Is Big Bang Real Scientific Theory?

"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:50:49 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
wrote:

What is before T = 0 should read
what is before CST (our conventional
space-time) = 0, and the answer
is

Before you formulate an answer, answer another question:

Your evidence that time, itself, isn't a property of the
current
universe, is?

I didn't say that time, itself, isn't *a* property
of the universe.

But if the universe began as something material,
that material something had duration prior
to the big bang or it wouldn't be something.

So, obviously, in contexts unknown to us,
in its material duration, it had intervals
that passed into and became the intervals
of the big bang which became the intervals
of our conventional space-time.

Time is duration. In our conventional space-
time, it is tied, as the term space-time
implies, into just that, our *conventional*
space-time. At the moment of the big bang,
however, that was not the case, if cosmic
inflation is correct, because the observable
universe reached that size in one trillionth
of a trillionth of a second, which means
that the expansion took place faster than
the speed of light, which means that it
occurred outside of our convention of
space-time, wherein the speed of light
is the fastest speed.

So, there we have an example, in cosmic
inflation, of *a* space-time, measured only
in trillionths of a second in its total
duration, that is different than the
one that we see in the universe now.

We have no information about what sort of
duration occurred before the big bang
with the primordial matter that became
the universe at the big bang, but if it
was matter it at least occupied its own
space and had its own duration within
that space and that duration was time
in that context.

"Al Klein" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:13:47 GMT, Giant Waffle
wrote:

The universe had a beginning.

Evidence?

Cosmic microwave background radiation, which was
predicted by the big bang theory and has since
been found and mapped. "Big bang" was originally
a pejorative term given to the theory by the
astronomer Fred Hoyle who rejected the theory.
Many astrophysicists and astronomers held
fast to the universe as a steady state
phenomenon that had always existed.

The "conventional" Big Bang theory had the
thing happening, basically, like an explosion,
but that kind of explosion was completely at
odds with the "flatness" of the universe,
which included most especially the evenness
of its thermal distribution. It was Alan
Guth who first proposed the theory of cosmic
inflation, circa 1980 (I could be off by ten
years there, without checking), which posits
a, to say the least, very remarkable period
of "inflation" during which the universe
expands to the size of the observable
universe in an instant, which explains
the equally remarkable evenness, or
flatness, of the universe. Subsequent
satellite data continues to confirm
cosmic inflation.

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 23:25:41 +0200, while bungee jumping,
Gamma shouted thusly:


In article ,
Giant Waffle wrote:

On 22 Oct 2006 20:44:52 -0700, while bungee jumping, "steve"
shouted thusly:


Where lots of scientists go wrong is after excepting that the big Bang
took place they extrapolate to say that this was the start of the
universe in both space and time.

Just because we have so far not been able to see what happened before
this big bang does not mean that there was nothing.

For all we know big bangs are happening all over the place and
throughout time. Just because we can not see or detect the others (yet)
does not mean we can assume that they did not take place.

Maybe the universe did start with a big bang but it was very unlikely
to have been this current one that we see.

The universe is everything remember. I see no reason to put bounds on
the age or size or dimensions even.

You seem to have made a god of the universe.

The universe had a beginning. So now the question is,
who or what began it?

Weren't you paying attention? It was the Big Bang

Sure. There was nothingness. So then, nothing expanded
and here we are.

--

Azaliah
((

"Martin McPhillips" writes:

"Al Klein" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:13:47 GMT, Giant Waffle
wrote:

The universe had a beginning.

Evidence?

Cosmic microwave background radiation, which was
predicted by the big bang theory and has since
been found and mapped. "Big bang" was originally
a pejorative term given to the theory by the
astronomer Fred Hoyle who rejected the theory.
Many astrophysicists and astronomers held
fast to the universe as a steady state
phenomenon that had always existed.

The "conventional" Big Bang theory had the
thing happening, basically, like an explosion,
but that kind of explosion was completely at
odds with the "flatness" of the universe,
which included most especially the evenness
of its thermal distribution. It was Alan
Guth who first proposed the theory of cosmic
inflation, circa 1980 (I could be off by ten
years there, without checking), which posits
a, to say the least, very remarkable period
of "inflation" during which the universe
expands to the size of the observable
universe in an instant, which explains
the equally remarkable evenness, or
flatness, of the universe. Subsequent
satellite data continues to confirm
cosmic inflation.



But the Big Bang implies only that our current
incarnation began at that point; it does not
rule out such things as a cyclic universe,
nor universes -- such as ours -- having been
"pinched off" from other, pre-existing
universes (this latter seems to be something
of a topic of the week among cosmologists
these days)

All that can be said is that no information
from any state which might have existed
prior to the Big Bang would have made
it thorough that event. If this to
you qualifies as "the beginning of the
universe", then you can certainly look at
it that way. However, it does not automatically
imply "the beginning of all that is".

A couple of good articles from Scientific
American on this are "The Myth of the
Beginning of Time (string theory suggests that
the big bang was not the origin of the universe
but simply the outcome of a preexisting state)",
in the April 2004 issue, and "Misconceptions about the Big Bang",
February of 2005 -- this last article deals
in some detail with your seeming rate-of-expansion-
vs-speed-of-light conundrum.


-- cary

"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message
...

"Martin McPhillips" writes:

"Al Klein" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:13:47 GMT, Giant Waffle
wrote:

The universe had a beginning.

Evidence?

Cosmic microwave background radiation, which was
predicted by the big bang theory and has since
been found and mapped. "Big bang" was originally
a pejorative term given to the theory by the
astronomer Fred Hoyle who rejected the theory.
Many astrophysicists and astronomers held
fast to the universe as a steady state
phenomenon that had always existed.

The "conventional" Big Bang theory had the
thing happening, basically, like an explosion,
but that kind of explosion was completely at
odds with the "flatness" of the universe,
which included most especially the evenness
of its thermal distribution. It was Alan
Guth who first proposed the theory of cosmic
inflation, circa 1980 (I could be off by ten
years there, without checking), which posits
a, to say the least, very remarkable period
of "inflation" during which the universe
expands to the size of the observable
universe in an instant, which explains
the equally remarkable evenness, or
flatness, of the universe. Subsequent
satellite data continues to confirm
cosmic inflation.



But the Big Bang implies only that our current
incarnation began at that point; it does not
rule out such things as a cyclic universe,

That's another topic.

steve wrote:
Where lots of scientists go wrong is after excepting that the big Bang
took place they extrapolate to say that this was the start of the
universe in both space and time.

Just because we have so far not been able to see what happened before
this big bang does not mean that there was nothing.

For all we know big bangs are happening all over the place and
throughout time. Just because we can not see or detect the others (yet)
does not mean we can assume that they did not take place.

Maybe the universe did start with a big bang but it was very unlikely
to have been this current one that we see.

The universe is everything remember. I see no reason to put bounds on
the age or size or dimensions even.

If you want to learn more about current cosmological thought, search for
"M Theory" or "string theory"

PBS occasionally shows NOVA programs about this subject and is a decent
primer for this topic.

Voracious

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:19:28 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
wrote:

"Al Klein" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:50:49 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
wrote:

What is before T = 0 should read
what is before CST (our conventional
space-time) = 0, and the answer
is

Before you formulate an answer, answer another question:

Your evidence that time, itself, isn't a property of the current universe, is?

I didn't say that time, itself, isn't *a* property of the universe.

If it is then nothing happened "before" CST=0, because there was no
"before".

But if the universe began as something material,
that material something had duration prior
to the big bang or it wouldn't be something.

It needn't have been something until it started to exist. Or can you
post some of the physical laws that pertained "before" the universe
existed? (Caution - even Hawking can't.)

So, obviously, in contexts unknown to us,
in its material duration, it had intervals
that passed into and became the intervals
of the big bang which became the intervals
of our conventional space-time.

You're making an assumption based on no evidence whatsoever. That we
live in a universe with intervals is a fact that can only be applied
to this universe. We don't know whether there was a "there", whether
that "there" had intervals, or anything else about what conditions, IF
ANY, obtained "before" the universe existed - if, indeed, it hasn't
always existed and the Big Bang was just a phase change. Or something
we're not even capable of imagining.

Time is duration. In our conventional space-
time, it is tied, as the term space-time
implies, into just that, our *conventional*
space-time. At the moment of the big bang,
however, that was not the case, if cosmic
inflation is correct, because the observable
universe reached that size in one trillionth
of a trillionth of a second, which means
that the expansion took place faster than
the speed of light, which means that it
occurred outside of our convention of
space-time, wherein the speed of light
is the fastest speed.

Since the universe was opaque at that time, the speed of light wasn't
the current speed of light in free space. In fact, "the speed of
light" at the instant of the universe's formation is a meaningless
concept.

So, there we have an example, in cosmic
inflation, of *a* space-time, measured only
in trillionths of a second in its total
duration, that is different than the
one that we see in the universe now.

No, we have your conjecture that there was something with some
properties - it may have been, it may not have been. There's no
reason to just blindly accept that one possibility.

We have no information about what sort of
duration occurred before the big bang

Or whether ANY duration occurred "prior to" the universe. You're
assuming that duration existed in the "whatever" that you're assuming
existed "prior to" the universe. If your assumptions are wrong (and
there's no actual reason to think that they're correct), nothing you
asserted applies. But an assertion based on an assertion that's based
on an assertion is nothing to build a conjecture on.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Speculating on the possible reaction to evidence is no excuse for
failing to produce the evidence."
- Wayne M. Delia+
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:43:47 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
wrote:

"Al Klein" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:13:47 GMT, Giant Waffle
wrote:

The universe had a beginning.

Evidence?

Cosmic microwave background radiation, which was
predicted by the big bang theory and has since
been found and mapped. "Big bang" was originally
a pejorative term given to the theory by the
astronomer Fred Hoyle who rejected the theory.
Many astrophysicists and astronomers held
fast to the universe as a steady state
phenomenon that had always existed.

The "conventional" Big Bang theory had the
thing happening, basically, like an explosion,
but that kind of explosion was completely at
odds with the "flatness" of the universe,
which included most especially the evenness
of its thermal distribution. It was Alan
Guth who first proposed the theory of cosmic
inflation, circa 1980 (I could be off by ten
years there, without checking), which posits
a, to say the least, very remarkable period
of "inflation" during which the universe
expands to the size of the observable
universe in an instant, which explains
the equally remarkable evenness, or
flatness, of the universe. Subsequent
satellite data continues to confirm
cosmic inflation.

So the evidence that the universe had a beginning (not a beginning of
the current phase) is? The expansion starts once the universe exists
in its current (current since the instant of the Big Bang) form. Was
it in some other form before that? Was anything anything before that?
What laws applied? Inflation isn't proof of a beginning, only a
beginning of the current state of affairs.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Speculating on the possible reaction to evidence is no excuse for
failing to produce the evidence."
- Wayne M. Delia+
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

Azaliah wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 23:25:41 +0200, while bungee jumping,
Gamma shouted thusly:


In article ,
Giant Waffle wrote:

On 22 Oct 2006 20:44:52 -0700, while bungee jumping, "steve"
shouted thusly:


Where lots of scientists go wrong is after excepting that the big Bang
took place they extrapolate to say that this was the start of the
universe in both space and time.

Just because we have so far not been able to see what happened before
this big bang does not mean that there was nothing.

For all we know big bangs are happening all over the place and
throughout time. Just because we can not see or detect the others (yet)
does not mean we can assume that they did not take place.

Maybe the universe did start with a big bang but it was very unlikely
to have been this current one that we see.

The universe is everything remember. I see no reason to put bounds on
the age or size or dimensions even.
You seem to have made a god of the universe.

The universe had a beginning. So now the question is,
who or what began it?
Weren't you paying attention? It was the Big Bang

Sure. There was nothingness. So then, nothing expanded
and here we are.

No, from what I understand of current cosmology, there is a quantum flux
that permeates the universe and when conditions are right, a "big bang"
occurs. Particles begin to accumulate and form the larger structures we
know today.

The quantum flux events impart entropy to an area and that entropy winds
down over eons back to a neutral state.

Voracious

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 23:01:55 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
wrote:

"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message
...

But the Big Bang implies only that our current
incarnation began at that point; it does not
rule out such things as a cyclic universe,

That's another topic.

It *IS* the point. If the universe is cyclic, the Big Bang is only
the beginning of this cycle, not the beginning of the universe. If
the universe is both cyclic and eternal, it had no beginning.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"We should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. If I were an unborn
fetus I would want others to use force to protect me, therefore using force against
abortionists is *justifiable homocide*."
- "Pro-Life" doctor killer and corpse Paul Hill
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/