Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Big Bang theory and matters astronomical

Jump to new
2020hindsight

2020hindsight

Joined
28 May 2006
Posts
9,985
Reactions
2
Maybe we need a thread dedicated to discussion of matters astronomical. ;)
there are enough out there dedicated to matters gastronomical for instance.

PS There used to be an active thread that read "Recent Events Beyond Earth" - but that thread no longer shows up when you do "advanced search" for "Titles of threads" - hence this one.
 
Re: Big Bang etc

let's start with this one ...
History of the Universe Made Easy (Part 1)


Hubble also confirmed an observation that these galaxies were all moving away from us at incredible speed
those furtherst away were going the fastest
in other words, our universe was expanding
as if we were caught up in a huge explosion
how do we know this
I'll explain with a more prosaic example
when you watch a car speed past sounding its horn the pitch seems to change
bunched up as it comes towards you (high pitch)
as it passes the pitch suddenly drops
the sound waves are being stretched out
this is called the Doppler effect
you can calculate the speed of the car by its sound
if galaxies are moving away the spectral lines move to the red end
so astronomers could calculate which way they are moving and also their speed
but what happens if we wind the film back as it were
what happens is
all these moving galaxies lead back to the same point in space and time
this point - around 14 billion years ago
the "explosion" of all this matter is called the big bang
and that's as far as we've got in our understanding of the scale and time span of the universe
research is now continuing to discover what happened before the big bang
now lets come back to that sealed box
.. sitting in an armchair and guessing tells you nothing
just because the big bang is the current extent of our knowledge doesn't mean we've reached the end of the story
every time in history when people thought they knew the scale of the universe they've always been proven wrong
to me the real story of the universe is much more interesting than myths and fairy tales
for 100,000 years humans have stared up at the night sky and wondered
we are the first people in history not to wonder, not to guess, but to know.
Click to expand...

for mine?
good enough for Hubble, (and NASA- who have to do calculations to make interplanetary explorations go like clockwork), and Dawkins, and Sagan, and probably this bloke (since in my philosophy he makes sense) - good enough for me. ;)
 
Re: Big Bang etc

2020hindsight said:
Maybe we need a thread dedicated to discussion of matters astronomical. ;)
there are enough out there dedicated to matters gastronomical for instance.

PS There used to be an active thread that read "Recent Events Beyond Earth" - but that thread no longer shows up when you do "advanced search" for "Titles of threads" - hence this one.
Click to expand...
The thread you talk of was one of my favorites. The way I found it was wading through your posts 2020. took about 5 mins but it's here somewhere.
 
Re: Big Bang etc

Pat said:
....I found it was wading through your posts 2020. took about 5 mins ...
Click to expand...
lol sounds like I owe you an apology too, pat ;)

PS or do I detect a pat on my shoulder, lol ;)

PS You can find that thread is you search for a word within a post -
not advanced, simple search
- choose "Canopus" and "show posts"
and you'll find it
but it's not easy to find the thread as such - you are right.
 
2020hindsight said:
PS There used to be an active thread that read "Recent Events Beyond Earth" - but that thread no longer shows up when you do "advanced search" for "Titles of threads" - hence this one.
Click to expand...

Set your personal preferences to: Show All Posts, and then you'll be able to find anything that was posted.

I was caught with this one myself, after changing preferences I found what I was looking for.
 
Hubble also confirmed an observation that these galaxies were all moving away from us at incredible speed
those furtherst away were going the fastest
in other words, our universe was expanding
as if we were caught up in a huge explosion
Click to expand...


I wander what effect has expansion on our Solar system?

Comparing to dropping pressure in a vessel, one could suspect dropping temperature and global warming might be actually positive by-product of our activities.

But also it could mean that the Sun can exert greater pull, since other pulling object move away and their forces diminish with passing time.
As effect Earth constantly can move closer to the Sun, which actually will compound the warming effect.

Of course macrophysics do not have to behave the same way as micro.
 
Happy said:
I wander what effect has expansion on our Solar system?

Comparing to dropping pressure in a vessel, one could suspect dropping temperature and global warming might be actually positive by-product of our activities.
Click to expand...
my guess is no effect m8 , lol
fairly sure that the individual "gravity bound" systems won't change much - until
a) the Big Crunch , or
b) the Big Rip ;)
(never heard of these until today lol)

I mean no-one is suggesting that the orbits of the sun's planets are gonna change in the near future (to my knowledge anyways :2twocents)

but I've just finished listening to that bloke say "no more guessing !!" lol
so better not be a hypocrite and pretend I know.

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

The future according to the Big Bang theory
Main article: Ultimate fate of the universe
Before observations of dark energy, cosmologists considered two scenarios for the future of the universe. If the mass density of the universe were greater than the critical density, then the universe would reach a maximum size and then begin to collapse. It would become denser and hotter again, ending with a state that was similar to that in which it started—a Big Crunch.

[33] Alternatively, if the density in the universe were equal to or below the critical density, the expansion would slow down, but never stop. Star formation would cease as all the interstellar gas in each galaxy is consumed; stars would burn out leaving white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes. Very gradually, collisions between these would result in mass accumulating into larger and larger black holes. The average temperature of the universe would asymptotically approach absolute zero—a Big Freeze. Moreover, if the proton were unstable, then baryonic matter would disappear, leaving only radiation and black holes. Eventually, black holes would evaporate. The entropy of the universe would increase to the point where no organized form of energy could be extracted from it, a scenario known as heat death.

Modern observations of accelerated expansion imply that more and more of the currently visible universe will pass beyond our event horizon and out of contact with us. The eventual result is not known. The ΛCDM model of the universe contains dark energy in the form of a cosmological constant. This theory suggests that only gravitationally bound systems, such as galaxies, would remain together, and they too would be subject to heat death, as the universe expands and cools. Other explanations of dark energy—so-called phantom energy theories—suggest that ultimately galaxy clusters, stars, planets, atoms, nuclei and matter itself will be torn apart by the ever-increasing expansion in a so-called Big Rip.[45]
Click to expand...
 
wayneL said:
Electric Universe Theory

www.holoscience.com
Click to expand...

hey wayne - this post can benefit for the "big blossoming" of science. ;) - I'm all for it.
www.holoscience.com from "preface" page :- It is a truism that breakthroughs often lie unrecognised for decades. "I'll see it when I believe it" could be the catch-cry for much of science. After the slow path to acceptance of each great new idea, it always seems so obvious in retrospect. We teach children in grade school ideas that defeated the greatest intellects for centuries. That being so, we must not let the reputation of even an Einstein stand in our way when seeking better paradigms. We must simply allow for the possibility that he was wrong, recognising that science is a highly conservative captive of fashion.

The Electric Universe opens up science again to the individual. Science will blossom in the new millennium as a cultural activity more integrated with history, the arts and the human condition.
Click to expand...

As for not letting reputation of even Einstein etc ... Big Bang has been there done that ;)

PS of course scientific knowledge is a process - and of course current theories will be refined, (possibly totaly debunked ) in the future - but here , now, today - my money's still on Big Bang. :2 two cents (PS 2 cents is about all I own anyways lol)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang The Big Bang theory developed from observations of the structure of the universe and from theoretical considerations. In 1912 Vesto Slipher measured the first Doppler shift of a "spiral nebula" (spiral nebula is the obsolete term for spiral galaxies), and soon discovered that almost all such nebulae were receding from Earth. He did not grasp the cosmological implications of this fact, and indeed at the time it was highly controversial whether or not these nebulae were "island universes" outside our Milky Way.[2] Ten years later, Alexander Friedmann, a Russian cosmologist and mathematician, derived the Friedmann equations from Albert Einstein's equations of general relativity, showing that the universe might be expanding in contrast to the static universe model advocated by Einstein.[3] In 1924, Edwin Hubble's measurement of the great distance to the nearest spiral nebulae showed that these systems were indeed other galaxies. Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, predicted that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the universe.[4] In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the universe began as a simple "primeval atom", echoing previous speculations about the cosmic egg origin of the universe.[5]

Starting in 1924, Hubble painstakingly developed a series of distance indicators, the forerunner of the cosmic distance ladder, using the 100 inch Hooker telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory. This allowed him to estimate distances to galaxies whose redshifts had already been measured, mostly by Slipher. In 1929, Hubble discovered a correlation between distance and recession velocity—now known as Hubble's law.[6][7] Lemaître had already shown that this was expected, given the cosmological principle.[8]

During the 1930s other ideas were proposed as non-standard cosmologies to explain Hubble's observations, including the Milne model,[9] the oscillatory universe (originally suggested by Friedmann, but advocated by Einstein and Richard Tolman)[10] and Fritz Zwicky's tired light hypothesis.[11]

After World War II, two distinct possibilities emerged. One was Fred Hoyle's steady state model, whereby new matter would be created as the universe seemed to expand. In this model, the universe is roughly the same at any point in time.[12] The other was Lemaître's Big Bang theory, advocated and developed by George Gamow, who introduced big bang nucleosynthesis[13] and whose associates, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, predicted the cosmic microwave background (CMB).[14] It is an irony that it was Hoyle who coined the name that would come to be applied to Lemaître's theory, referring to it sarcastically as "this big bang idea" during a radio broadcast.[15] For a while, support was split between these two theories. Eventually, the observational evidence, most notably from radio source counts, began to favor the latter. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964[16] secured the Big Bang as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the cosmos. Much of the current work in cosmology includes understanding how galaxies form in the context of the Big Bang, understanding the physics of the universe at earlier and earlier times, and reconciling observations with the basic theory.

Huge strides in Big Bang cosmology have been made since the late 1990s as a result of major advances in telescope technology as well as the analysis of copious data from satellites such as COBE,[17] the Hubble Space Telescope and WMAP.[18] Cosmologists now have fairly precise measurement of many of the parameters of the Big Bang model, and have made the unexpected discovery that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating
Click to expand...
 
wayneL said:
Cosmic Electrodynamic Model'.

http://www.calresco.org/cosmic.htm

A few folks with balls to think outside the well funded and protected square. :cool:
Click to expand...
the well funded square ? mmm
if we were talking global warming I'd agree ( financial rewards for "scientific wh-ore's opinions ) eg those who defended cigarettes etc .

Returning to the website
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8gfbewe7

I notice that website is extremely intolerant of other opinions ;)
so ?? he knows that we don't know ??? that men are not causing it !!! sheesh - now that is arrogance imo.

Global warming has been deemed a fact. However, the inconvenient truth is that humans are not causing it. :confused: Al Gore has been given poor advice. :confused: Like Darwin's theory of evolution and Big Bang cosmology, global warming by greenhouse gas emissions has undergone that curious social process in which a scientific theory is promoted to a secular myth. When in fact, science is ignorant about the source of the heat ”” the Sun.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • global warming.jpg
    global warming.jpg
    43.3 KB · Views: 736
  • solar data divergence.jpg
    solar data divergence.jpg
    20.7 KB · Views: 727
wayneL said:
Nothing unusual about that at all. The only difference between his arrogance and Dawkins' arrogance is that you agree with Dawkins.
Click to expand...
m8 -
I just posted a graph which contradicted this bloke

I await your posting evidence that Dawkins is wrong - and/or a reputable source that contradicts him

PS I would argue that Dawkins has more sense than to make a difinitive statement that one side or other of the global warming argument is "totally wrong" and/or "totally right"

However, the inconvenient truth is that humans are not causing it. - not scientific! :(
However, the inconvenient truth is that humans may not be causing it. - ok :)
 
Dawkins, like many scientists, makes a number of assumptions that are not able to be proven or disproven. It is these assumptions that make his and others views theory and not physical law.

Is Dawkins and his group correct? He presents a convincing case, as do competing theories. He has also used the media to maximum effect which lends undue credibility to his arguments. Notably, there is no critical debate allowed on MSM, or it is a biased hatchet job.

Overall, Dawkins is a self obsessed w@nker prone to tantrums if questioned.

But he's still interesting. I will always listen to what he has to say, likewise I'll listen to other, less media savvy scientists/philosophers as well.

I will not be sucked in by doctrine however, and that's what the current mainstream theories are, in the same way that religions are doctrines.

You can huff and puff until the cows come home, but I will remain open minded and critical of every theory where deserved, including my own.

In particular, Big Bang just sucks, you have all sorts of concept's invented over the years in order to salvage the theory. Therefore, it is just BS, no better than Genesis.
 
ok
next question
name one paragraph of genesis that makes sense
(remember this thread had not mentioned genesis until you claimed it was as good as big bang)
 
wayneL said:
Dawkins, like many scientists, makes a number of assumptions that are not able to be proven or disproven. It is these assumptions that make his and others views theory and not physical law.

Is Dawkins and his group correct? He presents a convincing case, as do competing theories. He has also used the media to maximum effect which lends undue credibility to his arguments. Notably, there is no critical debate allowed on MSM, or it is a biased hatchet job.

Overall, Dawkins is a self obsessed w@nker prone to tantrums if questioned.

But he's still interesting. I will always listen to what he has to say, likewise I'll listen to other, less media savvy scientists/philosophers as well.
Click to expand...
Well, I think it's very hard to mount a valid argument against evolution, scientifically anyway.

But yes, speaking to a lot of scientific philosophers about Dawkins, i.e evolutionary biologists that do argue for the various types of evolution, it does become clear that Dawkins and his specific theories are thoroughly outdated and outdone, hence his move into the God debate. Note, I am an evolutionist.

Besides that, his dogmatism is just as bad as that of the side he is arguing against...

The problems surrounding the big bang debate are fascinating. At the core, I guess it relates to the problems we have with infiniteness when it comes to the spatio-temporal sphere, as none of our systems adequately adress this. At another level, time bending and the horizoning debunk scientifically any type of current religious belief.
 
chops_a_must said:
1. Besides that, his dogmatism is just as bad as that of the side he is arguing against...

2. The problems surrounding the big bang debate are fascinating. .. At another level, time bending and the horizoning debunk scientifically any type of current religious belief.
Click to expand...

1. ahh no surely - you've gotta get out more Chops, lol - he is arguing with the likes of Hovind !! ;)

2. religiousl mplications ?
this is just for interest ok ?
but coincidence that it was put forward by Georges Lemaître, and he was a Roman Catholic priest
I could care less about giving the church a hard time on this point - it shows they areopen minded lol. !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang Philosophical and religious interpretations
Main article: Philosophical and religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory
The Big Bang is a scientific theory, and as such stands or falls by its agreement with observations. But as a theory which addresses, or at least seems to address, the origins of reality, it has always been entangled with theological and philosophical implications. In the 1920s and '30s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[53] This perception was enhanced by the fact that Georges Lemaître, who put the theory forth, was a Roman Catholic priest.
Click to expand...

Here's a youtube that has been removed lol -
It showed Hovind claiming that speed oflight varied with speed of source :( (doh!!)
and Sagan setting him straight
lol - it has been removed due to ???
enbarrassment ? lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M97WgCkK6k4&NR=1 Kent Hovind vs. Carl Sagan and the speed of light

here's another where we all learnt a bit about Dawkins... ;)
and Hovind for that matter
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=157423&highlight=hovind#post157423

Critical Analysis of Kent Hovind's Age of the Earth
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=159827&highlight=hovind#post159827
 
Listened to "Starstuff " today on ABC Newsradio
two articles
a) the end of the dinasaurs - due to asteroid breakups etc (160 million years ago give or take 20 million years)
b) new telescope software - Hubble sounds like it's suddenly been leapfrogged. ;)

You can download podcasts - listen in / replay any time ;)

INCLUDING TODAY'S PROGRAM ALREADY THERE. (9/9/ 07)
http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/audio/mp3/20070909starstuff.mp3

go to about 60% mark on the timeline for dinasaurs
go to about 80% for new telescope

"scientists (combined UK US) are taking the clearest ever pictures of outer space using a 60 year old telescope ! - La Palma (I think lol)
plus new software called "lucky"

A new telescope that's TWICE AS CLEAR as Hubble which orbits at 500 km.
"Hubble gets better clarity / reliable vision - but still limited by the size of the telescope.
whereas on earth
sometimes we get a clear part of the picture
so we wait for a synthesis of parts to give full picture in absence of turbulence etc"

"factor of 20 better than you usually get from images from the ground
eg - we can see separate two stars only 1 light-day apart etc.

one picture shows 100,000 stars - separated pinpricts , usually blurred etc.
Click to expand...

heaps more programs there ... ;) - here's many other podcasts to listen to ( not that I've done it myself - I just enjoyed today's one)
http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/podcast/STARSTUFF.xml

here (below) is another ABC post - but I won't bother with the link, because this one (below ) is seriously out of date.

David Ellyard: The night sky is a friendly and welcoming place. Every year the stars and constellations return to view at predictable times and locations and they can be greeted as old and faithful companions. They bring a sense of comforting reliability so different from the unpredictable pattern of our lives here below.

Over time, anyone who takes the trouble can get to know the pattern of the night sky, so it becomes as familiar and unthreatening as the streets of your own suburb. As the star groups return to view we can rehearse the ancient stories of Gods and heroes, of monsters and mighty deeds with which our culture surrounds them.

At the same time, we can celebrate astronomy as a dynamic and imagination stretching science. Our race has been trying to make sense of the rhythms of the night sky for many millennia, but the modern age, with its massive telescopes and probes to distant planets, has taught us so much more than we learnt in all the previous centuries.

We can marvel at the latest images beamed back to earth from the Hubble space telescope or a spacecraft orbiting Mars. But that journey of exploration began long ago, when our kind first looked upwards after the Sun had departed. Those beginnings we can all relive anytime we choose. All it takes are your own eyes, a sky as dark as possible, a little patience and a little imagination.

A map is useful, at least to begin with, preferably one that can be set for the time of night and the month of the year since both of those determine the stars that are on show. One such chart is the Starwatch Starwheel.

You need some skymarks too, bright stars or major constellations as starting points.
eg. Orion the Hunter, centred around the familiar 'saucepan',
or the fearsome Scorpion. There are many others, all of which you can get to know, given time.

In front of this celestial clockwork of stars and constellations, other night sky sights come and go. The star-like planets, the 'wandering stars' as the ancients named them, are the most prominent of these, shifting their places against the background of the stars from month to month and year to year.

.........
And I defy anyone to spend half an hour under the stars without thinking at least one profound thought. That's the effect it has, on me at least.
Click to expand...
 
Top