Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 160

Thread: Evolution of the Universe

  1. #1 Evolution of the Universe 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    When we contemplate the evolution of the universe from big bang to the present time one wonders at the different forms of our universe from the inception of time. Can any one come out roughly with the number of forms sprung from the same universe? At each point in time, we have discovered a new form being evolved. What are these forms and how significant they assume in their evolution of 13 billion and odd years?

    I wrote in my first blog ‘Modern Cosmology’ at http://www.rsridharan.blogspot.com/ that how do we combine all the different factions of the universe into a single format. Some of my friends in different science forums ridiculed at me although some others appreciated and even wondered at my blog. To those who are yet to discern my point in my first blog, here is the simple answer. When we go back from the present to the beginning of the universe, we can see that all different aspects of the present day Universe were once combined into a single point in time! This is what I meant. Isn’t that true and so simple?

    And so we begin our journey from the start of the time to the present day evolution. The order of evolution appears to be first the Big Bang and the CMB (cosmic microwave background), next the galaxies, supernovae, quasars, stars, elements, blackholes, cluster of galaxies, planets, moons and finally the living things. One can rearrange this order in any form and we still see all these in the universe have evolved accordingly. When we talk of galaxies, we see that it contains different structures, arms and a center point (blackhole). Next the stars have in them their different layers, different chemical elements numbering to roughly 118 in all, the planets, we can only see planets of our Sun and are still trying to discover few others in our neighborhood stars. Actually there can be millions of planets strewn over the entire universe that contains billions and billions of star systems! Now through our journey, we come to the blackholes which contains an event horizon that hides a central point called singularity where any amount of matter is annihilated with infinite gravitational energy. Of course all these are mind boggling evolutions beyond the grasp of any one.

    We now finally come to the evolution of planets. Everybody knows that planets have in them their different layers with their crusts on top and the moons circling outside them. The planets have evolved with water, some with mountains with their volcano’s and lava, continents, icecaps, atmospheres, trees, plants and above all the living creatures.

    When we talk of living creatures, we see that the universal evolution is at its best with millions of living forms evolved topping with human beings! And this is only known of the planet we inhabit. What of the millions of other star systems that might host a similar or more of life forms? Dizzily our Universe could be populated with millions of creatures, tribes, hitherto unknown superior life forms as its final evolutionary process? Or may be the universe is still in the process of evolving an ultimate and all powerful form? Never mind, let us return to our planet’s evolutionary creatures we know now.

    As one is aware, our human body has its own evolutionary forms. The anatomy of a human being includes, the skull, hair, skin, eyes, ears, nose, tongue, lips (I am talking of myriads of evolutionary forms within the human body), nails, bones, bone morrow, liver, intestine, kidney, heart, lungs, toes, fingers, knees, elbows (all not in order), veins, nerves, blood, flesh etc., and above all the all powerful brain. The evolution of brain is still a mystery to everyone. I have only outlined the different forms that are inside the human body. When one thinks of different type of forms evolved inside millions of other creatures and plants, one would really be awe struck and wonder at the miracle of the subtle evolution of the living things from the time of Big Bang.

    One has to be aware that this is only from one planet that contains so many life forms. What of the billions of stars that might host millions and millions of planets those again contain millions of living things in their entirely different formats? To conclude our brief saga, the Universe’s 13.7 billion years of evolutionary process has culminated in a final product which is the sophisticated and highly evolved human beings. Naturally we have a very significant role to play in this universe. Hence we can happily say that we are a special lot until the time we might see some other new form of life in the Universe.

    One wonders how subtle that new form of life would be in this long process of Universal Evolution.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    The universe gives the impression of going from the simplest to the most intricate starting with hydrogen gas and ending up with the higher forms of life. Is there something even far more intricate than us that can naturally evolve, something more than higher life forms? Or has it already done so elsewhere in the universe?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Evolution of the Universe 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    The universe gives the impression of going from the simplest to the most intricate starting with hydrogen gas and ending up with the higher forms of life. Is there something even far more intricate than us that can naturally evolve, something more than higher life forms? Or has it already done so elsewhere in the universe?
    Yes, you are right. Our technology is hardly enough to peep inside our solar system. May be right now we are under the observation of a more intricate life form from a far off place in the Universe?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    131
    "Universe’s 13.7 billion years of evolutionary process has culminated in a final product which is the sophisticated and highly evolved human beings"

    Not really. There is no cumulative evolution of matter or energy. Subatomic particles. energy etc. have the same physical properties regardless of where they are found. Thus the properties of mass and energy are 'universal'.

    The chemistry and physics of life is not different from that of non-life. It is an subjective subset. A carbon atom is a carbon atom...heat energy is heat energy...the same physical properties apply whether that carbon atom is in our solar system...13 billion light years away or in what we call a living organism.

    What you are calling evolutionary stages of the universe and its contents are just topical manifestations of the same stuff. The real 'stuff' is happening at a subatomic level. Humans are limited by physical perceptions and what we see...galaxis, planets, humans, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by raptordigits
    The chemistry and physics of life is not different from that of non-life.......
    The combination of chemistry and physics evolving into something called life is what makes all that difference from non-living things. In the 13.7 billion years of Universe's existence, the last billion year has seen the evolution of life. In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or "chemical evolution", is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. Since there are billions and billions of star systems and this chemical evolution can be rampant in the whole of the Universe with variant forms, our present epoch appears to be very specially evolved, with the creation of a self regulating living organisms that is improving itself all the time. That something which is called life do not come under subjective subset as you have pointed out. Though the physical properties have existed all the time, the property called life has sprung up only now. The arrow of time clearly indicates a spurt of change in the present day Universe with the formation of life forces. Hypothetically when we presume there are billions and billions of planets in the universe with trillions of life forms, clearly one can conjecture that the present phase of the universe is evolving into something entirely different from its 13 billions years of existence with non-living things!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Life is not 1 billion years. On Earth, it began closer to 4 billion years ago, which is a major fraction of the total 13.7 billion.

    It is likely that life could not come into existence till there were sufficient heavier elements inside planets. The earliest would have been 5 to 7 billion years ago, bearing in mind this limitation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Quote Originally Posted by raptordigits
    The chemistry and physics of life is not different from that of non-life.......
    The combination of chemistry and physics evolving into something called life is what makes all that difference from non-living things. Hypothetically when we presume there are billions and billions of planets in the universe with trillions of life forms, clearly one can conjecture that the present phase of the universe is evolving into something entirely different from its 13 billions years of existence with non-living things!
    Not at all. The universe is about matter and energy....not life. And no, matter and energy are not different or have different properties because they are 'life'.

    Humans are not some 'end product'. Nor is life. there have been stars that have come and gone billions of years before ours. We are not unique because 13 billion years has gone by. Stars like ours, and probaly intelligent life existed a few billions of years before our solar system existed. Some of the the atoms that make up your body come from supernova explosions billions of years ago... gamma rays would have destroyed any life on planets orbiting nearby stars. You are recycled atoms and one day the same atoms or their subatomic particles will be recycled again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Life is not 1 billion years. On Earth, it began closer to 4 billion years ago, which is a major fraction of the total 13.7 billion.

    It is likely that life could not come into existence till there were sufficient heavier elements inside planets. The earliest would have been 5 to 7 billion years ago, bearing in mind this limitation.
    What I have been meaning 'life' is a fully evolved human being which came into existence very recently. I have been talking of the recent development of the highly evolved human form not of the transition from earliest mutations into living things.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by raptordigits
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Quote Originally Posted by raptordigits
    The chemistry and physics of life is not different from that of non-life.......
    The combination of chemistry and physics evolving into something called life is what makes all that difference from non-living things. Hypothetically when we presume there are billions and billions of planets in the universe with trillions of life forms, clearly one can conjecture that the present phase of the universe is evolving into something entirely different from its 13 billions years of existence with non-living things!
    Not at all. The universe is about matter and energy....not life. And no, matter and energy are not different or have different properties because they are 'life'.......
    What I have been saying is the transition of inanimate matter possessing the capability of perception. If this were not possible, you and me would have remained mere atoms.

    This extraordinary quality which is called 'life' could have been possible only at the right epoch in the Universe's evolution and to our knowledge only our planet Earth has exhibited this phenomena.

    Intelligent life is seen evolved in our planet only recently. Our planets history is a solid example. A few billions of years before our solar system's existence or even in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang life might have existed has no standing since, life could evolve only at the appropriate moment, temperature and environment. A few billion years in the past or into the future, the question of life becomes uncertain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    Personally, I would have much rather appeared alot LATER in this planet's human infestation...

    Assuming we keep perfecting ourselves and the dolts don't take over...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Quote Originally Posted by raptordigits
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Quote Originally Posted by raptordigits
    The chemistry and physics of life is not different from that of non-life.......
    The combination of chemistry and physics evolving into something called life is what makes all that difference from non-living things. Hypothetically when we presume there are billions and billions of planets in the universe with trillions of life forms, clearly one can conjecture that the present phase of the universe is evolving into something entirely different from its 13 billions years of existence with non-living things!
    Not at all. The universe is about matter and energy....not life. And no, matter and energy are not different or have different properties because they are 'life'.......
    What I have been saying is the transition of inanimate matter possessing the capability of perception. If this were not possible, you and me would have remained mere atoms.

    This extraordinary quality which is called 'life' could have been possible only at the right epoch in the Universe's evolution and to our knowledge only our planet Earth has exhibited this phenomena.

    Intelligent life is seen evolved in our planet only recently. Our planets history is a solid example. A few billions of years before our solar system's existence or even in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang life might have existed has no standing since, life could evolve only at the appropriate moment, temperature and environment. A few billion years in the past or into the future, the question of life becomes uncertain.
    No, your knowledge of the history of the Universe is lacking. You are mistaking our solar system, life, humans, etc, as an end product. You are wrong.

    If I bake a cake and eat it, it existed. If I bake another cake....it is not unique to cooking...a cake existed before. So it is with our solar system. Planets have forned around planets billions of years ago...quintillions times quintillons of them. Some would have life....many of these planets are no longer around. Our own solar system around the Milky Way was not a new phenomenon in the Universe....we are not the first 'cake'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by raptordigits
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Quote Originally Posted by raptordigits
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Quote Originally Posted by raptordigits
    The chemistry and physics of life is not different from that of non-life.......
    The combination of chemistry and physics evolving into something called life is what makes all that difference from non-living things. Hypothetically when we presume there are billions and billions of planets in the universe with trillions of life forms, clearly one can conjecture that the present phase of the universe is evolving into something entirely different from its 13 billions years of existence with non-living things!
    Not at all. The universe is about matter and energy....not life. And no, matter and energy are not different or have different properties because they are 'life'.......
    What I have been saying is the transition of inanimate matter possessing the capability of perception. If this were not possible, you and me would have remained mere atoms.

    This extraordinary quality which is called 'life' could have been possible only at the right epoch in the Universe's evolution and to our knowledge only our planet Earth has exhibited this phenomena.

    Intelligent life is seen evolved in our planet only recently. Our planets history is a solid example. A few billions of years before our solar system's existence or even in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang life might have existed has no standing since, life could evolve only at the appropriate moment, temperature and environment. A few billion years in the past or into the future, the question of life becomes uncertain.
    No, your knowledge of the history of the Universe is lacking. You are mistaking our solar system, life, humans, etc, as an end product. You are wrong.

    If I bake a cake and eat it, it existed. If I bake another cake....it is not unique to cooking...a cake existed before. So it is with our solar system. Planets have forned around planets billions of years ago...quintillions times quintillons of them. Some would have life....many of these planets are no longer around. Our own solar system around the Milky Way was not a new phenomenon in the Universe....we are not the first 'cake'.
    You are mistaken. I am not telling our solar system is a new phenomenon, I am saying life is a phenomenon.

    Billions of years ago our Universe would have been much much more hotter........ your view may be faulty. We all do guesswork in the absence of reality. I don't say life never existed elsewhere in the universe, but only at the right moment of time. Neither can you disprove when I say life is a finesse in this otherwise mundane universe.

    I would like to eat a real cake.... not the one created in the ice casles!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Assuming under reasonable conditions life takes 4-5 billion years from planet formation, there could have been civilisations which died out a billion, even two billion years ago and we will never know anything of them.

    There is also the life like us thing since life might exist under other conditions which we cannot presently understand, so on planets hostile to us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Assuming under reasonable conditions life takes 4-5 billion years from planet formation, there could have been civilisations which died out a billion, even two billion years ago and we will never know anything of them.

    There is also the life like us thing since life might exist under other conditions which we cannot presently understand, so on planets hostile to us.
    There certainly can't be a 'certain' answer. However, there is a consensus that conditions for an earth-like planet around a sun-like star in a similar position in a Milky Way-like galaxy could have existed 6 to 7 billion years ago. Actually there would have been quintillions of such configurations. The time line of intelligent life arising would have been, as you state, 2 billion years ago.

    Today the number of stars is estimated at 10 to the 21st or

    1000000000000000000000 stars...if there is an earth-like planet around every millionth stars then that's:

    1000000000000000 earth-like planets....if life arises on even one of a thousand earth-like planets that's:

    1000000000000 earth-like planets with life....if life evolves into intelligent life on even one of a thousand of those planets that's

    1,000,000,000 or one billion planets with intelligent life. Unfortunately this number is so small on a Universe scale that the odds are slim that any 2 intelligent life forms in the universe would ever know of eachother unless there is a leap in technology that we are not yet aware of. Countless intelligent life forms have come and gone before us...countless exist now and more yet to come.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    You are mistaken. I am not telling our solar system is a new phenomenon, I am saying life is a phenomenon.
    And you seem to be saying that by life you mean 'advanced' human life. Why are you using such a strange definition of life? What is it that you think is advanced about humans?

    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Billions of years ago our Universe would have been much much more hotter........
    Really! Would you like to present the evidence for that? ....... your view may be faulty.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    You are mistaken. I am not telling our solar system is a new phenomenon, I am saying life is a phenomenon.
    And you seem to be saying that by life you mean 'advanced' human life. Why are you using such a strange definition of life? What is it that you think is advanced about humans?

    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Billions of years ago our Universe would have been much much more hotter........
    Really! Would you like to present the evidence for that? ....... your view may be faulty.
    You and I are different from mere matter. The very fact that you could ask such questions is what advanced about mere matter transformed into intellectual humans. Neither can you present evidence to disprove my claim - the subject we are debating has no concrete claims by either side - just speculate!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Neither can you present evidence to disprove my claim - the subject we are debating has no concrete claims by either side - just speculate!
    The onus is on you to prove your claim, since it runs counter to accepted theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Neither can you present evidence to disprove my claim - the subject we are debating has no concrete claims by either side - just speculate!
    The onus is on you to prove your claim, since it runs counter to accepted theory.
    I have already said - the subject we are debating has no concrete claims by either side - we all just speculate. This is not a topic like mathematics where precise proof is inevitable. What I intend to say in my blog is the birth of something unique out of this chaotic runaway universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Neither can you present evidence to disprove my claim - the subject we are debating has no concrete claims by either side - just speculate!
    The onus is on you to prove your claim, since it runs counter to accepted theory.
    I have already said - the subject we are debating has no concrete claims by either side - we all just speculate. This is not a topic like mathematics where precise proof is inevitable. What I intend to say in my blog is the birth of something unique out of this chaotic runaway universe.
    It's not all speculation. It's based on physics and what we have learned from Hubble and numerous oservations. I'm not sure if you post on this site to actually learn anything or just to show how uninformed you are.

    I'm curious as to your motive of proposing a silly half-baked concept and then sticking to it like crap on a shoe.

    I repeat. You are wrong. Learn by your mistakes and you won't come across as the neurotic bozo that you do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by raptordigits
    Quote Originally Posted by raptordigits
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Neither can you present evidence to disprove my claim - the subject we are debating has no concrete claims by either side - just speculate!
    The onus is on you to prove your claim, since it runs counter to accepted theory.
    I have already said - the subject we are debating has no concrete claims by either side - we all just speculate. This is not a topic like mathematics where precise proof is inevitable. What I intend to say in my blog is the birth of something unique out of this chaotic runaway universe.
    It's not all speculation. It's based on physics and what we have learned from Hubble and numerous oservations. I'm not sure if you post on this site to actually learn anything or just to show how uninformed you are.

    I'm curious as to your motive of proposing a silly half-baked concept and then sticking to it like crap on a shoe.

    I repeat. You are wrong. Learn by your mistakes and you won't come across as the neurotic bozo that you do.
    ........Countless intelligent life forms have come and gone before us...countless exist now and more yet to come.
    All you say is Could..... Would........ If........ and you are sure of countless intelligent forms have come and gone.....and more are yet to come.... ah ah ah. You are the super intelligent I have ever come across. NASA scientists are breaking their heads, SETI project is plunging into nowhere..... and you pretend as if you know everything. You first keep learning and don't build more fantasies....... and don't try to become 'Hubble' or 'Newton' through this science forum! You lack subtle thinking... First try to understand what others write. I don't wish to waste any more of my time with a bloke like you... Bye....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    I have already said - the subject we are debating has no concrete claims by either side - we all just speculate. .
    No we don't just speculate. There are concrete claims about the character of the universe and its susbequent evolution. These are supported by thousands of observations and screeds of mathematics. On the other hand you just seem to think that two billion years ago the universe was hotter and that's an end to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Is the claim that the universe's temperature used to be warmer than it's current temperature of 2.7K? If so, that's valid.


    Actual numbers available here: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBhistory.html





    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
    As the Universe expands, the photons of the CMB lose energy due to the redshift and the CMB becomes cooler. That means that the CMB temperature was higher in the past. When the Universe was only a few minutes old, the temperature was high enough to make the light elements by nuclear fusion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I am working on the basis that sridharanr is speaking not of the 'average' temperarture of the universe, but on the temperatures extant in planetary systems. If indeed he means the former, then that has little to do with the temperature in planetary systems and so is completely irrelevant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    I have already said - the subject we are debating has no concrete claims by either side - we all just speculate. .
    No we don't just speculate. There are concrete claims about the character of the universe and its susbequent evolution. These are supported by thousands of observations and screeds of mathematics. On the other hand you just seem to think that two billion years ago the universe was hotter and that's an end to it.
    I have been telling that a few billion years before the solar system came into existence and this is not two billion years as you construe. My point is not how many life forms could, would or be existing in the universe and this is the work of any robot once the data is fed. We live in a narrow range of time and we do not know whether any other time zone would be congenial for life forms. As of now there is no evidence of any life outside our planet. Only stupids cling on to breaking their heads computing without knowing our limitations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I am working on the basis that sridharanr is speaking not of the 'average' temperarture of the universe, but on the temperatures extant in planetary systems. If indeed he means the former, then that has little to do with the temperature in planetary systems and so is completely irrelevant.
    Thanks for clarifying. I tend to agree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    raptordigits. As you say, there could be a billion, even a trillion civilisations out there with planets being common and even the ingredients for life and water seemingly being common too.

    Most science fiction takes it for granted that there will be FTL travel but there is the horrible possibility that there cannot be and it could take centuries to travel around nearby star systems.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    The temperature of the earliest days of the universe, the CMB, is the same as it is now (away from stars).


    http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_fluct.html


    This is strange for a universe which has been expanding for well over 13 billion years. You would think it would get ever cooler, having cooled down so quickly under relatively small expansion from near infinite temperatures to almost absolute zero. I would have thought that the nearer you got to us, so the more time had passed, so the temperature of space would get ever colder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    The temperature of the earliest days of the universe, the CMB, is the same as it is now (away from stars).


    http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_fluct.html
    Your link does NOT support your claim, Cyberia. You may wish to review it again more closely. All it says is that the CMB in the present is relatively uniform regardless of where you look in the sky, not that it has been the same since the "earliest days of the universe."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    The temperature of the earliest days of the universe, the CMB, is the same as it is now (away from stars).


    http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_fluct.html
    Your link does NOT support your claim, Cyberia. You may wish to review it again more closely. All it says is that the CMB in the present is relatively uniform regardless of where you look in the sky, not that it has been the same since the "earliest days of the universe."

    You did not even have to read the whole article. Let me quote the first sentence:


    The cosmic microwave background is the afterglow radiation left over from the hot Big Bang.


    So when we look at the CMB, we see the universe as it was nearly 13.7 billion years ago. Would you care to review your answer and maybe even look at the article this time rather than guessing what it says?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    You did not even have to read the whole article. Let me quote the first sentence:

    The cosmic microwave background is the afterglow radiation left over from the hot Big Bang.
    This has zero relevance to my correction of your point. Let me remind you.

    You said the temperature of the CMB in the early universe is the same as it is now.
    You cited a link which does not support that claim. Your link only stated that there is relative uniformity of the CMB regardless of where in the sky you look... today.

    To this same point, the part you've bolded (and which I've quoted above) still does not support your original assertion. Lose the attitude.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    You did not even have to read the whole article. Let me quote the first sentence:

    The cosmic microwave background is the afterglow radiation left over from the hot Big Bang.
    This has zero relevance to my correction of your point. Let me remind you.

    You said the temperature of the CMB in the early universe was the same as it is now.
    You cited a link which does not support that claim.
    Your link only stated that there is relative uniformity of the CMB regardless of where in the sky you look... today.

    To this same point, the part you've bolded (and which I've quoted above) still does not support your original assertion that the temperature of the CMB in the early universe was the same as it is now. Lose the attitude, and accept that you made a mistake. It happens.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    The cosmic microwave background is the afterglow radiation left over from the hot Big Bang.
    The word "afterglow" already implies that there has been a development since the phenomenon itself existed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    So when we look at the CMB, we see the universe as it was nearly 13.7 billion years ago.
    Yes and no. If you are referring to the structuring, you are right. But the redshift changes the wavelength distribution of the radiation from its emission to its reception. The resulting "measured" temperature is therefore not the same like the temperature "at the time of emission".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Afterglow as in the only way this is going to lose heat in space is by radiation, which is what we detect.

    Someone looks at a star over 13 billion light years away, they do not say that this ball of burning hydrogen is burning at 10.K as that would be nonsense. They make allowances for distance so they can give the accurate reading. Why would they not do this on the CMB and give a ridiculously low reading for something that is very hot?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    To this same point, the part you've bolded (and which I've quoted above) still does not support your original assertion that the temperature of the CMB in the early universe was the same as it is now. Lose the attitude, and accept that you made a mistake. It happens.

    I can't make it any easier. The CMB is the oldest thing in the sky, just after the BB. We read it as the same temperature as space near us away from the heat of a star. Tell me how I am wrong instead of posturing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Cyberia

    The CMB is at very low temperature. However, that is today. As you pointed out, over 13 billion years ago, the radiation was very hot. However, over that 13.7 billion years, the radiation has been 'stretched' by the expansion of the universe, and the wavelength is now in the microwave range. This is a 'cold' radiation by definition. No matter that its origins were hot. Today it is a 'cold' wavelength due to the expansion of the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36 Re: Evolution of the Universe 
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    When we go back from the present to the beginning of the universe, we can see that all different aspects of the present day Universe were once combined into a single point in time! This is what I meant. Isn’t that true and so simple?
    No, unfortunately I think it wasn't that simple. The begin of time, and the begin of the universe are quite different events.

    By today, there was no true moment of an originating universe, whereas time was began to be measured with the death of Jesus Christ.

    That's quite different.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37 Re: Evolution of the Universe 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    No, unfortunately I think it wasn't that simple. The begin of time, and the begin of the universe are quite different events.
    Not according to most current cosmological thinking.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    By today, there was no true moment of an originating universe, whereas time was began to be measured with the death of Jesus Christ.
    So are you seriously claiming that before the death of Christ that humanity had no way of recording the passage of time. That's not even silly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38 Re: Evolution of the Universe 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    When we go back from the present to the beginning of the universe, we can see that all different aspects of the present day Universe were once combined into a single point in time! This is what I meant. Isn’t that true and so simple?
    No, unfortunately I think it wasn't that simple. The begin of time, and the begin of the universe are quite different events.

    By today, there was no true moment of an originating universe, whereas time was began to be measured with the death of Jesus Christ.

    That's quite different.

    Steve
    The sense of time here is beginning of the universe, just before BB - local time doesn't apply here, since solar system was non-existent at that moment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Ophiolite, I'm a little astonished about your reply, to say the least. Are you saying human mankind was 2009 years, 10 month, and 27 days old, only?

    sridharanr, how are you? I'm Steve. I'm sorry I don't think time sensing, or all the time zones combined, or any imagination of time itself was of an help to that matter. I did want to underline the distance of the proposed scientific, I think unlikely, event of the origination of the universe.

    When you would try to lay out a path to the (said ) BB, you had to know all about the galaxy first. I'm expressing myself a little unusual I know, but please ask in case you feel you have to.

    On this path, flying by the galaxys black hole would leave us with so much to mull over that there was being a clear end to what we, in terns of everything about the universe, could imagine. There already, I mean. At the black hole. Anyway, we couldn't reach this event back in time anyhow. No way.

    However, you can not simply scale back to the said origin of the universe by projecting your imagination of time trying to put your own lifetime in prospective. I mean, what else do you have got, do I have got?

    For sciences sake, the begin of time and the (said ) begin o the universe was not to equal.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    Ophiolite, I'm a little astonished about your reply, to say the least. Are you saying human mankind was 2009 years, 10 month, and 27 days old, only?
    No. That is what you said. Specifically, " whereas time was began to be measured with the death of Jesus Christ."
    You say there was no measurement of time before the death of Christ. This is nonsense. If you meant something else, you didn't say it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Ophiolite, however, do you agree on todays date? Or will you doubt it? Silly question I know.

    I don't think you could interpret my postings the way you did, actually. However, you have left sufficient room for me to do so, so to speak. Fair enough.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    160
    The current date that we use comes from the Gregorian calendar, which was created in 1582. They started the calendar (year 1) at the birth of Jesus. This however does not say time did not exist before Jesus, or that we didn't keep track of time before Jesus, we simply changed our dating method. The Egyptians sure didn't say "we live in 3000 B.C.E.", but we say they did because our calender uses Jesus' supposed birth as the start date for the common era (CE).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar

    http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars...christian.html

    Calenders measuring time before Jesus was born, let alone died.

    http://www.kingtutshop.com/freeinfo/...n-Calendar.htm
    Egyptian calenders, again well before Jesus supposedly was born/died.

    However you may have meant your post, what came across was that you think that the concept of time and people measuring it, didn't exist until after Jesus supposedly died, which is clearly not true.
    "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you" - Friedrich Nietzsche

    Semper Paratus
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43 Re: Evolution of the Universe 
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Sorry, I do think I was misunderstood.

    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    When we go back from the present to the beginning of the universe, we can see that all different aspects of the present day Universe were once combined into a single point in time! This is what I meant. Isn’t that true and so simple?
    I think I don't understand how you do mean it. You know it seems essential to me. Where do you mean this single point, which you mentioned in the quotation, was.

    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    The sense of time here is beginning of the universe, just before BB - local time doesn't apply here, since solar system was non-existent at that moment.
    Do you put time before BB? I don't get it. Some how exactly this misconception of the follow up was the crack in BB theory. As might be true else- or everywhere. I would feel dizzy, if we were moving in a circle too fast, you know.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44 Re: Evolution of the Universe 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    Sorry, I do think I was misunderstood.

    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    When we go back from the present to the beginning of the universe, we can see that all different aspects of the present day Universe were once combined into a single point in time! This is what I meant. Isn’t that true and so simple?
    I think I don't understand how you do mean it. You know it seems essential to me. Where do you mean this single point, which you mentioned in the quotation, was.

    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    The sense of time here is beginning of the universe, just before BB - local time doesn't apply here, since solar system was non-existent at that moment.
    Do you put time before BB? I don't get it. Some how exactly this misconception of the follow up was the crack in BB theory. As might be true else- or everywhere. I would feel dizzy, if we were moving in a circle too fast, you know.

    Steve
    Hello steve, let me refresh my memory if I am right -
    the Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation. As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago), and continues to expand to this day.
    Will this clarify your doubt ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    Ophiolite, however, do you agree on todays date? Or will you doubt it? Silly question I know.
    I agree that today's date is considered by much of the world to be sometime in October 2009 A.D. Such a definition is wholly artificial and has only a passing relationship to real time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    I don't think you could interpret my postings the way you did, actually. However, you have left sufficient room for me to do so, so to speak. Fair enough.
    Steve, I notice your location is Germany. This may mean you are German and therefore writing in a foreign language. However your sentence structure does not read like that of a native German.
    If English is your native language you must surely be aware that your written style is confusing, ill structured and at times incomprehensible. If no one has pointed this out to you before I apologise for being the first. I mention it because at times I suspect you are saying something interesting that would be worth discussing, but have little idea what that something is because of the character of your prose.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    If no one has pointed this out to you before I apologise for being the first.
    You are not the first.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Thank you Kalster. I now can save up time on a renewed essay on the issue.

    The other way round was larded with inconsistencies ean mass too. When you think of the begin of time to begin with the begin of the universe, which I think was rather silly seen from where we are being today, how can you find the begin of the universe in a point of time? My dear gentlemen, if this was what you want to say, this was non scientific the uttermost. Please allow me to say this.

    Time and the all the events observed had non overlap. They were running parallel. That's even worse than Prussian warfare.

    Just like, I wasn't born, and since this was quite fun, I'm a blind man? As all the other human beings? No. No... way.

    Others yet failed to unify their theories, since they where missing a basic understanding of their observations, at least. And so will you.

    However you measure time, the begin of time was not to equal with the begin of the universe, if there was one. I'm glad to say, fortunately it was not being that simple.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    We all know that time and space cannot be explained independently. When you modify space, you also affect the time, and vice versa. So, how can you say that this does not apply for the beginning of the universe? This event is commonly accepted to be the birth of space, because it does not make any sense to speak about space without a universe. So, no universe => no space => no time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    The other way round was larded with inconsistencies ean mass too. When you think of the begin of time to begin with the begin of the universe, which I think was rather silly seen from where we are being today, how can you find the begin of the universe in a point of time? My dear gentlemen, if this was what you want to say, this was non scientific the uttermost. Please allow me to say this.
    I was going to post a detailed rebuttal, but just saying nonsense and please refer to Dishmaster's post is probably a better solution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    The other way round was larded with inconsistencies ean mass too. When you think of the begin of time to begin with the begin of the universe, which I think was rather silly seen from where we are being today, how can you find the begin of the universe in a point of time? My dear gentlemen, if this was what you want to say, this was non scientific the uttermost. Please allow me to say this.

    Time and the all the events observed had non overlap. They were running parallel. That's even worse than Prussian warfare.

    Just like, I wasn't born, and since this was quite fun, I'm a blind man? As all the other human beings? No. No... way.

    Others yet failed to unify their theories, since they where missing a basic understanding of their observations, at least. And so will you.

    However you measure time, the begin of time was not to equal with the begin of the universe, if there was one. I'm glad to say, fortunately it was not being that simple.

    Steve
    Steve, this is the latest news:
    Astronomers using the National Science Foundation's Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescope have gained tantalizing insights into the nature of the most distant object ever observed in the Universe -- a gigantic stellar explosion known as a Gamma Ray Burst (GRB).
    The explosion was detected on April 23 by NASA's Swift satellite, and scientists soon realized that it was more than 13 billion light-years from Earth. It represents an event that occurred 630 million years after the Big Bang, when the Universe was only four percent of its current age of 13.7 billion years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Hi, I'm sorry, I had the computer of since last two days. I need to rest one out of seven days of it, but didn't do so for the last 14 days. It's being too exiting. Dishmaster, you wrote rubbish and I hope you know.

    I think we run in this kind of conversations due to latest theories flying around. But, I thought about, well, the last two days. The main cause why I was kinda going up the barricades about to equal the begin of the universe begin of time, that I do still think was false, was, the necessity to organize computer programing on time, which was rarely done today, though multitasking (programming ) was becoming more relevant these days. Time was not only good to protocol events, but to organize them in the forefront. That's done seldomly by now, not to say, not at all.

    Such discussions, set of by a false propagation not only of time was leading away from using time where it can be done, and still further to support these false theories.

    Dishmaster, when you will say:

    We all know that time and space cannot be explained independently.

    you need to refer to earth time in some way. We know what earth time was 'defined' by. Other wise it's pure nonsense. This way, some small traces of truth would have been preserved the least.

    I'm inclined to say, if we would take the said space-time relation into perspective, the computer couldn't work.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    I think a major problem is that it is quite difficult to understand what you are trying to say. Maybe there is just some misunderstanding between the thing you want to say and the things we understand. But I cannot see the relation between a computing time and the origin of time in the universe.

    So, if you are still saying that time was not introduced during the birth of the universe, then my criticism still holds. It just cannot be.

    If you are more confident with writing in German, you can send me a PM, and I will try to figure out the possible discrepancies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    No I won't. Please forgive me, but this efford wouldn't pay off, never, I'm sure. But, anyway, I thought using the day time in actual computer programming would be a huge leap forward to especially make multitasking a pleasure.

    Just like if .. then .. else etc., bound to the actual day time or the time events happend -- to be recorded, or the time when they take on. Or some timely distances between not only events should be another very favorable way to program.

    Are you familiar with the issue now? You should be.

    Steve

    PS. I edited my previous post, Could be you'd like to go over it again?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Cyberia

    The CMB is at very low temperature. However, that is today. As you pointed out, over 13 billion years ago, the radiation was very hot. However, over that 13.7 billion years, the radiation has been 'stretched' by the expansion of the universe, and the wavelength is now in the microwave range. This is a 'cold' radiation by definition. No matter that its origins were hot. Today it is a 'cold' wavelength due to the expansion of the universe.

    If we look at something at the edge of the universe, we do not say a star is at 10.K . We make allowances and say the star is at 10,000.K . So why does no one use the same allowances on the CMB and give a reading of what it originally was, about 3,000.C rather than saying what the temperature is now?

    And then there is:

    The expression “the temperature of space” is the title of chapter 13 of Sir Arthur Eddington’s famous 1926 work, Eddington calculated the minimum temperature any body in space would cool to, given that it is immersed in the radiation of distant starlight. With no adjustable parameters, he obtained 3°K (later refined to 2.8°K (1933)), essentially the same as the observed, so-called “background”, temperature.

    Give the man a cigar!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Ah, there is the inevitable Cyberia again hijacking threads for pursuing his agenda.

    There are a couple of reasons for attributing the present temperature to the background radiation.
    • You have to distinguish between the source and the radiation itself. The source of the background radiation was the early universe. And we clearly say that at that time it had a certain temperature. But the radiation that we measure now corresponds to a blackbody radiation of a temperature of 2.75 K. There is nothing wrong with it. The same is true for redshifted objects. We say that a star - if you like - as the source has/had a certain temperature or spectral type. Yet, the radiation that we measure is redshifted by so much, i.e. the measured temperature is shifted as well.
    • The background radiation was discovered by spectroscopy and radio technology. The spectroscopy of the matter excited by the background radiation has the measured temperature, because the photons heating it only have so much energy. And in radio astronomy, the typical unit used there is temperature.

    So, there is no need to construct contradictions where there aren't any.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Ah, there is the inevitable Cyberia again hijacking threads for pursuing his agenda.

    There are a couple of reasons for attributing the present temperature to the background radiation.
    • You have to distinguish between the source and the radiation itself. The source of the background radiation was the early universe. And we clearly say that at that time it had a certain temperature. But the radiation that we measure now corresponds to a blackbody radiation of a temperature of 2.75 K. There is nothing wrong with it. The same is true for redshifted objects. We say that a star - if you like - as the source has/had a certain temperature or spectral type. Yet, the radiation that we measure is redshifted by so much, i.e. the measured temperature is shifted as well.
    • The background radiation was discovered by spectroscopy and radio technology. The spectroscopy of the matter excited by the background radiation has the measured temperature, because the photons heating it only have so much energy. And in radio astronomy, the typical unit used there is temperature.

    So, there is no need to construct contradictions where there aren't any.
    This model was doubted by the time being. I know you know, but wanted to point it out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Ah, there is the inevitable Cyberia again hijacking threads for pursuing his agenda.

    There are a couple of reasons for attributing the present temperature to the background radiation.
    • You have to distinguish between the source and the radiation itself. The source of the background radiation was the early universe. And we clearly say that at that time it had a certain temperature. But the radiation that we measure now corresponds to a blackbody radiation of a temperature of 2.75 K. There is nothing wrong with it. The same is true for redshifted objects. We say that a star - if you like - as the source has/had a certain temperature or spectral type. Yet, the radiation that we measure is redshifted by so much, i.e. the measured temperature is shifted as well.
    • The background radiation was discovered by spectroscopy and radio technology. The spectroscopy of the matter excited by the background radiation has the measured temperature, because the photons heating it only have so much energy. And in radio astronomy, the typical unit used there is temperature.

    So, there is no need to construct contradictions where there aren't any.
    This model was doubted by the time being. I know you know, but wanted to point it out.
    Again, I don't understand what you are saying. What model? What has time to do with it? Please explain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Dishmaster, 'by the time being' was an English phrase meaning as much as 'now' or 'recently'.

    I'm sorry, I should have expressed myself in still more humble ways, so that you could have had the chance to follow our correspondence.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    Dishmaster, 'by the time being' was an English phrase meaning as much as 'now' or 'recently'.

    I'm sorry, I should have expressed myself in still more humble ways, so that you could have had the chance to follow our correspondence.

    Steve
    Ah, the expression is "for the time being". Still, I can't see your argument. What model is doubted?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    Could someone please ring for an ambulance or the cops or something?

    http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?...ewtopic&t=1539
    Oh no. Do you really want to go back there?

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/NASA-...ERY-18590t.php

    I thought, we finished this discussion already a while ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    Could someone please ring for an ambulance or the cops or something?

    http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?...ewtopic&t=1539
    Oh no. Do you really want to go back there?

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/NASA-...ERY-18590t.php

    I thought, we finished this discussion already a while ago.
    Well I didn't know. You don't seem having any experience on anything. Welcome.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    One of the senior scientist of India wrote:
    "I was happy & thrilled to go thru this piece from r sridharan, esp . after hearing that he didnot study science, sanskrit, etc.[actually the VEDIC LITERATURE esp. tthe UPANISHADs, contain plenty on the COSMOS. For eg. Man has five PRANAS - FIVE NANOTUBES(?)- circulating the five 'types of air - prana, apana, vyana, udana, samana -whose eqilibriuum keeps u healthy. One or two of these malfunctioning can one or more diseases tending towards srerious handicaps. Three or more of the five misbehave means coma leading to death All the five rebel simultanously means death in a few minutes .
    Similarly, body has two layers of skin[twak & charma- dermis&epidermis], flesh, blood inner flesh, bones, -all in dfferent types :mamsa-rudhira-medha-majjha-snayava- asthi - all these have been very systematically classified , named, & their functions demarked .Similarly, the source of the contentment, strength, fame, lusture ,etc. of the Universe also have been documented ! I'll give more later"

    http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/....html#comments
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Freshman Holbenilord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    27
    I take it you're hindu then.
    http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/index/

    Is the new address for speculative evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    sridharanr,

    well, I love these scientists for their support. Only thing I refuse to imagine was that, as you wrote, all different aspects of the present day Universe were once combined into a single point in time!.

    One thing was that we, seen from a scientific point of view, need to differ between are universe and time, and/or the beginning of both. Specifically while thinking about the 'Evolution of the Universe'. Interestingly your headline for the thread does not read the Evolution of the Universe and Time, but the Evolution of the Universe. I'm therefore even more astonished of the point you make.

    The other thing but was, I feel, that if we would see it this way, in this context, we had to take the big bang theory as for granted. This was what I oppose strongly, in this regard.

    Since, you were saying that time not only was as old as the actual universe, but still had to be older than the universe itself, if read and understood exactly. This comprehension was even worse, since time, in no way, was older than the universe.

    Everything came out of nowhere or out of time? With no initial source, no reason to research, no cause for crafts, no reason to live, and so forth?

    Are you going to provide a new interpretation of the BB theory? Was this your goal?

    Also, this view on issues definitely was not supported by non data provided by the world I do live in. Honestly, it could be something else living in India. I never have been to this regions.

    There always but was the chance left to say 'I still don't know.' or something, which, at times, was of help rather.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Holbenilord
    I take it you're hindu then.
    Hello Holbenilord,
    You have guessed right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    sridharanr,

    well, I love these scientists for their support. Only thing I refuse to imagine was that, as you wrote, all different aspects of the present day Universe were once combined into a single point in time!.

    One thing was that we, seen from a scientific point of view, need to differ between are universe and time, and/or the beginning of both. Specifically while thinking about the 'Evolution of the Universe'. Interestingly your headline for the thread does not read the Evolution of the Universe and Time, but the Evolution of the Universe. I'm therefore even more astonished of the point you make.

    The other thing but was, I feel, that if we would see it this way, in this context, we had to take the big bang theory as for granted. This was what I oppose strongly, in this regard.

    Since, you were saying that time not only was as old as the actual universe, but still had to be older than the universe itself, if read and understood exactly. This comprehension was even worse, since time, in no way, was older than the universe.


    Everything came out of nowhere or out of time? With no initial source, no reason to research, no cause for crafts, no reason to live, and so forth?

    Are you going to provide a new interpretation of the BB theory? Was this your goal?

    Also, this view on issues definitely was not supported by non data provided by the world I do live in. Honestly, it could be something else living in India. I never have been to this regions.

    There always but was the chance left to say 'I still don't know.' or something, which, at times, was of help rather.

    Steve
    Hello Steve,

    My post is confined to BB. If you accept that there was a past, and we live in the present, then at some finite point the time must have begun. If you accept the age of the Universe to be 13.7 billion years, then you have to agree that at some finite point in time the Universe must have begun.

    If you don't agree to BB, then you have to come out with some other theory that has gained equal or more popularity than the BB. I would rather like to hear the version of this from you.

    I don't think all the scientists of the World would waste their time building a thing called LHC with billions of dollars if they would doubt BB.

    Though I have limited knowledge in science, I could clearly understand what Dishmaster replied to your threads - may be you could convince us with your version of the Universe. Please do so.

    r sridharan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    sridharanr,

    It's important to note that the BB is just a model. There are, however, different ideas accepted by various scientists and cosmologists. While none who are credible would discount the evidence for inflation, many are questioning the assumption that it all started as a singularity. Much work is done on concepts of loop quantum gravity, for instance. The challenge is that our current models and maths are limited, and it's the equations in use which suggest a singularity. However, those equations break down at those scales, so it's not really appropriate for us to say that the universe actually did exist as a singularity back then (seems much more likely that this is just where our math stops adequately representing nature).

    More here: http://www.aei.mpg.de/einsteinOnline...ogy/index.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    sridharanr, you replied so kind and diplomatically. You made my day. I'm looking forward now to travel to India some day in the nearer future.

    Well, at first I was trying to have a thought about BB somehow, as well. Long ago I mean.

    But then I figured, how can I have a thought on something which I can not imagine as a whole, to compare it to something else? That's my point about the 'matter universe', basically.

    Everything else I do know of was to compare to something when knowing for sure the full extent of the entity, firstly. We don't have these data for the universe. But what we do, instead, we lose ourselves in thinking of time instead to keep sticking to expressions of a distance this structure must have.

    Do you see what I'm trying to say? I think we attempt to judge something that we don't have the full amount of any belonging data about, and that we never will have, as for my perspective.

    But, if I thought a little further, that's the good thing about it. Since, we are still curious and will keep to travel to space, which we ought to do anyway.

    I was still able to get further by the idea of the universe being surrounded by an still larger structure. There must be something that anything within the universe was from. There are being particles in the universe that have some volume that are spacial, which do take in some room, one or the other way. And this voluminous structures, as for everything we know so far, were not coming out of nowhere.

    Therefore, even if BB theory was rightly supposed to be the origin of the universe, the birth of the universe had to be set off by some components.

    In the sense I do understand the theory, it will not be the origin of everything. Even if it should be telling about the origin of the universe.

    And that's exactly the point, I think, why the particle accelerator wasn't working. How could men accelerate particles that are not now being existent as BB, genuinely, tells?

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    But then I figured, how can I have a thought on something which I can not imagine as a whole, to compare it to something else? That's my point about the 'matter universe', basically.

    Everything else I do know of was to compare to something when knowing for sure the full extent of the entity, firstly. We don't have these data for the universe. But what we do, instead, we lose ourselves in thinking of time instead to keep sticking to expressions of a distance this structure must have.
    What is your argument? Are you saying, we cannot explain anything unless we have something to compare it to? If this were true, then we could just trash science altogether and go home. In this way, we would never be or have been able to discover anything new.

    Furthermore, distances are very difficult to determine is astronomy. But what we know is that we detect light originated from the CMB. So, the distance is the time this light needed to reach us combined with the speed of light. So, in this sense, time is distance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    I was still able to get further by the idea of the universe being surrounded by an still larger structure. There must be something that anything within the universe was from.
    And what is this even bigger structure surrounded by? This is the same argument like the ancient myth that the flat earth was carried by an infinitive amount of elephants standing on each other.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    There are being particles in the universe that have some volume that are spacial, which do take in some room, one or the other way. And this voluminous structures, as for everything we know so far, were not coming out of nowhere.
    They are built by photons, i.e. energy. Look up: pair production
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    Therefore, even if BB theory was rightly supposed to be the origin of the universe, the birth of the universe had to be set off by some components.
    This is only true, if the subatomic physics were deterministic, i.e. cause and effect have a meaning there. But from all that we know, this not the case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    Do you see what I'm trying to say? I think we attempt to judge something that we don't have the full amount of any belonging data about, and that we never will have, as for my perspective........

    ........and that's exactly the point, I think, why the particle accelerator wasn't working. How could men accelerate particles that are not now being existent as BB, genuinely, tells?

    Steve
    Steve, you are most welcome to India!

    What I presume from your reply is that the Big Bang fails scientifically because it seeks to derive the present from a hypothetical past.

    However, I maintain that theories are never discarded unless a better one exists.

    In 1968 and 1970, Roger Penrose along with other scientists published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space. According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy.

    Most of us are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.

    Galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. Called Hubble's Law this observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.

    If the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.

    Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

    With the above observations we can not say that the standard Big Bang theory is the only model consistent with these evidences. It's just happens to be the most popular one.

    r sridharan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    sridharanr. A few minor points.

    Galaxies do not appear to be moving away from us. They move over such long time scales that we will never see it happen. One interpretation of their redshifts is that they are moving away from us.

    Back in 1926, Sir Arthur Eddington calculated the minimum temperature any body in space would cool to, given that it is immersed in the radiation of distant starlight was 3.K . In 1933 he refined that figure to 2.8.K .

    Any way the universe starts would be from the bottom up, so the very lightest elements first. Since the observable universe was full of stars which would have been made by hydrogen and helium, you would not have to be Einstein to work out that those two elements must have been very abundant in the early universe.

    One minor point. One of the oldest stars in the universe is in "our back yard". HE 1523-0901 which is 13.2 billion years old is just 7,500 light years away.

    The big bang is it as far as most astronomers are concerned. They refuse to even consider any other idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Not quite sure what the age of HE 1523-0901 has to do with anything. This star is the oldest in our galaxy, as far as we know, but some star had to be the oldest. It is a red giant, metal poor, and believed to be a population 2 star formed by gathering the remnants of some population 1 stars. I am not sure this has anything to do with the Big Bang discussion.

    It seems to me to be a bit pointless discussing what might have happened 'before' the Big Bang. This is something we cannot know. All the data available just leads to the Big Bang. Until there is relevent data, speculating about 'before' is pointless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Not quite sure what the age of HE 1523-0901 has to do with anything. This star is the oldest in our galaxy, as far as we know, but some star had to be the oldest. It is a red giant, metal poor, and believed to be a population 2 star formed by gathering the remnants of some population 1 stars. I am not sure this has anything to do with the Big Bang discussion.
    That would be a great trick if you could manage it since Population II stars are older than Population I stars. Has this particular star figured out the means to time travel?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Whoops. Sorry. Slip of the keyboard. I meant collected from the detritus of population 3 stars.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    That's more like it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Galaxies do not appear to be moving away from us. They move over such long time scales that we will never see it happen. One interpretation of their redshifts is that they are moving away from us.
    Redshift doesn't just mean that the light appears redder. Also the spectral lines of stars and nebulae are shifted to the red part of the spectrum (see image below). Unless you can present a viable scientific process that can shift spectral lines (i.e. the energy levels of atoms and the transitions between them) those shifts can only interpreted as a radial movement away from us. This is not related to the background radiation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    What is your argument? Are you saying, we cannot explain anything unless we have something to compare it to? If this were true, then we could just trash science altogether and go home. In this way, we would never be or have been able to discover anything new.

    Furthermore, distances are very difficult to determine is astronomy. But what we know is that we detect light originated from the CMB. So, the distance is the time this light needed to reach us combined with the speed of light. So, in this sense, time is distance.
    No Dishmaster. Long before you could explain something, you had to understand yourself; by thinking about the matter. Then, you hadn't got to explain, since you knew for sure.

    Thinking, I think, was being a process of comparison. That's a very basic description of the complexity of the process, I know, but, it surely was like it.

    To be in the position to compare some object with an other object, you had to know both objects in their wholeness. Let's say you don't see the first object as a whole, since it was partly covered by any other, third, object, you wouldn't even know the first object at all.

    Time was distance? No, time was time. There was no sense, if time was something, but not time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    And what is this even bigger structure surrounded by? This is the same argument like the ancient myth that the flat earth was carried by an infinitive amount of elephants standing on each other.
    Ok then don't let us focus on an other larger structure the universe was surrounded by, I think.

    Initially I meant, mass can not be born out of nothing, but that's what the BB theory suggests. I oppose BB therefore, and don't want to be right by all means about the idea of an other structure surrounding the actual universe.

    But an other surrounding structure could be taken as a source for the masses/matters/energies within the actual universe.

    And, I think it was not about the same myth. Since, I didn't neglect any form of motion as was the fact for the sample you cited. Basically I'm seeking for a comprehensible source for the universes masses/matters/energies, that I think can not be born out of nothing, to say that again.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    They are built by photons, i.e. energy. Look up: pair production
    I think I pointed to energy <--> mass correlation, adequately. Thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    This is only true, if the subatomic physics were deterministic, i.e. cause and effect have a meaning there. But from all that we know, this not the case.
    I can't follow you here. Haven't anatomist utilized this principle? Don't we have the deterministic prove lying in atomistic?


    sridharanr, well, basically I don't doubt anything about BB theory. I would agree on the universe has a beginning as well. Btw., it wouldn't be too bad if there was an end to it too. What I argue*was the idea the universe had some 'out of nothing' source. Like matter was born out of one single point, but*a comprehensible source of that matter was forbidden to be known. That's pretty much*what BB says. All springs up out of one point.
    *
    I'm trying to see it differently now. My*thoughts of an other structure, which would souround*the universe, don't necessarily contradict with BB, I would say. Which would*mean, absolutely, the entire universe genuinely*could stem out of a single point, so to say.*
    *
    However, then*this point had to have*some comprehensible source somewhere,*I think. Something like an invisible connection to some place that would allow this point to be*fed with matter; or so.
    *
    Only that's pretty much a*silly*thinking, right?. Although,*we don't know by now. Perhaps we could get to a common point one day saying that the universe, originating on BB, would be*something to*happen*that was not to conceive nowhere else in nature nor in culture, which, to further debate the issue, to me was essential, however.
    *
    And, you will agree on that such a theory leaves a lot of*room for everyone to speculatate, too. Since, witnessing the event of the universe being born*won't be*a chance anyone of us ever would have.

    Sometimes it's better to utter any reasonable idea to come to an end on it, than to do nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Steve

    You do not believe that, in the Big Bang, matter came from nothing. You may well be correct. Or you may be wrong. No-one knows.

    In point of fact, no-one understands the origin of the Big Bang. No scientist would ever claim to. But that is not what science is based on. Science is based on empirical evidence. And the empirical evidence shows clearly that there was a Big Bang, and that was the origin of the universe.

    The fact that no-one fully understands it is irrelevent. It happened.

    There are hypotheses about the origin of the Big Bang, and some of these hypotheses suggest it came from other universes. Perhaps. Until it is possible to come up with a testable prediction based on these hypotheses, we will not know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Redshift doesn't just mean that the light appears redder. Also the spectral lines of stars and nebulae are shifted to the red part of the spectrum (see image below). Unless you can present a viable scientific process that can shift spectral lines (i.e. the energy levels of atoms and the transitions between them) those shifts can only interpreted as a radial movement away from us. This is not related to the background radiation.

    About a decade ago, someone announced that they had found something (a quasar?) receding from us faster than light speed. As I read it, I guessed that the guy had measured gravitational redshift too, so giving him a higher reading than possible from speed alone. That turned out to be the case as the two redshifts are indistinguishable.

    As I have pointed out elsewhere, I believe in a universe where gravity in space is endemic and that photons are redshifted just by travelling through a sea of gravity from a zillion points in the universe, so it is still a measure of distance but not (generally) of recession.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Steve

    You do not believe that, in the Big Bang, matter came from nothing. You may well be correct. Or you may be wrong. No-one knows.

    In point of fact, no-one understands the origin of the Big Bang. No scientist would ever claim to. But that is not what science is based on. Science is based on empirical evidence. And the empirical evidence shows clearly that there was a Big Bang, and that was the origin of the universe.

    The fact that no-one fully understands it is irrelevent. It happened.

    There are hypotheses about the origin of the Big Bang, and some of these hypotheses suggest it came from other universes. Perhaps. Until it is possible to come up with a testable prediction based on these hypotheses, we will not know.

    We do not know that it happened. It is believed that it happened based on the belief that redshift can only have one explanation and no other.

    It starts with a god moment though. How can a singularity come about and produce a whole universe? Matter and anti-matter as well as all space in a point source which inflates at FTL speeds, then expands, ignoring the basic laws of gravity which should cause it to collapse? It is like claiming invisible demons cause gravity, and as proof of this saying we can calculate the effects of gravity on a body. Yes, but you are still left with the impossible demons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Cyberia

    The reality of the Big Bang comes from a lot more than just the red shift. There is a whole raft of different empirical evidences.

    For example ; the cosmic microwave background. This was predicted from Big Bang theory before it was discovered, and the discovery perfectly matched the prediction.

    For example : the fact that galaxies as viewed through the Hubble telescope that are many billions of light years away, are closer together than galaxies nearer to us. These distant galaxies are viewed as they were earlier in the history of the universe, and the universe had not then expanded so much, meaning that they were closer together. Empirical evidence demonstrating the reality of the expansion of the universe following the Big Bang.

    The spectroscopic analysis of stars in that earlier universe match the elemental composition predicted by their younger age. More Hydrogen. Less Helium. Little in the way of heavier elements. The Big Bang started the universe going with lots of Hydrogen, and a little Helium. It took later solar activity, including supernova explosions to create heavier elements. The light from very distant, hence very young, galaxies does not show those heavier elements. As consistent with a young and expanding universe following the Big Bang.

    We do not understand the Big Bang. But one thing is clear. It happened.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    "The first microsecond was the formative period when matter came to dominate over antimatter, the seeds for galaxies and other structures were planted, and dark matter (the unidentified material that holds those structures together) was created.

    The future of the universe lies in the hands of dark energy, an unknown form of energy that caused cosmic expansion to begin accelerating a few billion years ago"

    r sridharan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    sceptic, me empirically sensing, I clearly understand there wasn't a big bang.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Quote Originally Posted by raptordigits
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Quote Originally Posted by raptordigits
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Quote Originally Posted by raptordigits
    The chemistry and physics of life is not different from that of non-life.......
    The combination of chemistry and physics evolving into something called life is what makes all that difference from non-living things. Hypothetically when we presume there are billions and billions of planets in the universe with trillions of life forms, clearly one can conjecture that the present phase of the universe is evolving into something entirely different from its 13 billions years of existence with non-living things!
    Not at all. The universe is about matter and energy....not life. And no, matter and energy are not different or have different properties because they are 'life'.......
    What I have been saying is the transition of inanimate matter possessing the capability of perception. If this were not possible, you and me would have remained mere atoms.

    This extraordinary quality which is called 'life' could have been possible only at the right epoch in the Universe's evolution and to our knowledge only our planet Earth has exhibited this phenomena.

    Intelligent life is seen evolved in our planet only recently. Our planets history is a solid example. A few billions of years before our solar system's existence or even in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang life might have existed has no standing since, life could evolve only at the appropriate moment, temperature and environment. A few billion years in the past or into the future, the question of life becomes uncertain.
    No, your knowledge of the history of the Universe is lacking. You are mistaking our solar system, life, humans, etc, as an end product. You are wrong.

    If I bake a cake and eat it, it existed. If I bake another cake....it is not unique to cooking...a cake existed before. So it is with our solar system. Planets have forned around planets billions of years ago...quintillions times quintillons of them. Some would have life....many of these planets are no longer around. Our own solar system around the Milky Way was not a new phenomenon in the Universe....we are not the first 'cake'.
    You are mistaken. I am not telling our solar system is a new phenomenon, I am saying life is a phenomenon.

    Billions of years ago our Universe would have been much much more hotter........ your view may be faulty. We all do guesswork in the absence of reality. I don't say life never existed elsewhere in the universe, but only at the right moment of time. Neither can you disprove when I say life is a finesse in this otherwise mundane universe.

    I would like to eat a real cake.... not the one created in the ice casles!
    Arguments can be advanced for the plausibility of origin of life. origin_life file at www.tmmalm.info
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Steve

    Are you denying the Big Bang? I appreciate we do not know how or why it happened, or if there was something before it, or what that might have been.

    However, the empirical evidence clearly shows that the Big Bang was real.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    sceptic, me empirically sensing, I clearly understand there wasn't a big bang.
    Hello Steve,
    Consider this:

    "Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
    (all elementary particles and all quarks and their
    girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks, all kinds of
    waves: electromagnetic, gravitational, muons…
    gluons field ….. etc.) – was assembled in a ' single point '.
    And after there was a ' Big Bang '.
    The scientists wrote very thick books about this theory.
    But nobody wrote the reason of the ' Big Bang' because
    nobody knows it.
    I know the reason.
    The action, when the God compresses all Universe
    into his palm, we have named ‘a singular point’.
    And action, when the God opens his palm,
    we have named the ‘a Big Bang’."

    this was one of the comments given by Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus. on to my earlier blogs. see http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/...ogy-17241.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Are you denying the Big Bang? I appreciate we do not know how or why it happened, or if there was something before it, or what that might have been.

    However, the empirical evidence clearly shows that the Big Bang was real.
    Slight correction, skeptic. The evidence suggests a big bang, but does not necessitate it. The evidence only necessitates expansion. The expansion did not necessarily result from a bang, and even if it did that bang could very probably not have been the start (as you already stipulated in your post). There are different ideas about what the BB actually was, so we would probably want to clarify that part too before getting too far down the rabbit's hole.

    I'm not so much arguing against the BB, or disagreeing with your tone, just clarifying a bit that the BB is not as certain as you imply, and for a few different reasons.

    A friend at another site turned me on to the page below. It does a far better job than I can of making accessible the ideas I'm trying to convey above. All the best, mate.

    http://www.aei.mpg.de/einsteinOnline...ogy/index.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    I don't think you could start off even a bang on nothing. A big bang would take even more to still be bigger than the bang yet used to be. I was trying to spell it a little differently. Saying that, even when BB was the begin of the universe, that it could be, it was not the source of what it takes to set off the big bang. That wouldn't fit on the time line.

    For the sake of natural science I'm trying to try to circumvent religious believes, to try only. It wouldn't work out I know, but I'm having the slight imagination we don't get nowhere otherwise.

    So when you would accept BB to be the begin of the universe, there had to be something before the universe and BB that set off big bang. That's what I'm saying.

    I don't mean someone, but something. Let's try.

    Steve

    edited
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    .....
    So when you would accept BB to be the begin of the universe, there had to be something before the universe and BB that set off bing bang. That's what I'm saying.

    I don't mean someone, but something. Let's try.

    Steve
    Steve,

    If nothing happens without a cause, then something must have caused the universe to appear. But then we are faced with the inevitable question of what caused that something. And so on in an infinite regress.

    read more on Paul Davies’s ‘What happened before the Big Bang?’ at http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines.../big-bang.html

    r sridharan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    .....
    So when you would accept BB to be the begin of the universe, there had to be something before the universe and BB that set off bing bang. That's what I'm saying.

    I don't mean someone, but something. Let's try.

    Steve
    Steve,

    If nothing happens without a cause, then something must have caused the universe to appear. But then we are faced with the inevitable question of what caused that something. And so on in an infinite regress.
    Indeed. This is what I was pointing to in a previous post. If the universe was very small (i.e. subatomic scales) in the beginning, then statistics - not determinism - governed the physics at that time. So, very likely, cause and effect were not the main drivers of the evolution of the universe in these early stages.

    Here is one example: radioactive decay. You cannot predict, when an unstable isotope decays - but you can predict very well how many will have decayed after a certain amount of time. Well, we only have one universe - and who could predict, when and by what cause it may have began?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Dishmaster is 100% correct.
    However, I would like to emphasize that, at present, we have no knowledge of any cause for the Big Bang. Nor do we have any evidence of anything before the Big Bang. Based on this, all we have are a series of ideas, some extremely wild. We are left with speculation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    If the big bang was the beginning of time itself, then any discussion about what happened before the big bang, or what caused it-in the usual sense of physical causation-is simply meaningless.

    r sridharan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Dishmaster is 100% correct.
    However, I would like to emphasize that, at present, we have no knowledge of any cause for the Big Bang. Nor do we have any evidence of anything before the Big Bang. Based on this, all we have are a series of ideas, some extremely wild. We are left with speculation.
    We don't have even evidence for bb itself to have happened. Non evidence which again was not disputed by someone for good reasons.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Dishmaster is 100% correct.
    However, I would like to emphasize that, at present, we have no knowledge of any cause for the Big Bang. Nor do we have any evidence of anything before the Big Bang. Based on this, all we have are a series of ideas, some extremely wild. We are left with speculation.
    We don't have even evidence for bb itself to have happened. Non evidence which again was not disputed by someone for good reasons.

    Steve
    Ah, not again. Yes, we do. However, all the evidence is of course not sufficient to verify the scenario with 100% certainty. But what in nature is? What would you regard as irrefutable evidence?

    The Big Bang scenario is the best model we have at the moment. No scientist working on that topic would assume more than that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Hello Dishmaster,

    well I think it's kinda standing next to bb as it happens. Since, such a prove was not achievable, bb was regarded a theory. Just like the Theory of Relativity.

    It's a huge difference. Btw, do we really need to know about the begin of the universe.? Well if there was a begin, there was an end, wasn't there? When we could, lets say possibly, travel to this end, why should we know about the begin? The destination was kind of unknown to the traveler since traveling to a destination was rendered senseless otherwise. Right?

    And, only the end of the universe would tell about the actual begin of it, I think.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    Hello Dishmaster,

    well I think it's kinda standing next to bb as it happens. Since, such a prove was not achievable, bb was regarded a theory. Just like the Theory of Relativity.
    You apparently do not know what a theory is. It is not what is thought to a theory in common language. There is a very precise definition for this in science.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Scientific_theories

    A theory is nothing that can't be proved by evidence. It is just the opposite. A theory is a hypothesis (yet another definition) that is based on empirical evidence and provides forecasts that again can be tested by empirical observations or experiments. A theory must be falsifiable. As such, a scientific theory is the highest degree of knowledge we can achieve in science.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    Btw, do we really need to know about the begin of the universe.? Well if there was a begin, there was an end, wasn't there? When we could, lets say possibly, travel to this end, why should we know about the begin? The destination was kind of unknown to the traveler since traveling to a destination was rendered senseless otherwise. Right?
    How can you derive such a strong conclusion? This is only true, if the universe was a periodic phenomenon. All evidence seems to demonstrate that it isn't. One simple example that falsifies your statement. Take basin of water that is divided by a wall. Let's say that the temperatures in the two compartments are very different, e.g. 80°C and 20°C. Then, remove the wall and let the entire system reach an equilibrium. Now, how can you determine the initial temperatures from the final result? The problem is that this experiment is an irreversible process, just like the universe is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Dishmaster,

    your sample yet in theory was different than that from bb theory. You knew of the two sections of the basin, since you set it up yourself, or with the help of someone.

    That's about comparing apples and pears, that you can do, only be aware of the differences.

    What about a definition. Doesn't a definition top a theory? However, wasn't a definition rather useful for something to go on with it?

    It's a little sad that we never find the exit/entry to to some actual rhythm pattern trying to find some similarities there, I think.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    Dishmaster,

    your sample yet in theory was different than that from bb theory. You knew of the two sections of the basin, since you set it up yourself, or with the help of someone.

    That's about comparing apples and pears, that you can do, only be aware of the differences.

    What about a definition. Doesn't a definition top a theory? However, wasn't a definition rather useful for something to go on with it?

    It's a little sad that we never find the exit/entry to to some actual rhythm pattern trying to find some similarities there, I think.

    Steve
    Hi there,
    the example only shows you that your assumption that the universe ends at the same stage as it started is not justified. It shows you that there are even simple situations, where it is not true. Therefore, you need to show first that you can make such an assumption in order to use it to draw any conclusions from it.

    As for the definition, I meant the definition of what a theory actually is.

    Sincerely,
    Dishmaster.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    No, I said the end of the universe would tell about the begin of it. Not that both, begin and end, are same. That's to distinguish.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    No, I said the end of the universe would tell about the begin of it. Not that both, begin and end, are same. That's to distinguish.

    Steve
    Ah, okay. Then why wouldn't any point in time be just as good - like the present? I'd think, the longer you wait, the more information about the initial conditions are lost. Why do you think that in particular the end - if it will ever happen - could tell you something about the beginning?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •