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 previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-223 next last
To: fortheDeclaration
It is nonsense, when it is not based on facts, but supposition.

And how would you know that it's based on supposition? Have you actually studied the relevant offered evidence?
101 posted on 02/24/2005 4:10:41 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
I was just directed to an article talking about a vacuum creating particles.

The only problem was the vacuum contained energy (which is something)

So, unless you can prove that something can come from nothing, it is not science, it is philosophical speculation.

102 posted on 02/24/2005 4:17:16 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: 2ndreconmarine
And the ether theory was discredited with the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Not quite. Michelson-Morley showed ether was not necessary to explain the observations. They never said it didn't exist.

103 posted on 02/24/2005 4:17:32 PM PST by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: 2ndreconmarine; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Physicist
The mass doesn't change [for the second observer who is "moving" in the second frame of reference], it is just the observer who sees it differently.

I'm not certain. For the second reference frame that we see zipping away from us, I think their mass increase does have consequences, even locally for them. Not gravitationally, because they don't feel heavier, but with respect to their inertial mass, there must be a difference. (I'm breaking Einstein's principle of equivalence here, so I recognize that I'm in trouble ... yet -- waiving the flag of buffoonery -- I persevere.) If it were a ship, for example, approaching lightspeed, they would soon be unable to accelerate further.

104 posted on 02/24/2005 4:26:08 PM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
It is pretty funny when after 'science' attempts to explain something, one leaves more confused then when one started out!
Either the teaching is bad, or they are simply doing a lot of fancy footwork.

Or possibility #3: the Universe is much, much stranger than it seems like to us.

105 posted on 02/24/2005 4:27:25 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
If it were a ship, for example, approaching lightspeed, they would soon be unable to accelerate further.

Hint: what is your on-board clock doing as you approach the SOL, WRT a clock on a "stationary" frame of reference?

(think about the answer as it would affect the fact that acceleration is the derivative of velocity WRT time)

106 posted on 02/24/2005 4:35:24 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Not quite. Michelson-Morley showed ether was not necessary to explain the observations. They never said it didn't exist.

I disagree. The Michelson-Morley experiment was done at opposite ends of the earth's orbit (6 months apart). The results were identical. If there were an ether that light traveled in, then the speed of light would have been different. Hence, the ether theory was discredited. (A good textbook on the subject is "Special Relativity," by Anthony French. MIT Press.

107 posted on 02/24/2005 4:38:54 PM PST by 2ndreconmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
If it were a ship, for example, approaching lightspeed, they would soon be unable to accelerate further...

... in the frame of reference of the first (you called him stationary) observer. In the frame of reference of the ship, they continue to accelerate, or more specifically, they continue to feel the force of acceleration.

108 posted on 02/24/2005 4:41:31 PM PST by 2ndreconmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Hint: what is your on-board clock doing as you approach the SOL, WRT a clock on a "stationary" frame of reference?

The clock is keeping perfect time, so far as the people on the ship are concerned. But the time dilation is real, as they would learn if they could return home. Similarly, I suspect (but don't know) that their mass increase is real too.

109 posted on 02/24/2005 4:44:14 PM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
But the time dilation is real,...

And the effect of this on the acceleration of the spacecraft, as viewed from an external "stationary" oberver, would be???

;-)

110 posted on 02/24/2005 4:51:34 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
But the time dilation is real, as they would learn if they could return home

Actually, that's a popular misconception. The reason that the time dilation appears real when they return is because the rocket ship is ACCELERATING. If it were not accelerating, then there would not be any effect of difference in aging. Special Relativity is defined by the concept that all inertial reference frames are equivalent. It establishes a series of transformations so that the observations of observers in these different reference frames all measure the same thing. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO ACCELERATING FRAMES OF REFERENCE.

However, the accelerating rocket ship is not an inertial frame, it is an accelerating frame. This problem is handled mathematically by making an infinitely long series of infinitesmal transformations from each inertial reference frame to the next, somewhat faster reference frame.

The long and the short of it is that the result of time dilation, that the astronauts have aged less upon their return, is entirely due to the fact that the rocket ship was accelerating.

111 posted on 02/24/2005 5:01:42 PM PST by 2ndreconmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: 2ndreconmarine

I'll take your word for it.


112 posted on 02/24/2005 5:24:07 PM PST by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

It's hard to learn when all the knowledge-obtaining orifices are closed.


113 posted on 02/24/2005 5:51:47 PM PST by furball4paws (It's not the cough that carried him off - it's the coffin they carried him off in (O. Nash -I think))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I don't like the balloon analogy. Tough for the layman to get wrap his arms around it. I prefer the dough and raisin deal.

Maybe I'm just hungry though.

114 posted on 02/24/2005 6:06:34 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
And the effect of this [But the time dilation is real,...] on the acceleration of the spacecraft, as viewed from an external "stationary" oberver, would be???

I can't think of any, unless they could see the ship's clock, and note that (correcting for the message transit time) it's out of sync with the clock at home (assuming they were once in sync). Also, I suppose if the viewing position were right, they'd see a shortening of the ship's "forward direction" dimension (if you know what I mean). Offhand, I can't think of any visual manifestation of the increase in mass.

115 posted on 02/24/2005 6:25:47 PM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: 2ndreconmarine
Me:
But the time dilation is real, as they would learn if they could return home

You:
Actually, that's a popular misconception. The reason that the time dilation appears real when they return is because the rocket ship is ACCELERATING.

Yes, that's why the ship is the frame that undergoes the time dilation, and not the earth, even though from the ship's viewpoint, the earth is seen to be accelerating away from the earth. But it's really the ship that experiences acceleration.

Nevertheless, even for non-accelerating frames of reference that are in motion with respect to each other, the Lorentz transformation applies to observed differences in time, length, etc. Or so I've always understood. That's how the two frames can make sense of their otherwise incompatible observations.

116 posted on 02/24/2005 6:33:00 PM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

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

Wrong, wrong, wrong. First there were grapefruits!

117 posted on 02/24/2005 6:41:46 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"biologists still debate the mechanisms and implications (though not the reality) of Darwinism, while much of the public still flounders in pre-Darwinian cluelessness"

Now your talking my language...I've always been clueless as to how "nothing" exploded into everything.

118 posted on 02/24/2005 6:47:51 PM PST by patriot_wes (papal infallibility - a proud tradition since 1869)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junior
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.

Right, the article is clear, "In the beginning, there were grapefruits".

119 posted on 02/24/2005 6:50:35 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
It's hard to learn when all the knowledge-obtaining orifices are closed.

I think "Dean Wormer said it best in "Animal House": "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son."

;-)

120 posted on 02/24/2005 7:24:00 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

>> Hubble's law predicts that galaxies beyond a certain distance, known as the Hubble distance, recede faster than the speed of light. For the measured value of the Hubble constant, this distance is about 14 billion light-years.

If Hubble's "Law" is correct we will never see those galaxies because they are moving away from us faster than their light is moving toward us. That would be strange, indeed, except for the fact that the speed of light is nothing to our all-powerful God -- He who created the heaven and the earth and all its host -- He whose power is beyond our comprehension since we are mere men with no power, to speak of. Hubble's "Law" is certainly possible. Of course, if the appropriately named Hubble Telescope or some future device proves Hubble wrong, then maybe his calculations were wrong -- maybe he meant 20 billion light years, give or take a few, or a bunch. Or maybe he was a mere dreamer who had no clue about the creation of the universe, though he pretended so and wanted so much to be right. But, no matter, he was certainly fascinated by its incredible beauty and unimaginable vastness, as am I.



121 posted on 02/24/2005 7:33:01 PM PST by PhilipFreneau (Congress is defined as the United States Senate and House of Representatives; now read 1st Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Causality presupposes an effect and the Universe was either uncaused (always existed) or is the effect of something else.

You're talking out of your hat. Cause and effect necessarily take place in a specified time sequence, which doesn't necessarily apply before the Big Bang. (Nothing is south of the south pole.)

Moreover, there are events that occur in real time that are demonstrably uncaused. Subatomic decays are a whole class of examples. If they were caused by some undiscovered mechanism, pairs of decays would have to obey Bell's inequality. (Look it up if you're unfamiliar with it.) But it's an irreducible experimental fact that some decays violate Bell's inequality.

So either the events are uncaused, or there is some sort of faster-than-light signal that causes the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations that violate the inequality. But faster-than-light signals ipso facto violate causality: if two events have a spacelike separation, the order of the events is frame-dependent (i.e., you can always find a physical frame in which the effect precedes the cause).

The mere existence of EPR correlations is an experimental proof that cause-and-effect cannot be universal.

122 posted on 02/24/2005 7:37:08 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: 2ndreconmarine
Are you sure??? I am on travel and don't have my textbooks, but I believe you have quoted the Lorentz transformation from Special Relativity.

Yeah, read my follow-up. I was shooting from the hip, responding to PH's post before I read the article.

123 posted on 02/24/2005 7:38:41 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Did the Universe have a beginning or not?

If it did, then it is an effect of something (of God, or the Big Bang etc)

124 posted on 02/25/2005 12:28:35 AM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
Well, most teachers and writers will look to themselves for why they are not getting across the information.

Evolutionists blame the hearers.

What the real problem is is that the hearers are listening for facts, and what they are hearing is supposition and conjecture, mixed with alot of faith.

125 posted on 02/25/2005 12:35:23 AM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Or possibility #3: the Universe is much, much stranger than it seems like to us.

Oh, without question the Universe is much stranger then any scientist can imagine.

They haven't even gotten near the Third heaven, throne of God Himself.

126 posted on 02/25/2005 12:39:49 AM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

It doesn't surprise me you refuse to actually learn anything.


127 posted on 02/25/2005 2:34:17 AM PST by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Did the Universe have a beginning or not? If it did, then it is an effect of something (of God, or the Big Bang etc)

That logic is simply wrong on its face. Causality, as you lay it out, is a consequence of time. But time is a physical property of the universe and exists within it. The universe does not exist in time.

Once again, the north-south coordinate has a definite beginning and a definite ending, but this doesn't imply that anything lies south of the south pole. At the south pole, all possible directions point north, including directions that lie at right angles to each other. Similarly, at the Big Bang, in the simplest (Friedmann-Robertson-Walker) model, all possible directions point towards the future. If there's geometrically no past, there can't be a prior cause.

128 posted on 02/25/2005 3:26:07 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
But time is a physical property of the universe and exists within it. The universe does not exist in time.

This is a very good point. Time being, in essence, a knowable dimension.

If there's geometrically no past, there can't be a prior cause.

I understand the conclusion of this statement, but I can't grasp the meaning of a "pior cause." Do you mean outside of time?

Will you please elaborate, thanks.

129 posted on 02/25/2005 5:25:10 AM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
They haven't even gotten near the Third heaven, throne of God Himself.

You may be correct in general terms, but there are many things I've seen that science has discovered which are at the very least a pin hole's view towards God.

Furthermore, Science might not discover it all, but in the scriptures themselves the clues are enormous for science to use to discover more.

130 posted on 02/25/2005 5:32:36 AM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
No one is arguing against science, as long as it science.

Evolution is not a science.

131 posted on 02/25/2005 5:48:56 AM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Evolution is not a science.

No, evolution is not a FACT!

132 posted on 02/25/2005 6:17:05 AM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

see post 113. Learning is the responsibility of the learner and no one else.


133 posted on 02/25/2005 7:51:19 AM PST by furball4paws (It's not the cough that carried him off - it's the coffin they carried him off in (O. Nash -I think))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
I understand the conclusion of this statement, but I can't grasp the meaning of a "pior cause." Do you mean outside of time?

No. I said that if time doesn't exist before the Big Bang, there can't be a prior cause. "Prior" means "at an earlier time", and "cause" means a specific event at a well-defined place and time. To have a prior cause, there has to be a time at which it occurred.

That's not to say that it's impossible to construct models in which the Big Bang happens in a larger context (i.e., in which the Big Bang can be said to have a cause). Chaotic inflation, for example, has a gigantic number of Big Bangs, each giving rise to many more. Each of those cosmoses can be said to have a cause. My point was that there is no mathematical or philosophical requirement that such an outside context exist, although it may.

134 posted on 02/25/2005 8:32:43 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Printed this out for Sir SuziQ. He LOVES this stuff!


135 posted on 02/25/2005 8:52:20 AM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junior
It doesn't surprise me you refuse to actually learn anything.

I did learn something, I learned that the universe In the beginning there were grapefruit and since the grapefruit were abundant, that was good.

136 posted on 02/25/2005 9:28:19 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Your reading comprehension is horrible. Your ability to grasp analogies is equally horrendous. And yet, you seem unnaturally proud of your ignorance.


137 posted on 02/25/2005 9:33:49 AM PST by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Junior
And yet, you seem unnaturally proud of your ignorance.

Darwin Central is in a continuous war with agents of the Impervium.

138 posted on 02/25/2005 11:38:31 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 137 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Cosmologists sometimes state that the universe used to be the size of a grapefruit, but what they mean is that the part of the universe we can now see--our observable universe--used to be the size of a grapefruit.

Observers living in the Andromeda galaxy and beyond have their own observable universes that are different from but overlap with ours. Andromedans can see galaxies we cannot, simply by virtue of being slightly closer to them, and vice versa. Their observable universe also used to be the size of a grapefruit. Thus, we can conceive of the early universe as a pile of overlapping grapefruits that stretches infinitely in all directions.

Correspondingly, the idea that the big bang was "small" is misleading. The totality of space could be infinite. Shrink an infinite space by an arbitrary amount, and it is still infinite.


So the universe was infinite prior to the big bang, and is infinite now, only more so....

I gues the big bang just got bigger.
139 posted on 02/25/2005 11:55:32 AM PST by NonLinear ("If not instantaneous, then extraordinarily fast" - Galileo re. speed of light. circa 1600)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

Pardon my ignorance, but what are the "SN's"? First time seeing that abbrev.
140 posted on 02/25/2005 12:03:57 PM PST by NonLinear ("If not instantaneous, then extraordinarily fast" - Galileo re. speed of light. circa 1600)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

We might be catching up with some old tired galaxies, and they would pop into view..

Stick around...it may be fun!


141 posted on 02/25/2005 12:10:46 PM PST by NonLinear ("If not instantaneous, then extraordinarily fast" - Galileo re. speed of light. circa 1600)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Hypothesis 1:

The galaxies which appear to recede at velocities in excess of the speed of light would exceed infinite mass if they were moving THROUGH space.

However, if space itself is moving with the galaxy, then its local velocity would be sub-c.

Other rambling that may or may not apply:
If body A is moving at 0.75c in the x-direction and body B is moving at 0.75c in the negative x-direction, and each shines a light towards the other, then each would see a red shift of 1.5 from the light of the other.


142 posted on 02/25/2005 12:32:38 PM PST by NonLinear ("If not instantaneous, then extraordinarily fast" - Galileo re. speed of light. circa 1600)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
see post 113. Learning is the responsibility of the learner and no one else.

It is!

Well, no wonder our public school system is the way it is!

143 posted on 02/25/2005 12:56:54 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
Evolution is not a science. No, evolution is not a FACT!

And Science is suppose to deal with facts

144 posted on 02/25/2005 1:10:13 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I did learn something, I learned that the universe In the beginning there were grapefruit and since the grapefruit were abundant, that was good.

LOL!

Now, who can argue against that!

145 posted on 02/25/2005 1:44:15 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: NonLinear

Sounds like they are back arguing for the eternal universe.


146 posted on 02/25/2005 1:45:15 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

This is not kindergarten. If you want a Nanny State, go to DU.


147 posted on 02/25/2005 2:39:52 PM PST by furball4paws (It's not the cough that carried him off - it's the coffin they carried him off in (O. Nash -I think))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
My point was that there is no mathematical or philosophical requirement that such an outside context exist, although it may.

So, "eternal" is not a scientific theory yet, but a religious or philosphical thought as we know?

What I'm trying my best to comprehend is if "time" is a physical property could it be removed or hidden in existance. How do you even comprehend OUTSIDE OF TIME?

We have discoveredd that time changes or is different with atomic clock experiments... Please understand, I'm not trying to be philosophical about this, but I want to know how it relates to scientific theory...and maybe it doesn't?

Physicist, could it somehow all relate through "digital code?" I mean software is massless, timeless, why does it take up space if it's massless?

I'm sorry, forgive me for my indulgence of questions, but thanks for you insights.

148 posted on 02/25/2005 4:25:15 PM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
And Science is suppose to deal with facts

...and it does. Look I don't believe in evolution either, but you just can not say that scientist have not found any evidence that leads them to concluded evolution. I just think there is more evidence for ID than evolution, but in no way do I discount science's discoveries.

149 posted on 02/25/2005 4:34:24 PM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: NonLinear
Stick around...it may be fun!

If I need a tracheotomy between now and my 10,000th birthday in 11949 I'll just let them do it rather than strangle to death.

150 posted on 02/25/2005 4:44:16 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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