James
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 6
|
Post by James on Feb 24, 2004 17:32:34 GMT -5
Just joined the board. In the past I was a supporter of the Big Bang theory but after researching it I have come to the conclusion that it is terribly flawed. Where did the material come from and what caused it to explode? How did an explosion , which always leads to chaos, become the formation of a universe in perfect order. Just luck? If there was the building blocks in existance before the big bang then the big band was not the "beginning". Can an entire universe be created from nothing?
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Feb 24, 2004 18:15:19 GMT -5
First off Welcome to the board james.
Secondly i can't not answer your question maybe you should ask god. (just a little joke) I don't know much on the big bang theory, i do know that the chemicials and what not were already in the atomasphere(lack of better word) so the big bang theory was not something from nothing. And the universe is not perfect far from it, it is totally inconsistant.
|
|
James
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 6
|
Post by James on Feb 24, 2004 18:26:59 GMT -5
What do you mean it already existed? The building blocks had to come from somewhere. Did they just appear? What made them appear? The big bang theory states that everything neccesary to fill the universe was at a point a few millimeters wide. Then the big bang. What caused the explosion?
|
|
James
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 6
|
Post by James on Feb 24, 2004 18:31:29 GMT -5
Big Bang Theory: The Major Problems in Summary The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question at hand: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode? This is contrary to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Conservation of Matter). Where did Space, Time, Matter, Energy, and Information come from? Next, how did this explosion (or "expansion") cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in recorded history caused only disorder and disarray? Consequently, the Big Bang seemingly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increased Entropy). What organized the universe after the singularity?
Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, the Big Bang Theory contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. For example, how does the Big Bang Theory explain "Retrograde Motion" (the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons) without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?
Everything in the universe is spinning - planets, stars, galaxies, etc. It would take an enormous amount of energy to start a planet spinning (Inertia). To solve this, advocates of the Big Bang Theory claim that the singularity that blew up in a sudden big bang was spinning before it exploded, thus everything within it was spinning as it flung out. The problem is Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are spinning backwards (Retrograde Motion). Why is this a problem? If something spinning clockwise blows up, all of the pieces will be spinning clockwise (the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum). How can the Big Bang explain Retrograde Motion? Some have suggested that cosmic impacts upon these planets have stopped and then reversed the spin. This is not acceptable, since many small impacts would be largely self-defeating, and the force of impact necessary to stop and reverse the spin of a planet all at once is incredible, so much so it would certainly leave a mark -- probably take a huge chunk out of the planet! At the very least, it would upset the orbit. Yet Venus has a retrograde spin and is nearly flawless in both its shape and orbit.
Besides the significant problem of retrograde spin, some moons have a retrograde orbit around their planet. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions. Once again, how can Big Bang cosmologists solve this dilemma without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?
Finally, the Big Bang Theory contradicts observed phenomena. For example, the Big Bang Theory is unable to explain uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in galactic "voids" and "clumps". If the Big Bang was true, shouldn't all the matter be (roughly) evenly distributed? Why are there incredibly vast voids of empty space between the clumps of matter? It is true there is the Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force, Electro Magnetic Force, and Gravity. The problem is not so much, "How did all the matter clump?" The question is, "Why has the clumping agent allowed these voids after such an extended period of influence?" James Trefil writes, "There shouldn't be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn't be grouped together the way they are."
Any comments? I am an agnostic. I believe that it can not be proven if god does or does not exist. I just know that the bible is full of inconsistantcies and untruths and that religion was created by man and is not truth.
|
|
Acriku
Maverick's Chew Toy
I am the law.
Posts: 35
|
Post by Acriku on Feb 24, 2004 20:27:46 GMT -5
More specifically, you're an agnostic atheist As for your flaws, are they really flaws or are they insufficiently answered questions using the Big Bang Theory?
|
|
James
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 6
|
Post by James on Feb 24, 2004 21:25:38 GMT -5
How could an entire universe be created from nothing in a nanosecond. The answers will never be found. I believe anything is possible even a a creator creating the big bang. It would really be nice if there was some proof one way or the other. I'm stuck in the middle.
|
|
Acriku
Maverick's Chew Toy
I am the law.
Posts: 35
|
Post by Acriku on Feb 24, 2004 21:58:54 GMT -5
Well, the best we have is using the evidence that we can infer scientifically. The Big Bang has a very good stronghold in the scientific community, because it predicted certain conditions that were later found to be true, and the evidence to support it. I agree, it isn't clear to me either, but I go with the best we have right now.
|
|
|
Post by droskey on Feb 24, 2004 22:40:47 GMT -5
Welcome to the board, James.
I can't really address all of your questions about the big bang as I'm not a cosmologist. However, I can probably make some comments as to why it seems that the big bang results in some contradictions of some moder physical laws.
First, thinking of the big bang as an "explosion" leads to some difficulty. The name "big bang" can be a little misleading. Current cosomology merely holds that the universe as we know it had a beginning. In earlier epochs, the universe was "smaller" and denser than it is now. If you trace the universe farther and farther back in time, it appears that the universe came from a singularity. What does that mean? I don't know the answer. In truth, I haven't heard very many scientists make any claims about the actual moment of the big bang. They talk about times that occur immediately after the big bang.
Current cosmology also doesn't attempt to answer questions about what happened "before" the big bang. In fact, many (if not most) cosmologists would state that the question, "what happened before the big bang?" is meaningless because time as we know is a result of the big bang. In fact, in the very early moments after the "singularity" time and space were not differentiated. Scientists are still trying to determine what kind of physics was going on in the early epochs. It wasn't like what has been going on for the last 13 or 14 billion years, though. A philosopher might still ask the question about what happened before. But that might truly be a question that doesn't have an answer.
As to the other problems (angular momentum, nonuniformity, 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc.), I am sure that there are current theories that address these problems. I know that the nonuniformity problem was an issue that was addressed. I'm not sure about the angular momentum though. I am quite certain that they are dealt with in the current theories.
James
There is something here that I want to address. It is important to understand that the ideas in modern cosmology are not trivial and have been in development for hundreds of years. The question that I have is, how much time have you spent researching the issue? People make careers out of studying cosomology. The typical amount of training that a cosmologist would have is about 4 to 5 years getting a bachelors degree (requiring an intense amount of study) and another 4 to 7 years of graduate work. By then they probably have a good working knowledge of what some of the issues in the field are and could answer some of the quesions that you posed with some authority. My point is that these theories look fantastic when we view them from a standpoint of limited knowledge. Modern cosmology looks ridiculous from the standpoint of the classical, 100 year old physics that we learn in high school. In that context it is not really fair for us to spend a couple of weeks researching a topic that takes most people years to begin to grasp and then conclude that the theory has serious flaws based on that limited knowledge. It is much more reasonable to conclude that our understanding of the theory is not quite complete until we have spent a lot more time studying it.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by droskey on Feb 24, 2004 22:44:07 GMT -5
Note: In my last post, I did not mean to say that there are not unresolved issues in cosmology. What I was getting at is that I really don't think that the topics that James listed are among those that are unresolved.
|
|
|
Post by Supremor on Feb 25, 2004 16:41:59 GMT -5
I can give you a brief history of time(oops, did i write that) using the Big Bang theory.
First, when physicists talk of the big bang having come from nothing, they infact mean it came from a singularity(well done Jacopo). A singularity is an infinitely dense point, in which all the laws of physics break down and join together in one 'superforce'. Also, there are certain boundary conditions which affect the big bang.
One common mistake is to assume that a piece of matter was 'put' into a space. At the beginning of time, the singularity was the universe, and all the space of the universe. As the matter expands, so too does the universe expand.
Another mistake, is about nothingness. Nothing for a physicist is the lowest state of energy possible. This is often a problem when scientists and philosophers come together.
James, you're right when you wonder how the big bang does anything to prove the existence of God, it doesn't. All the Big Bang has ever really done is to answer the how aspect of the universe. Theists will always ask why these things happened, and atheists will argue that they 'just do'. This is the fundamental problem that has always existed, at all stages of scientific development, and it will probably never change.
Stephen Hawkins describes the human race as ' a piece of scum on the surface of an average planet'(or there abouts).
Theists nowadays often argue that the fact that life has been created through the big bang, shows a creator, because the chances against it were so astronomical. And believe me, the probability that the stars would form was astronomical enough!
Personally, I don't see the need to have reasons for things. The question why, doesn't mean that much to me. To introduce God to the Universe, just seems like an unnecessary answer to an unneeded question. I follow the Hawkins- the Universe just exists, so live with it!
|
|
James
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 6
|
Post by James on Feb 25, 2004 16:55:27 GMT -5
I guess the answer that the universe exists bcause it just does isn't good enough for me. And the idea of a singularity existing containing all the energy and building blocks of the universe before the big bang leaves a whole bunch of unanswered questions. If anyone knows of any websites that have any theory of the hows and whys of the big bang I would be interested. The ones I have seen explain just the results and that there was an incredibly small point containing everything needed to build the universe and not having a theory where it came from. Saying that the universe exists because it does is like saying god exists because he does. The key for me to decide if god exists or not is to come up with a reasonable explanation of before the big bang.
|
|
|
Post by droskey on Feb 25, 2004 16:56:37 GMT -5
Supremor
I realize after reading this that I didn't really address the main question that James had. I think Supremor addressed it well. Cosmology does not address the question of God at all. It does talk about a "naturalistic" way to explain the origin of the universe up to right near the beginning. It does address how the universe could appear the way that it does today without the intervention of "outside" forces (whatever that might mean).
Supremor also did a really good job of illustrating some confusions that people tend to have about what the big bang has to say about space, time and matter. Basically, immediatly after the big bang, time, space, and matter were not differentiated. All these things (i.e. everything that we are aware of today) came into existance at the beginning of the universe.
|
|
tamara
Broken-in Plebe
Posts: 96
|
Post by tamara on Feb 25, 2004 17:24:17 GMT -5
In my mind, the Big Bang is dead, but the coroner hasn't been there yet! They are missing 94% of the matter of the universe within that theory! And then they end up inventing stuff like dark matter and dark energy to plug up the gaps. Puh-lease... There is another system called the ekpyrotic universe. All based on fancy math and the string theory. If any theist came up with something as looney, they'd chase him with a broom! ;D Myself, I am betting on the plasma universe. The dark horse at the moment, but not for long...
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Feb 25, 2004 17:32:18 GMT -5
Ok, I'm not a cosmologist (which is why I've been staying away from this thread), but I am curious here. Could you give a brief summary of the ekpyrotic universe and plasma universe theories, tamara? This is the first I've heard of them...
|
|
James
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 6
|
Post by James on Feb 25, 2004 18:21:44 GMT -5
|
|