You forgot two words, "in God". A major difference.

Some folks, and I don't exclude myself in this, imprint like baby chick on beliefs. It makes it hard to change later.

 

This is not a valid assumption. The big bang was not an explosion in the sense of a bomb going off.

If not an explosion of sorts then could some one please explain what the 'big bang' was?

I'm not trying to be funny or start a fight just trying to learn.

I still can't grasp the reason why two theories can exist that contradict themselves. E= Mc square and a big bang.

 

As I understand it the Big Bang was a singularity, a unique event. Our understanding of it is limited.

For all the good it does "And God said, "Let there be Light""

Some theories are exist, but they are difficult to prove for obvious reasons.

 

If not an explosion of sorts then could some one please explain what the 'big bang' was?

I'm not trying to be funny or start a fight just trying to learn.

I still can't grasp the reason why two theories can exist that contradict themselves. E= Mc square and a big bang. .

Did you get a chance to read all three pages of the Alan Guth article I posted?

What he says boils down to what I eluded to in #1 back in post 70. It's an easy read and not very long. There are a bunch of other great references at that site too, which are pertinent to this discussion.

BTW, E=MC^2 does not contradict the big bang. The big bang relies on it. Keep in mind, most physicist agree that the net energy/mass in the universe is zero.

 

This is another good discussion on it.

There is more reading at that site too.

 

most physicist agree that the net energy/mass in the universe is zero.

Think that should be "Near Zero, but not Zero"


@general:
Have seen a nice short video in relation to this somewhere recently. But can't find it again. (remember "something out of nothing" or something to that effect.)

Anyway. Zero, as Infinite's little brother, generally trows a nice big wrench in the math machine. Think Big bang(at t=0) or Black hole (Size=Zero:both), or Zero Kelvin for that matter (Energy=Zero).

... Singularity: Science way of saying "here is where things stopped making sense to us". ...

 

Found video: "How the universe appeared from nothing" (newscientist blog video)

 

Then there is this - http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp

 

Then there is this - http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp

Most science forums don't accept these types of alternative science references. These places are where people put references that can't get accepted into the mainstream science journals. Of course it is still possible for good work to be rejected by the mainstream, just as bad ideas sometimes make it in. However, what mechanism does a science forum have to determine what is good and what is bad? We have moderators, but how can any individual moderator, or even a group of moderators be experts in all specializations within of a broad area of science? Because of this issue, we see more benefits by adopting the policy to consider mainstream science as determined by what can get into refereed journals, or standard text books. Good ideas, supported by real measurement data, eventually gain traction and reach the mainstream. If they are really good, they become the accepted science in text books. History has proved this. In this physics forum, given the vast quantity of mainstream physics that we could all spend our lives studying without running out of things to learn, it's best to not have to filter through a pile of ... uh ... stuff to find the good references.

Looking through that web-site, I personally don't find much value in it. I think it caters to the conspiracy theory types of people who think there is some master plan to go down false paths and reject the truth. I do have to admit I had some fun reading through some of the more interesting references to figure out the flaws that might have got them rejected, so maybe there is some small value there. Also, weak ideas can be the inspiration for stronger ideas. Anyway, I don't consider it my place to decide for others who want to find value there. However, I would appeal to the common sense rules of general science forums and say, "this stuff doesn't belong in here." I think it directs people that come here down the wrong path and confuses the questions which are often already difficult enough.

Just my 2 cents, but I think it is worth at least 2 dollars.

 

...
By the way, I have not made any statements about the validity of current theories, nor have I tried to support or give evidence for those theories. While I feel I have a basic understanding of general relativity, quantum field theory and cosmology, I'm not an expert, and don't feel qualified to go down that path.
...

That's a respectable stance although not of much use in a discussion. So what are YOUR views on the origin of the universe, assuming for a moment you are not afraid to have an opinion.

...
Further, I also have enough knowledge to see the enormous holes in some of the suggested ideas in this thread. Also, the sloppiness and boldness with which it is offered just boggles my mind. I expect and normally see much better than this at AAC.

It's interesting that you are bold enough to "see the enormous holes" in some opinions but not bold enough to have an opinion of your own? Why the surprise at sloppiness, what did you expect from an informal discussion on a hobby electronics forum? Maybe forum entry should be restricted to Astrophysics PHDs, at least then eveyone would be agreeing on the origin of the universe (according to whatever the fashionable theory is this year).

I respect your point about people's level of knowlege about general relativity, quantum field theory and cosmology being of value, but I'm not sure their guesses on the origin of the universe are going to be that much better than anyone's guesses. If you had a degree in statistical analysis your chance of guessing next week's lotto numbers is still about as good as any fools chance of guessing.

For all we KNOW, God made the universe out of his old ear wax in 6 days, and then threw in some doppler shift, thinking "Ha! That will keep those arrogant little fools arguing!"

 

You forgot two words, "in God". A major difference.

Some folks, and I don't exclude myself in this, imprint like baby chick on beliefs. It makes it hard to change later.

It's just semantics, kind of like "new math", we have "new speak", and it's in the dictionaries.

Dictionary.com, third definition, does not include any deity:

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices. example: a world council of religions.

Set of beliefs and practices, strongly intimates religion with God, but does not require it. "They" keep changing the definition, so people who prefer Apple over Mac are religious Mac Zealots.

 

I found an online journal of "Cosmology" yesterday with a very persuasive article about Big Bang theory, the red shift etc being linked to the Earth-centered conspiracy theory of some sort. It is way too easy to google something and then get sucked into reading it.

I hit some online scientific databases, what popped up was an enormous amount of research papers attempting to come up with yet new theories, interesting but not sure how useful...

It seems that so far, to me, the universe is infinite, I don't see how we can know exactly how old it is because we are limited by what we can measure (i.e. what has reached us) and so far it is 13.7 billion years. Looks like it might be flat. Much of what is hypothesized is based on a lot of assumptions and theories based upon theories that were based on other assumptions. Some assumptions have been verified, others have not. The Big Bang was not a bang and I tend to think that the the universe oscillates.

Quite possible that someone is laughing at us...

 

The 13.7 limit is there not because our optics stop working, they can see way beyond that, but because there was some fundamental differences in the universe. Why keep trying to force the universe into a model it doesn't fit, infinite is not a real number, and the universe is all about numbers. It is measurable.

 

That's a respectable stance although not of much use in a discussion. So what are YOUR views on the origin of the universe, assuming for a moment you are not afraid to have an opinion.

No, I'm not afraid to have an opinion any more than I'm afraid to have elbows. But, perhaps I feel that talking about my opinions on this subject here is about as interesting and useful, to other members, as me talking about my elbows.

The opinions I am willing to talk about here, and which I do think are useful in this discussion, are already mentioned.

It's interesting that you are bold enough to "see the enormous holes" in some opinions but not bold enough to have an opinion of your own?

I'm not sure why it is bold to see holes. If someone says that the sun orbits the earth and not vice versa, and I see enormous holes in that theory, is that bold? That's the exact situation I see here.

But, if stating that I see the holes makes me bold, then fine I'm willing to be bold and make this point along with my others to express my opinions, which I do think are useful in this thread and which can benefit other members.

Why the surprise at sloppiness, what did you expect from an informal discussion on a hobby electronics forum? Maybe forum entry should be restricted to Astrophysics PHDs, at least then eveyone would be agreeing on the origin of the universe (according to whatever the fashionable theory is this year).

Well, there need to be boundaries in a physics forums in order for it to function as a physics forum. If you and others can't see that or if the other members and moderators have a consensus that we don't care about that, then fine, let's have a free for all discussion with no limits on the sources and references. But, if we are going to do that, let's call the forum the "physics speculations forum" so that we don't misrepresent what we are trying to do.

I respect your point about people's level of knowlege about general relativity, quantum field theory and cosmology being of value, but I'm not sure their guesses on the origin of the universe are going to be that much better than anyone's guesses. If you had a degree in statistical analysis your chance of guessing next week's lotto numbers is still about as good as any fools chance of guessing.

For all we KNOW, God made the universe out of his old ear wax in 6 days, and then threw in some doppler shift, thinking "Ha! That will keep those arrogant little fools arguing!"

All I can say about that is that I believe that this subject is an area of physics, and not an area of guessing. There is no way for us to see eye to eye on this because we are looking from two completely different points of view. If we accept your point of view, this subject should be banned from the physics forum altogether because it is not a real area of science. We ban over-unity discussions, why not this one, if you feel that way?

Granted, this subject is one of the most difficult and one that entertains many speculative ideas (but also clearly labels the speculations), but the area is scientific in that it uses real measurement data to guide us on which theories are reasonable and worthy of consideration as we go forward and try to develop better theories. I understand that you, and others, don't agree with that, but I feel that is presented misinformation to others that come here to learn, so I express my opinions to counter that.

 

... no limits on the sources and references.

Steve, I think we have to be reasonable about sources and reference. Like in a scientific paper, they should only be cited if they are relatively obscure and not substantiated in the text.

I really despise it when I am asked to provide a reference for a well known and documented item. For instance, in the case of this discussion, searching the internet for 'big bang' will provide someone with everything they need to investigate the accepted theories.

it just seems to me that I have been pushed for a reference on too many occasions where this is the case. However, I agree references are required if you are presenting a new hypotheses or going against the published and accepted norms. For the simple reason that that information may not be easily found. After all, this is a informal discussion forum and we want to make it fairly non-onerous for people to participate. Decorum should be maintained though, and outrageous claims need to be substantiated.

 

All of what is known about the beginnings of the universe is just speculation. Without the speculation nothing would be learned. Not one person comes into this or any world knowing anything.

You guys keep talking about 'red shift' when Edwin Hubble came up with it in the 1920's it was dismissed as nothing. It took until the 1970's for people to accept it. Only because nothing else made sense. So if you believed in it in the 1940 -50's you were a 'crazy'

Quantum physics and string theory came about because without them there was no way to make most of the other stuff work. It all comes down to what I said in another post in this thread,post #81.

Until you can actually "hold" it in your hand, we just don't know. No matter how smart you are. To say that only your theory is right is very arrogant. To say that your theory is the best that we can guess at now, is the only answer that can be true.

None of us on this forum are cosmologists or astrophysicists or even for the most part scientists, me especially. We are amateurs, well read hobbyists, as such just like the ones that do devote their life and make a living from it, we are in the long run - GUESSERS, like it or not. The only difference between us and them is that we don't get paid for it and they wouldn't even talk to us about it.

This last is not meant to start a flame war or to put anyone down, its just the real truth of the subject.

 

Steve, I think we have to be reasonable about sources and reference. Like in a scientific paper, they should only be cited if they are relatively obscure and not substantiated in the text.

I agree with your point, and this is exactly what I'm trying to say. However, although you and some others have been reasonable in what you provided, not all have been reasonable. What about the site that shortbus referenced? I'm not sure of his point in referencing it. But, why do we even need to look at this kind of an alternative viewpoint reference, unless he wants to make a useful point about the existence of fringe views, which he didn't do.

I look there and I see claims that the speed of gravity is many orders of magnitude greater than the speed of light and basically it tries to discredit GR with no reasonable scientific basis. Is this being reasonable about sources and references? Is this a place that we want our physics forum to point to and lend credence to? I don't think so. So, should I ignore it or say something about it. You guys tell me. I'm willing to shut up about such things if nobody else cares.

 

Although you and some others have been reasonable in what you provided, not all have been reasonable. What about the site that shortbus referenced? I'm not sure of his point in referencing it. But, why do we even need to look at this kind of an alternative viewpoint reference, unless he wants to make a useful point about the existence of fringe views, which he didn't do.

Even the views you subscribe to were thought of as "fringe" at one point in time. If no one looks at or tries to prove another point of view, is that still 'scientific'? Research a little on what you hold as the total answer. Find out when it finally became "accepted" and not "fringe".

Einstein's theories were "fringe" when first postulated. The 'round' Earth was "fringe". The Earth orbiting the Sun was once "fringe".

 

Even the views you subscribe to were thought of as "fringe" at one point in time. If no one looks at or tries to prove another point of view, is that still 'scientific'? Research a little on what you hold as the total answer. Find out when it finally became "accepted" and not "fringe".

Einstein's theories were "fringe" when first postulated. The 'round' Earth was "fringe". The Earth orbiting the Sun was once "fringe".

I agree with this, but you are missing my point. Physics forums are not the usual place to discuss fringe views that are rejected by the mainstream physics. The reason is that there is no other good dividing line to make that will separate the good from the bad.

Note that Einstein was able to publish his ideas and discuss them with physicists. Many thought he was off-base and in the fringe area, but it was clear that he was acting as a physicist, and using the scientific method. He developed a theory that tried to explain shortcomings in existing theory and then made predictions based on his new theory. If this forum were around in 1910, I wouldn't object to us talking about Einstein's ideas because they would have been worthy of discussion based on the fact that other physicists considered them worthy enough to publish and discuss at conferences.

There needs to be a standard that keeps the discussion within the bounds of science. Every other science forum has the standard that ideas must be in the bounds of references from established scientific journals. So, even though cold fusion might be nonsense, we can discuss it if it makes the journals. If faster than light neutrinos make it to the journals, then fine. It might be dead-end nonsense in the end, but it meets the standard.

The site you referenced fails to meet the standards of a science forum. It is stuff that is continuously rejected by the mainstream science because it fails to offer anything reasonable that can match current data. The example of the speed of gravity being a billion times faster than the speed of light should be a red flag for anyone. If that can be there, what standards are in place?

 

The problem with that is it comes close to censor ship. All we can do is point to the evidence, such as it is. If someone doesn't get it, then we tried.

Thing is, I like to link to references myself. You've probably noticed.