat407 (Give Lebanon back to the Lebanese!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Next time I hear some Luddite say, "In the beginning was nothing, and then it exploded," I'm going to frap him upside the head with this article.


14 posted on 02/24/2005 4:44:35 AM PST by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth

Learn something for once, why don't you? Or do you glory in your ignorance?


15 posted on 02/24/2005 4:46:37 AM PST by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SlowBoat407
What's wrong with believing in something coming out of nothing? Sure, the odds are, literally, astronomical. In fact, it would take a... a... a miracle?

Yes, a greater miracle then God creating everything.

Then you have to have the miracle of life starting out of non-life, and then there is the miracle of order out of disorder, then the miracle of two opposite sexes developing (at the same time), then the miracle...Sure you don't want to buy a bridge?

16 posted on 02/24/2005 4:48:15 AM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SubMareener

your reply cracked me up ;)


17 posted on 02/24/2005 4:51:37 AM PST by Capitalism2003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

BM


18 posted on 02/24/2005 4:52:40 AM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

How about the miracle of reverse entropy? The miracle of increasing complexity in a system? The miracle of an odorless, colorless liquid that will dissolve rust and scale from your showerhead in minutes!


19 posted on 02/24/2005 4:57:55 AM PST by SlowBoat407 (Give Lebanon back to the Lebanese!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth

First there was nothing and then nothing said: "Let there be light!" ;^)


20 posted on 02/24/2005 5:07:06 AM PST by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Like Darwinian evolution, cosmic expansion provides the context within which simple structures form and develop over time into complex structures. Without evolution and expansion, modern biology and cosmology make little sense.

The structural complexity of the simplest one-celled organism far exceeds the complexity of joining together individual cells in a cooperative way to make multi-celled organisms.

21 posted on 02/24/2005 5:15:33 AM PST by TigersEye (Intellectuals only exist if you think they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
"The structural complexity of the simplest one-celled organism far exceeds the complexity of joining together individual cells in a cooperative way to make multi-celled organisms."

I've been saying that for years.

22 posted on 02/24/2005 5:17:12 AM PST by Capitalism2003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Capitalism2003

Really? I should listen to you more often!


23 posted on 02/24/2005 5:18:51 AM PST by TigersEye (Intellectuals only exist if you think they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Truly nothing new here move along. These are the same explanations/ analogies I have been reading since I was a kid. My best guess is the physicists still don't know what they are talking about, whether the reason is religion or not.


24 posted on 02/24/2005 5:24:22 AM PST by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The expansion of the universe may be the most important fact we have ever discovered about our origins.

The supposed expansion of the universe. Once people latched on to the concept of stellar red shift as an indication of recessional velocity, everything else was redefined (or ignored as anomalous) to fit.
25 posted on 02/24/2005 5:24:26 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

and BANG, there was light and it was good.


26 posted on 02/24/2005 5:33:16 AM PST by Falcon4.0
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SubMareener
Then we won't discuss how virtual particle pairs appear spontaneously from the neutral vacuum!

Probably not a good idea not to discuss time dependent events before time existed, you lose every time.

27 posted on 02/24/2005 5:40:14 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
An accelerating universe, then, resembles a black hole in that it has an event horizon, an edge beyond which we cannot see.

I like this statement. It makes me wonder if we are really inside a black hole. Could the collapse of matter under gravity continue indefinitely? Could more and more space be generated "inside" (and I use the term very loosely) a black hole that would appear as an expansionary universe to an observer inside the even horizon of a black hole? Could "nested" black holes either one, or a cluster of singularities with their own unique even horizons, exist with a common event horizon relative to an observer outside this event horizon? Just doing some pre-caffiene speculation.

28 posted on 02/24/2005 5:58:31 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

You are right - in the end it all comes down to nomenclature. ;-)


29 posted on 02/24/2005 6:19:09 AM PST by linear (You men can't fight in here - this is the War Room!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Saved to read later.

I can hardly wait for the central question, which science has been tap-dancing around forever. The explanation for:

First there was nothing; then it exploded.

30 posted on 02/24/2005 6:36:16 AM PST by Publius6961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc30
Just doing some pre-caffiene speculation.

Pretty sharp, I'd say. Some theorists have been thinking along those lines for 20 years. Google up the term "chaotic inflation".

According to inflationary theory, the universe itself is a black hole, so the speculation that the interior of a black hole is, subjectively, a universe unto itself is well-founded.

31 posted on 02/24/2005 6:36:18 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
I can hardly wait for the central question, which science has been tap-dancing around forever. The explanation for:

First there was nothing; then it exploded.

It would help if you explained why you have difficulty with that concept. Is it a causality issue, or that you don't personally know the mechanism that drives the expansion?

32 posted on 02/24/2005 6:38:25 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Is it a causality issue, or that you don't personally know the mechanism that drives the expansion?

Both.
The physical universe defines things and mechanisms.

Before the universe existed, therefore, there is nothing to discuss, including causality and the reality that no one personally knows or can know what created something that doesn't exist.

33 posted on 02/24/2005 6:42:43 AM PST by Publius6961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Here ya go:

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/apr14/virtual.html


34 posted on 02/24/2005 6:45:12 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Then we won't discuss how virtual particle pairs appear spontaneously from the neutral vacuum!

Oh, let's do! I'm a little fuzzy on that myself. The vacuum has energy, and "contains" space--so technically it's not "nothing." Right? Or am I confused?

Can't we say that even the pre-Big Bang singularity had--at a minimum--mass, and so was not "nothing?"

If you can explain the phenomenon of vacuum energy in layman's terms, I would appreciate it.

35 posted on 02/24/2005 6:47:21 AM PST by TigerTale ("I don't care. I'm still free. You can't take the sky from me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SubMareener; fortheDeclaration
The vacuum has energy, and "contains" space--so technically it's not "nothing." Right? Or am I confused?

Can't we say that even the pre-Big Bang singularity had--at a minimum--mass, and so was not "nothing?"

If you can explain the phenomenon of vacuum energy in layman's terms, I would appreciate it.

Sorry, this previous post was intended for SubMareener.

36 posted on 02/24/2005 6:53:43 AM PST by TigerTale ("I don't care. I'm still free. You can't take the sky from me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
But the universe doesn't have any requirement--mathematical or philosophical--that anything come "before" it, just as there's no requirement for anything to be south of the South Pole. Causality presupposes time, and time presupposes the universe. The universe doesn't require a cause.
37 posted on 02/24/2005 6:55:41 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Awesome article. I thought I understood the Big Bang. I didn't. I still don't, not really, but at least now I know that I don't.


38 posted on 02/24/2005 6:56:08 AM PST by munchtipq
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerTale

See post 34


39 posted on 02/24/2005 6:59:11 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Thank you again.

If there were a Science Forum would the SN's still come?

40 posted on 02/24/2005 7:01:50 AM PST by ASA Vet (FR needs a science forum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet
If there were a Science Forum would the SN's still come?

No need for a science forum. We're happy where we are.

41 posted on 02/24/2005 7:20:48 AM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks for the ping!


42 posted on 02/24/2005 7:55:05 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Physicist; Publius6961
But the universe doesn't have any requirement--mathematical or philosophical--that anything come "before" it, just as there's no requirement for anything to be south of the South Pole. Causality presupposes time, and time presupposes the universe. The universe doesn't require a cause.

Every phenomena that arises within the universe has as its cause some condition or conditions but the phenomena of universe itself arises without cause or conditions? What is the reason for that?

43 posted on 02/24/2005 7:57:46 AM PST by TigersEye (Intellectuals only exist if you think they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Physicist; RadioAstronomer; longshadow
The article says this:
In the current standard model of cosmology, galaxies with a redshift of about 1.5--that is, whose light has a wavelength 150 percent longer than the laboratory reference value--are receding at the speed of light. Astronomers have observed about 1,000 galaxies with redshifts larger than 1.5. That is, they have observed about 1,000 objects receding from us faster than the speed of light. Equivalently, we are receding from those galaxies faster than the speed of light.

Question: why aren't there greater consequences than the appearance of the light from these objects? Why is this motion, relative to ours, immune from the effects of special relativity?

44 posted on 02/24/2005 8:05:06 AM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Please don't, I do not think I could handle that much nonsense this early in the morning.

I guess that's one way to avoid uncomfortable facts. Take comfort in your ignorance by declaring knowledge to be "nonsense".
45 posted on 02/24/2005 8:15:01 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
First there was NOTHING and then NOTHING exploded!

Yes, that is exactly the kind of idiotic misconception that this article seeks to dispell.
46 posted on 02/24/2005 8:15:46 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Bump for later read.


47 posted on 02/24/2005 8:22:37 AM PST by SouthParkRepublican (There are no contradictions... Only faulty premises.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
John Derbyshire reviewed this book in the latest issue of National Review
 
Another link imbedded in image.
 

48 posted on 02/24/2005 8:24:11 AM PST by Radix (The next time that I find a good Tag Line, I'll be sure to post it here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; newgeezer

I can think of a really big and obvious one.


49 posted on 02/24/2005 8:24:48 AM PST by biblewonk (Neither was the man created for woman but the woman for the man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The article is just wrong about that. 1+z = sqrt((1+beta)/(1-beta)), where beta is the velocity/c. Obviously as v goes to c, the redshift z blows up to infinity.
50 posted on 02/24/2005 8:25:31 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-223 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson