Thread: The Big Bang: Crank Science?

We know the universe wasn't created by some god, how come we must agree without thought that the Big Bang was how everything began? Given the complexity of the universe I doubt we've already figured out its origins. And in all honesty, I think it's a red flag when I hear people give no speculation whether there was ever more than one Big Bang. How can we be sure one Big Bang took place? Give me a reason to think the Big Bang happened.

I also wonder, the universe is supposed to be expanding, but isn't it supposed to be infinite? How can an infinite universe expand?

Someone guide me through this.

the big bang theory is a theory of evolution not creation. and a pretty good one at that. the creation event has several hypotheses current.

Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan

the big bang theory is a theory of evolution not creation. and a pretty good one at that. the creation event has several hypotheses current.

Then I stand corrected.

Read up on the Lambda CDM model.

As far as one or more "bangs" - the BBT does not discuss nor deal with whether there have been more than one.

However, there is speculation as to whether there could be a "Big Crunch" or a "Big Freeze" in the future.

I've checked it out, and I don't think the Big Freeze is able to end life. Organisms will have plenty of time to adapt. Even if there's nothing but ice. Mainly because I don't think carbon based life is the only form of life, in fact non-carbon life has been discovered, on Earth of all places.

Originally Posted by MoonCanvas

I've checked it out, and I don't think the Big Freeze is able to end life. Organisms will have plenty of time to adapt. Even if there's nothing but ice. Mainly because I don't think carbon based life is the only form of life

Being carbon based does not require being in the Earth Goldilocks Zone (Although, it does help).

Originally Posted by MoonCanvas

in fact non-carbon life has been discovered, on Earth of all places.

Citation?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by MoonCanvas

I've checked it out, and I don't think the Big Freeze is able to end life. Organisms will have plenty of time to adapt. Even if there's nothing but ice. Mainly because I don't think carbon based life is the only form of life

Being carbon based does not require being in the Earth Goldilocks Zone (Although, it does help).

Originally Posted by MoonCanvas

in fact non-carbon life has been discovered, on Earth of all places.

Citation?

You trust me so little that you ask for a citation? For the record, there are multiple reports of non-carbon life being found on Earth. NASA announcement: Arsenic-based life form discovered on Earth

As for the Earth Goldilocks Zone, I reject the idea that Earth like planets are more bound to have life. I would think the organisms on Earth could have simply adapted to its current temperature, rather than the current temperature being a perfect fit. But I'm sure you already know this.

Originally Posted by MoonCanvas

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by MoonCanvas

I've checked it out, and I don't think the Big Freeze is able to end life. Organisms will have plenty of time to adapt. Even if there's nothing but ice. Mainly because I don't think carbon based life is the only form of life

Being carbon based does not require being in the Earth Goldilocks Zone (Although, it does help).

Originally Posted by MoonCanvas

in fact non-carbon life has been discovered, on Earth of all places.

Citation?

You trust me so little that you ask for a citation? For the record, there are multiple reports of non-carbon life being found on Earth. NASA announcement: Arsenic-based life form discovered on Earth

You are a bit behind the times. That claim has been thoroughly debunked. It was an embarrassment. All the team proved was that some life forms can tolerate arsenic. They are still carbon-based. See http://nasawatch.com/archives/2012/0...big-arsen.html (that article links to the actual peer-reviewed papers).

The reason you were asked for a citation was precisely to see if your assertions were based on something reliable.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by MoonCanvas

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by MoonCanvas

I've checked it out, and I don't think the Big Freeze is able to end life. Organisms will have plenty of time to adapt. Even if there's nothing but ice. Mainly because I don't think carbon based life is the only form of life

Being carbon based does not require being in the Earth Goldilocks Zone (Although, it does help).

Originally Posted by MoonCanvas

in fact non-carbon life has been discovered, on Earth of all places.

Citation?

You trust me so little that you ask for a citation? For the record, there are multiple reports of non-carbon life being found on Earth. NASA announcement: Arsenic-based life form discovered on Earth

You are a bit behind the times. That claim has been thoroughly debunked. It was an embarrassment. All the team proved was that some life forms can tolerate arsenic. They are still carbon-based. See NASA's Big Arsenic-Based Life Claim Was Wrong - NASA Watch (that article links to the actual peer-reviewed papers).

The reason you were asked for a citation was precisely to see if your assertions were based on something reliable.

Someone should have told me sooner, you'd think this would be on the news.

Originally Posted by MoonCanvas

You trust me so little that you ask for a citation?

Uhhmmm... Yeah.

Originally Posted by MoonCanvas

As for the Earth Goldilocks Zone, I reject the idea that Earth like planets are more bound to have life. I would think the organisms on Earth could have simply adapted to its current temperature, rather than the current temperature being a perfect fit. But I'm sure you already know this.

Liquid water makes the odds better.
I agree with you though, that calling the Earth a "Perfect Fit" is a case of confirmation bias.

Originally Posted by MoonCanvas

Someone should have told me sooner, you'd think this would be on the news.

I strongly suspect that wa said tongue-in-cheek. In case it wasn't, here is some guidance.

Radical new concept, dramtaci events, something different: Big News, Front Page, Headlines.

Same-old-same-old, nothing to see here - move along: Small news, bury it in a single paragraph on the same page as the obits.

I've moved to pseudo, where "crank science" belongs. Mooncanvas, you might want to do a little research on a subject before you launch a rant thread.

I think it's a red flag when I hear people give no speculation whether there was ever more than one Big Bang.

You think it's a red flag when people do not speculate to your satisfaction?

Originally Posted by MoonCanvas

We know the universe wasn't created by some god, how come we must agree without thought that the Big Bang was how everything began?

Nothing in science needs to be agreed without thought.

Given the complexity of the universe I doubt we've already figured out its origins.

Indeed. The same is true in all areas of science.

And in all honesty, I think it's a red flag when I hear people give no speculation whether there was ever more than one Big Bang.

(Others have already noted, the big bang theory is not [currently] about "creation"; it doesn't go back that early.)

There are a number of theories involving multiple big bangs such as Eternal Inflation and Penrose's cyclic model.

How can we be sure one Big Bang took place? Give me a reason to think the Big Bang happened.

The big bang model (as in the evolution of the universe we see from an earlier hot dense state) is based on many lines of evidence. For example: Evidence for the Big Bang

I also wonder, the universe is supposed to be expanding, but isn't it supposed to be infinite? How can an infinite universe expand?

we don't actually know if it is infinite or not. But it makes little difference to the theory.

It is probably better to think of it as "things getting further apart" rather than "the universe getting bigger". The latter suggests something like a balloon being inflated, which is misleading.

Think of all the whole numbers, for example. There are an infinite number of them, all 1 apart. Now double them all. There are still an infinite number of them but they are now 2 apart.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I've moved to pseudo, where "crank science" belongs. Mooncanvas, you might want to do a little research on a subject before you launch a rant thread.

I think it's a red flag when I hear people give no speculation whether there was ever more than one Big Bang.

You think it's a red flag when people do not speculate to your satisfaction?

You insinuate I want others to speculate to my satisfaction, when my speculation holds open the possibility for anywhere from no Big Bang to trillions upon trillions of Big Bangs, including 1. So, what number did you have in mind you thought I had? 3,094,291,490,294?

I used your 'crank' term to refer to a scientific theory you highly respect, and this upset you. I apologize. Next time I'll choose my words more carefully so as to not openly refer to you as the red flag.

Originally Posted by Strange

(Others have already noted, the big bang theory is not [currently] about "creation"; it doesn't go back that early.)

There are a number of theories involving multiple big bangs such as Eternal Inflation and Penrose's cyclic model.

Way too often I see people referring to the Big Bang in the context it was the beginning of everything, which is why I was confused.

Originally Posted by Strange

The big bang model (as in the evolution of the universe we see from an earlier hot dense state) is based on many lines of evidence. For example: Evidence for the Big Bang

The problem here is I read through it, have no idea what they're talking about, and end up back at 'square one'. I'm stuck on my position indefinitely whether there's compelling evidence or not, which is unfortunate.

Originally Posted by MoonCanvas

The problem here is I read through it, have no idea what they're talking about, and end up back at 'square one'. I'm stuck on my position indefinitely whether there's compelling evidence or not, which is unfortunate.

I suppose, to slightly contradict my earlier point, if you can't understand the science then you do have to take it on trust. Not just trusting the word of the scientist who comes up with the idea (or tells you about it) but trust in the system that requires many other scientists to have reviewed, repeated, re-analysed and criticised the idea. The scientific method works by people constantly trying to find alternative explanations and trying to prove others wrong. The popular press often report "another experiment to prove Einstein right" or similar. What the scientists are actually trying to do is find an flaw in current theory - that is where the fame and glory lies.

I once wrote an extended metaphor about following an expert mountaineer up a slope. You can go so far with them. Then you can rely on their shouted descriptions of what they see when they are out of sight. Finally, you have to accept what they and all their colleagues tell you about the peak when they come back down again...

In other words, I accept most of the stuff what I read in science even if I don't fully understand it, because I the bits I can understand make sense. I don't see why (or how) they could suddenly start making stuff up when they get to the bit I don't understand - after all, other people will udnerstand that bit.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I've moved to pseudo, where "crank science" belongs. Mooncanvas, you might want to do a little research on a subject before you launch a rant thread.

I think that is unfair. I think he is genuinely "just asking questions".

Originally Posted by MoonCanvas

The problem here is I read through it, have no idea what they're talking about, and end up back at 'square one'.

What did you not understand? By asking pointed questions and examining the validity of answers, you can ameliorate that problem.

I think many scientists, the efforts and research of theirs extending collectively for thousands of years, would be insulted that you said "without thought".

I've checked it out, and I don't think the Big Freeze is able to end life. Organisms will have plenty of time to adapt.

if the universe comes to the "big freeze" stage then there would be no way to extract energy from any system. therefore life as we know it would not be able to exist.

however, all is not lost. Omega Point - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia