| |
| Does Big bang theory contradicts with the common logic? |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| basim |
 Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:14 pm Post subject: Does Big bang theory contradicts with the common logic? |
 |
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 119
Location: maldives
|
Befory the Universe there was a highly dense point which explode, to create everything in the universe.
But If it was before the universe, than there wont be any space there neither time. So How can we say that the point was dense?
When the density is a property of an object in space.
And in what did that point Exploded, when there was no space that time?
And how can we say it exploded when there was no time then?
_________________
God is one and only.
God knows the best. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| unoscooter |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 24 Feb 2008
Posts: 19
|
| in the begining the universe was not this dense point it was not here along with time. in the elleventh demention where the "membranes" are , two of them colided and created the time space continuom and all the matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Patalegrock |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Posts: 5
|
| unoscooter wrote: |
| in the begining the universe was not this dense point it was not here along with time. in the elleventh demention where the "membranes" are , two of them colided and created the time space continuom and all the matter. |
Sure!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pong |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 314
|
"Common logic", in my sorry experience, does not operate with and certainly won't assume the infinite. Something must have made us, there must have been a beginning - same old, same old.
This reasoning should be right up your alley Basim, you believe in God right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Arch2008 |
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 46
|
No, BBT does not contradict common logic. We know from several undeniable sources of evidence that the universe is expanding. If you had a movie of the expanding universe and you ran it backwards, then it would of course contract. Go back 13.7 billion years and everything collapses to an infinitesimal point. Density is mass per volume, so even a very small mass compressed into an infinitesimal point gives you infinite density. We know that the universe exists, and that it came into existence this way. We just don’t know how.
We don’t (yet) have scientific tools that can describe what happened before the Big Bang, or what exists beyond our universe. M-Theory says that colliding membranes of energy in higher dimensions “banged”, but this has yet to be proven in a testable manner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Scifor Refugee |
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 947
|
The big bang is very well-supported by all sorts of empirical evidence. When "common logic" tells you one thing and empirical evidence tells you something else, the evidence wins.
In any case, "common logic" is often wrong. Just look at how many people are "sure" that switching doors doesn't increase your odds of winning the Monty Hall problem, or that 0.999... is not the same as 1. And that doesn't even begin to go into areas like quantum physics or relativity, both of which are very well-tested by experiment and absolutely defy any notion of "common logic". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marnixR |
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 2141
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
humans are particularly bad at judging items that are not made to the human measure, i.e. we can't really develop a gut feel for very large and very small sizes, nor for very small or very large time spans
remember that common sense is developed through the accumulation of everyday experience, which is not a good basis to fully understand things like black holes and the first few seconds of the universe - science may help us visualise these things to some extent, but we'll never feel it in our bones, as it were
_________________
if you find this place too crowded or too confrontational, how about trying Philosophorum,
the amicable forum where small is beautiful and even the trolls are intelligent
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cosmo |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:29 am Post subject: Re: Does Big bang theory contradicts with the common logic? |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 355
|
| basim wrote: |
Befory the Universe there was a highly dense point which explode, to create everything in the universe.
But If it was before the universe, than there wont be any space there neither time. So How can we say that the point was dense?
When the density is a property of an object in space.
And in what did that point Exploded, when there was no space that time?
And how can we say it exploded when there was no time then? |
First of all, you have accepted the 'expansion of space'.
Hoyle et al made the same mistake.
My definition of space is that it is the 'nothing' between objects .
So you need a ruler to measure this nothing.
The common SI unit for this is the 'meter'.
So, IMO, the meter is not expanding and the 'nothing' it measures is not expanding.
So I replaced the EoS with the 'Expansion of the Light Waves' and the SSU.
Cosmo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Arch2008 |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:41 am Post subject: Say what... |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 46
|
First of all, Hoyle didn't accept the expanding universe theory. He was the theory's biggest critic, actually. So you're certainly wrong about that.
Second, the space between the stars isn't empty. It's less empty than the spaces we're used to, but it is far from being nothing. The Inter Stellar Medium (ISM) contains lots of radiation which creates virtual particles, not to mention an occasional real hydrogen atom and even molecules. The very fabric of the ISM is dark energy. Replace what you want, the universe is expanding.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:35 am Post subject: Re: Say what... |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1061
|
| Arch2008 wrote: |
First of all, Hoyle didn't accept the expanding universe theory. He was the theory's biggest critic, actually. So you're certainly wrong about that.
Second, the space between the stars isn't empty. It's less empty than the spaces we're used to, but it is far from being nothing. The Inter Stellar Medium (ISM) contains lots of radiation which creates virtual particles, not to mention an occasional real hydrogen atom and even molecules. The very fabric of the ISM is dark energy. Replace what you want, the universe is expanding. |
Actually, Fred Hoyle DID accept 'inflation', but due to a constant creation of matter. He felt empty space, probably from sub-atom particles, produced an atom of hydrogen, per "pint bottle" each billion years, of space. What he did not accept was the 'expansion' whether from an explosion or some reaction to BB, which in 1949 on BBC Radio, was the first to use that term..Big Bang.
If you understand, the difference between near by, observable light or energy waves and those received from longer distance, the possible reasons for ever increasing indication of quicker wave lengths (Blue), could be explained otherwise, than any movement, much less heading away....(discounting natural velocity)
One of my pet theories, would reverse that creation of matter and give the
job to stars in formation or fusion results, for creation of hydrogen and then to other elements. End result, a fairly constant amount of total mass available...No expansion required, or inflation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1061
|
| marnixR wrote: |
| humans are particularly bad at judging items that are not made to the human measure, i.e. we can't really develop a gut feel for very large and very small sizes, nor for very small or very large time spans |
I would disagree, in part. Nanotechnology, is a fast growing science, working with matter in NANO measurements. A 'Nano' is one billionth of a measurement. ie, a nano inch = 1 billionth of that inch. Light travels at one foot per nano second etc...As for large, there is nothing small about our known Universe or how far infinity is. It may be the acceptance of such ideas, but not the concept, IMO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1061
|
| Arch2008 wrote: |
No, BBT does not contradict common logic. We know from several undeniable sources of evidence that the universe is expanding. If you had a movie of the expanding universe and you ran it backwards, then it would of course contract. Go back 13.7 billion years and everything collapses to an infinitesimal point. Density is mass per volume, so even a very small mass compressed into an infinitesimal point gives you infinite density. We know that the universe exists, and that it came into existence this way. We just don’t know how.
We don’t (yet) have scientific tools that can describe what happened before the Big Bang, or what exists beyond our universe. M-Theory says that colliding membranes of energy in higher dimensions “banged”, but this has yet to be proven in a testable manner. |
If you cannot explain something that created something else, how does that fit 'logical'...? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Arch2008 |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:38 am Post subject: jackson33 |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 46
|
“Actually, Fred Hoyle DID accept 'inflation', but due to a constant creation of matter. He felt empty space, probably from sub-atom particles, produced an atom of hydrogen, per "pint bottle" each billion years, of space. What he did not accept was the 'expansion' whether from an explosion or some reaction to BB, which in 1949 on BBC Radio, was the first to use that term..Big Bang.”
Yeah, I know all that. However, I was addressing expansion not inflation, which is what the post was about.
“If you cannot explain something that created something else, how does that fit 'logical'...?”
Let’s see…we can explain 13.7 billion years of cosmic history, but we haven’t ‘logically’ found the answer for what happened in the trillion-trillion-trillionth second after the Big Bang yet. Hmmm. I see your point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Scifor Refugee |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 947
|
| jackson33 wrote: |
I would disagree, in part. Nanotechnology, is a fast growing science, working with matter in NANO measurements. A 'Nano' is one billionth of a measurement. ie, a nano inch = 1 billionth of that inch. Light travels at one foot per nano second etc...As for large, there is nothing small about our known Universe or how far infinity is. It may be the acceptance of such ideas, but not the concept, IMO. |
His point was that you can do the math, but you can't really understand how small it is on an intuitive level. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1061
|
Cosmic History is based on local history, our limitations and our perception of a beginning. Everything is then placed or made to fit a time line. The age of the our solar system, is 4.5 billion years, figured from ages of the Earth, the Moon and retrieved space dust or comets. Factually it was made from what was something else, some think the third generation, others a second (again to fit time line). What if was the 500th or ten millionth generation? We only KNOW, that matter was generated 4.5 bya.
Hoyle accepted the increasing size of the Universe, in attempting to maintain SSU or no beginning, devised his additional matter. That was an error to some, the true error falling to observational analysis. Actually 'nucleosynthisis' is used to explain matter formation after BB, formation of hydrogen/helium/lithium, after and solar actions for the remaining 'said' stable elements... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
