Is Big Bang Real Scientific Theory?

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:28:12 -0400, "G. L. Bradford"
wrote:
- Refer:

"Michael Gray" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 01:04:26 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:
- Refer:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 09:43:06 +0930, in a place far, far away, Michael
Gray made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

If you don't know the answer to that question, you're beyond my
help.

So, what's the answer?

And three weeks later, Rand still hasn't replied.

Possibly off having a naughty holiday with the Pope.

I'm an agnostic, you moron.

And that prevents you from holidaying with the Pope?

It seems pretty likely, given the beliefs of the Pope. Moreover, why
in the world would you delude yourself that I would even *want* to
holiday with the Pope, "naughtily" or otherwise, even if he'd be
agreeable? I'm not a Christian, let alone a Catholic. I don't
believe in God.

That wouldn't need to put a stop to the two of you painting the town
red.
And secondly, if I can take your word for it:
"I don't believe in God."
Then you are an atheist in the most literal sense, agnosticism cannot
even be considered.
You have denied your self-categorisation with no wriggle room!
Shall I call the fire brigade to remove that foot from your mouth?

Orthodox Agnostic, are you?

I've no idea what that oxymoron means. No surprise, of course, since
you seem to be a moron.

An agnostic is a cowardly atheist.
An orthodox agnostic claims that he is an agnostic, and then denies it
with such claims as: "I don't believe in God."

(And an observation: You appear to have "moron" on the brain, as they
say.)

Atheism [is] a religion, an anti-religion complete with its anti-god,
Nogod.

Do you own many recordings of people not playing the bassoon?
Next you'll be confidently lying to me that baldness is a hair colour!

Get back to me when you have gained a sufficient education to realise
that atheism simple means "without gods".
You are conflating it with "anti-theism"; for what end I cannot
divine, but I assume it is to deliberately annoy literate folk.

"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
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.

It's another topic, in another category.

*This* universe had a clear beginning. It's
a theory with abundant supporting evidence.

Speculation about whether *this* universe
is part of a cycle, much less a cycle that is
eternal, and "had no beginning" is just that,
an interesting speculation.

That *this* universe had a clear beginning
does not mean it began from nothing nor that
the something that it began from was either part
of a "cycle" or that that cycle was "eternal."

"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
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".

No. The "before" is a different kind of "before" just
as the trillionth of a second of cosmic inflation was
different from the universe that settled in after it
occurred. Nonetheless, there is clearly a 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.

Yes, it did. Something does not come from nothing.

Or can you
post some of the physical laws that pertained "before" the
universe
existed? (Caution - even Hawking can't.)

The law is that something cannot come from
nothing.


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 intervalse
of our conventional space-time.

You're making an assumption based on no evidence
whatsoever.

The evidence is the existence of the
universe. It's a material something, and a
material something cannot come from nothing.

That we
live in a universe with intervals is a fact that can only
be applied
to this universe.

By definition, something material occupies space.
If it occupies space and endures in that space
its duration has intervals.

snip

"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
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.

The answer is that *this* universe, the only
universe we know, began at the big bang from
something, according to cosmic inflation, that
was subatomic in size.

That's the prevailing theory of the beginning
of *this* universe, the only universe that we
know of.

"duke" wrote in message
...
On 22 Oct 2006 20:44:52 -0700, "steve"
wrote:

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

Why? If it's not, what is the mechanism of replacement?

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

A 1st-century Jew who could walk on water and raise people from the dead.
How's *that* sound?

Greywolf

"Voracious" wrote in message
om...
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

You're quite right. It was an excellent piece on where the cosmologists and
theoretical physicists are at in the search for 'truth'. I saw a piece on
the Science Channel yesterday called the 'Information Paradox' (I believe)
involving Steven J. Hawking and a contested view he has about our universe
that was just astounding. I mention this because after viewing shows like
the above, and then listen to the religionists and their 'revelations' about
'God', you start to wonder if those people aren't from another planet or
something. It is utterly stupefying.

Greywolf

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 00:42:47 GMT, while bungee jumping,
Voracious shouted thusly:


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.

Right. Energy. That came from where?

--

Azaliah
((

In sci.space.policy, on Tue, 24 Oct 2006 00:53:51 GMT,
Martin McPhillips sez:

` "Al Klein" wrote in message
` ...
` 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.

` It's another topic, in another category.

` *This* universe had a clear beginning. It's
` a theory with abundant supporting evidence.

For some choice of meanings for the word "universe".

` Speculation about whether *this* universe
` is part of a cycle, much less a cycle that is
` eternal, and "had no beginning" is just that,
` an interesting speculation.

` That *this* universe had a clear beginning
` does not mean it began from nothing nor that
` the something that it began from was either part
` of a "cycle" or that that cycle was "eternal."

Remember that the original meaning was _everything_,
I mean completely everything, any time, anything existing.
so the notion of "something that it began from"
is nonsense using that meaning.

The equation of the word "universe" with this particular
expanse of spacetime seems to be a fairly modern usage.

--
================================================== ========================
Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 00:53:51 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
wrote:

"Al Klein" wrote in message
.. .
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.

It's another topic, in another category.

*This* universe had a clear beginning.

No evidence that it hasn't always existed in this, or some other form.

When you melt an ice cube have you created water ex nihilo?
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want
you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our
goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by
God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want
pluralism."
-Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue, The News-Sentinel, Fort
Wayne, Indiana, 8-16-93
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 01:02:02 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
wrote:

"Al Klein" wrote in message
.. .
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".

No. The "before" is a different kind of "before"

A before that didn't use time. Interesting. Like a place that has no
location.

Redefining words is not allowed.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)