The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Poll

what do you believe

The Big Bang
Constant Universe
Creationism
Other

Author Topic: is the big bang correct?  (Read 176104 times)

Offline Irishgirl

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #125 on: 02/02/2009 20:06:37 »

I am new to this site but I just had to comment on the question.
I don't think it is a question of belief but question of what we still don't know.
I don't see a system of logic in the BIG BANG THEORY. The world could not have been just spontaneously been formed with such delicacy, complexity and such beauty. Everything is so calculated and balanced.

Charles Darwin wrote, "Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" 

He himself was not sure if his theory was correct. Mankind is looking for answers but, its time for us to look at the possibility of seeing that this world was truly designed and it in deed has a designer. When I was studying world religions, my professor who was once an atheist really inspired and brought a lot of idea of thought that he had been pondering on. He said, " When you look at all the beliefs starting from ancient historical beings, all knew and understood that there was something or someone higher than not only them but of nature. Until today, we have not had anyone factually prove to us, not even all the intellects of the century,that the universe stands in existence because of its own self evolving process." On the contrary we now have documentaries such as Expelled and many more that do admit to an " Intelligent Designer theory "

I just think and know that I as an INDIVIDUAL UNIT OF LIFE with my own DNA Structural process, and my own different fingerprint, and uniqueness was and is not an accident that happened. I was not formed of evolved through some spontaneous atmospheric action.

Again, I respect all opinions and wanted to share my own opinion in a few lines which could of been longer..... LOLOL

Best of Luck to all :)

IRISH GIRL   
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #126 on: 03/02/2009 17:07:21 »
Quote from: irishgirl
He himself was not sure if his theory was correct.
You have observed an interesting thing that is true of most theories. The thinkers who bring them forth are unsure of them. Students later put great faith in them.
 

Offline Irishgirl

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #127 on: 03/02/2009 21:50:37 »
Hi there Vern,

I do know that I am not a scientist but if you are one. I have always wanted to understand why scientist could be so limited in their perspectives? For instance, if I were a person studying science, just seeing how the planets are held by gravity, by taking notice of how nature forms itself the four seasons, by seeing how the human body functions, by seeing how each creature differs from the other is enough for me to realize that there is more to this life than what the intellects or books have written to be. Why is it that science has a hard time accepting that there might just be truth in the creation theory???


There were and still are many scientists who believe in God.
I thought this site was very interesting to share with all......

newbielink:http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html [nonactive]

Look at the current situation in Israel. If there was no truth in God, we would not even be in this war. It is about a clash in religions, cultures, and history that science cannot explain.







 
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #128 on: 04/02/2009 12:39:37 »
Hi irishgirl. I separate the two things this way:

Science is about discovering things about nature. We then develop a hypothesis about how we can use the things we have observed to predict other things that we might observe in the future. We test these hypothesis relentlessly. If they are always successful and never fail, they may become a theory.

God is about faith. You either believe or you don't.:)
« Last Edit: 04/02/2009 13:48:46 by Vern »
 

Offline Hei-Tai

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #129 on: 07/02/2009 06:11:34 »
what do you believe?

 :)

Your question is,,is the big-bang correct.

I make that same question some years ago and my answer is clear, NO.

Two reason.;
1. Theory of big-bang is theory and this theory has many basic-problem.
- basic is atom-theory (we dont known matter smallest particles yet)
--- atom-theory is non-living matter theory
- also planets g-idea
- also thought that space is empty, no ether-matter
- and thought that pure 0 can happening something
- theory that light-speed is constant

2. Space-nature measured information, like images etc.
- our measuring time,,,few hundreds year


Big-bang theory is wrong,,, [^] i dont know how this wonderfull space was start but i know that it is and exist and without that we cannot write text by using computer. [:I]

My clear thought is;

Human kind at one small planet cannot solve space-born problem on that time how human-kind live that small planet.

Why so;

Because space is so big,,no walls to see and there is so many planets,,we cannot calculate how many,,,and because it is timeless.

--------
Other issue.
God on non-God is different issue.

Why;
Nature-Space exist like is exist with or without God.
--------

Big-bang theory is wrong, that is my clear opinion.

But, do we known exactly what is in-center the earth? We have many other interesting thing to do near,,like this planets,,or moon.

 :)




 
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #130 on: 07/02/2009 12:31:02 »
Hello Hei-Tai and welcome to Naked Scientists.

The BBT has failed to convince me also. Too many assumptions about stuff no one has ever seen.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #131 on: 07/02/2009 15:37:10 »
Hello Hei-Tai and welcome to Naked Scientists.

The BBT has failed to convince me also. Too many assumptions about stuff no one has ever seen.
And I would add that there is an overwhelming desire of true believers to have it be true. This adds a bias that clouds the outcome of much investigation into the question. IMHO  :)
 

Offline Democritus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #132 on: 09/02/2009 15:02:50 »
From elsewhere, re an audible Big Bang, if you wish...

The 'Big Bang' was a term coined by the late great Sir Fred Hoyle who should have been awarded the Nobel but shamefully, to the Swedish Academy of Sciences' discredit, wasn't. But Fred wasn't a proponent of Big Bang Theory, in fact he bitterly opposed it, advocating rather the Steady State Theory where matter was constantly being created, which accounted for an observed expansion of the universe.

Ironic that Fred coined 'Big Bang' as a term of ridicule and derision when now it's the accepted term by cosmologists and the public alike for a theory of origins, consistent with most observations, especially the cosmic background radiation referred to in these pages.

Interestingly, the Big Bang wasn't big and it didn't go bang. In fact it was pretty much over, which is to say its destiny was writ in stone as it were, when the primordial universe was not much larger than a grapefruit.

Intuitively I would think an observer, receptive to all possible audio frequencies, within a Big Bang event would find it a reasonably hostile environment as far as ambient noise is concerned. To paraphrase, find me a noisier place. An observer outside of a Big Bang event is beyond definition as there is no space or time or place or any set of events within which an observer can exist there. There is no there there...

And the Nobel? Well, Fred described the processes that created the heavy elements, nuclearsynthesis, within stars, and how these elements were flung about space by stellar events including supernovae, eventually forming other stars, planets, moons, comets, oceans, people, peacocks and popcorn. A heroic achievement.

That Fred was denied a Nobel after discovering the origins of the stuff we are all made of is truly lamentable.

He was not without some controversy and was fearless in challenging accepted wisdom in many disciplines beyond his native physics, astronomy and mathematics. One idea he developed was 'panspermia', the theory that life arrived on Earth and elsewhere from space; from comets and other interplanetary and interstellar debris. Well, you can imagine how he was mocked in his time. Yet, with recent discoveries on Mars, and the discovery of hundreds of ex-solar planets around neighboring stars, the idea of panspermia is looking increasingly less ludicrous these days.

To conclude. I'm not sure if the Big Bang was audible or not. But if it was audible there is a good chance that, if Fred Hoyle was around, you wouldn't hear it. Fred's noise was louder.  :)  

Best wishes & regret if this contribution is inconsistent with the low trust, high hostility and zero tolerance demonstrated in some of this debate.      

 
 

 
 

Offline Irishgirl

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #133 on: 10/02/2009 01:08:12 »
Hi there everyone....

You are absolutely correct Vern. I do put a difference between both as well. Its good to know that there are people who feel that way..


Irishgirl
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #134 on: 10/02/2009 02:06:06 »
Hi there everyone....

You are absolutely correct Vern. I do put a difference between both as well. Its good to know that there are people who feel that way..


Irishgirl
Yes; that way we can go to church; sing and be happy; without ever revealing deep down what we might think. I think that deep thoughts are best left with the thinker :)
 

Offline Astronomer_FB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #135 on: 12/02/2009 20:51:08 »
Hello I do believe in some parts of the big bang. but before i say what i want to say this is not meant for a religious thing, also i believe that science and religion are and should be separate. Saying this the Qu'ran even has this warning within it saying this book is a book of religion not of science but will give you the knowledge.  The Quran does speak of how the Universe began and other scientific questions. The Qu'ran does have a verse that describes what happened and it fits the big bang.  The Qu'ran also tells that one day the universe will continue to stretch and then come together like it was in the beginning. Scientist are now seeing that the universe is stretching out (with the red shift and blue shift things are going back). So to answer the question I do believe in some of the big bang theory.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #136 on: 15/02/2009 11:16:50 »
Enjoyed reading your post very much.

From elsewhere, re an audible Big Bang, if you wish...

The 'Big Bang' was a term coined by the late great Sir Fred Hoyle who should have been awarded the Nobel but shamefully, to the Swedish Academy of Sciences' discredit, wasn't. But Fred wasn't a proponent of Big Bang Theory, in fact he bitterly opposed it, advocating rather the Steady State Theory where matter was constantly being created, which accounted for an observed expansion of the universe.

Ironic that Fred coined 'Big Bang' as a term of ridicule and derision when now it's the accepted term by cosmologists and the public alike for a theory of origins, consistent with most observations, especially the cosmic background radiation referred to in these pages.

Interestingly, the Big Bang wasn't big and it didn't go bang. In fact it was pretty much over, which is to say its destiny was writ in stone as it were, when the primordial universe was not much larger than a grapefruit.

Intuitively I would think an observer, receptive to all possible audio frequencies, within a Big Bang event would find it a reasonably hostile environment as far as ambient noise is concerned. To paraphrase, find me a noisier place. An observer outside of a Big Bang event is beyond definition as there is no space or time or place or any set of events within which an observer can exist there. There is no there there...

And the Nobel? Well, Fred described the processes that created the heavy elements, nuclearsynthesis, within stars, and how these elements were flung about space by stellar events including supernovae, eventually forming other stars, planets, moons, comets, oceans, people, peacocks and popcorn. A heroic achievement.

That Fred was denied a Nobel after discovering the origins of the stuff we are all made of is truly lamentable.

He was not without some controversy and was fearless in challenging accepted wisdom in many disciplines beyond his native physics, astronomy and mathematics. One idea he developed was 'panspermia', the theory that life arrived on Earth and elsewhere from space; from comets and other interplanetary and interstellar debris. Well, you can imagine how he was mocked in his time. Yet, with recent discoveries on Mars, and the discovery of hundreds of ex-solar planets around neighboring stars, the idea of panspermia is looking increasingly less ludicrous these days.

To conclude. I'm not sure if the Big Bang was audible or not. But if it was audible there is a good chance that, if Fred Hoyle was around, you wouldn't hear it. Fred's noise was louder.  :)  

Best wishes & regret if this contribution is inconsistent with the low trust, high hostility and zero tolerance demonstrated in some of this debate.      

 
 

 

 

Offline Hei-Tai

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #137 on: 21/02/2009 06:05:20 »
 :)

I make one question to this issue,,it is on new-theoryes thread.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=20289.0

My opinion of Big-Bang is that we cannot never solve the problem how universe start. [:I]

 :)
 

Offline Darkcoder

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #138 on: 22/02/2009 22:59:03 »
Wow, I just stumbled upon this site and after seeing this thread I had to sign up and post.

The amount of misinformation being spread about the Big Bang is quite amazing. I also find it amazing many people can form opinions for/against the theory with such little knowledge about it.

For example:

Quote
My opinion of Big-Bang is that we cannot never solve the problem how universe start.

The big bang theory doesn't aim to explain how the universe started, where did you make this stuff up from? The first line from wiki says "The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation." which sums it up better than I could have. The key part here is the 'evidence', there's lots of evidence for the big bang, in fact just go to the wiki page on it and read it, it even links to sources if you don't think wiki's a credible enough.

And I know this post is 3 weeks old but:

Quote
I don't see a system of logic in the BIG BANG THEORY. The world could not have been just spontaneously been formed with such delicacy, complexity and such beauty. Everything is so calculated and balanced.

I'm not sure if you're a creationist by this comment as they usually believe the world was created spontaneously and with such delicacy, the big bang isn't even close to this. And you think everything is so calculated and balanced? Really now, perhaps you should take off your selective vision goggles and realize the universe is a death-trap for humans and almost all life as we know it at every step. Most of it isn't even beautiful at all, what with bacteria, viruses, natural disasters, death etc etc, and in the past you have your lovely mass extinctions and 99.9999+% of the universe is completely inhospitable for human life, even many places on Earth will quickly kill us so calling it calculated and balanced, i.e. inferring someone or something had to tweak it to be balanced is absurd as I could surely do a much better job if I had the controls.

So really, if you think you know something thousands of scientists don't then do some scientific studies that refute their claims and submit your papers to the peer-review process. Simply saying it's crazy because you know jack all about it doesn't mean a single thing, you can think it's the most stupid theory that's ever graced the planet but until you refute their claims on the proper playing field that is the scientific method then your opinion doesn't count for squat. Some of the 'claims' you people have been pulling out of certain bodily exits is such a slap in the face of scientific work that I'm surprised more people haven't posted here attacking people's incredibly misinformed viewpoints, maybe they just can't be bothered as so many people don't know anything about science yet still manage to form opinions about it? Before you so quickly jump on the bandwagon of thinking these theories are far-fetched as you read ~5 words of it realise that the scientists who developed and refined these theories are much the same as the scientists you most likely owe your lives to and your life expectancy, your access to food, electricity and pretty much everything.
« Last Edit: 22/02/2009 23:02:48 by Darkcoder »
 

Offline Hei-Tai

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #139 on: 23/02/2009 10:01:40 »
Wow, I just stumbled upon this site and after seeing this thread I had to sign up and post.

The amount of misinformation being spread about the Big Bang is quite amazing. I also find it amazing many people can form opinions for/against the theory with such little knowledge about it.

For example:

Quote
My opinion of Big-Bang is that we cannot never solve the problem how universe start.

The big bang theory doesn't aim to explain how the universe started, where did you make this stuff up from? The first line from wiki says "The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation." which sums it up better than I could have. The key part here is the 'evidence', there's lots of evidence for the big bang, in fact just go to the wiki page on it and read it, it even links to sources if you don't think wiki's a credible enough.


 :)

Facts or not [:I]

- Theoretical evidence born about 1930-1970 period
- Basic that theory explosion-big-bang is also atom-nuclear theory and those practical works
- Basic is also,,creation/ateism-- maind-dividing

Also;
- Human kind has study universe and existing todays equipments and theoryes about 30-100years.
- we speak something 1 000 000 000 000 years things happend at some old days only using that 30-100years measuring time data

So,,,i dont see any scientific reasons and fact that Big-Bang-theory is correct or that is it proved any kind of measured scientific data.

We actually dont know what kind is the earth-middle-inside and that is the temperature inside of earth-ball-middle.
Hmm,,how i say that;

Because i think earth diameter,,,what is the surface-matter thickness? If all is middle-center full of hot lava then must make question,,why this surface level temperature is only -40-+40 C. ?

There is enormous thermal-porwer under this thin surface-layer? I think that if this thermal power is full in this earth-ball then we cannot stand this surface because it must be much hottest than it is now?

I think that lava is no full of earth-inside,,,only perhaps layers or caves like oil or gas is.


 :)










 

Offline Darkcoder

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #140 on: 23/02/2009 15:32:50 »
Quote
So,,,i dont see any scientific reasons and fact that Big-Bang-theory is correct or that is it proved any kind of measured scientific data.

You don't see any because you don't know any of them at all. The whole premise of you dismissing this scientific work is that we weren't there to witness it. You can apply this bad logic to anything, if I see a tall tree and measure its height and the next week I measure it and it hasn't grown, does this mean the tree has always been this height? No. Similarly, the Big Bang isn't just some crazy idea someone thought up one day and everyone suddenly agreed with them, we saw evidence and it all lead back to showing that all energy in this universe being at one single point and expanding out into what is the current universe.

Quote
We actually dont know what kind is the earth-middle-inside and that is the temperature inside of earth-ball-middle.

We know exactly what our planet's core is comprised of and have very accurate estimates as to what its temperature is, such a statement shows you know nothing about scientific achievements of the past century. You do realise that we don't have to physically be somewhere to be able to measure something, for example we can measure the temperature of the sun's surface and we've never been close to it, we can also estimate its core temperature based on its mass, density, composition etc much like is used to determine the conditions of Earth's core I'm sure.

Quote
Because i think earth diameter,,,what is the surface-matter thickness? If all is middle-center full of hot lava then must make question,,why this surface level temperature is only -40-+40 C. ?

The Earth isn't comprised of a layer of crust then suddenly it's all lava, look this stuff up, it takes 5 seconds: newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth [nonactive]
 

Offline Hei-Tai

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #141 on: 24/02/2009 07:13:50 »

The Earth isn't comprised of a layer of crust then suddenly it's all lava, look this stuff up, it takes 5 seconds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth

 :)


Surface layer about 30-65km. Under surface layer about 6000km.

If you calculate 6000km-diameter ball energy-amount at lava-temperature,,,my thought is that surface level must much more warm be.

6000-km diameter ball and if it is full of 600-800C temperature matter then it's thermal power is so big that this 30km thin layer-surface cannot be so good thermal insulation.

If cource i can be wrong,,,but,,still,,i think that this hot lava-thing is not inside on earth ball full,,,i think that lava-things comes when oil-caves start to heat,,or gas-caves.

Example moon,,,if moon get layers,,cave,,oil-pocket etc,,then can comes heat,,lava,etc.

 :)




« Last Edit: 24/02/2009 07:23:20 by Hei-Tai »
 

Offline Hei-Tai

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #142 on: 24/02/2009 07:33:28 »

 if I see a tall tree and measure its height and the next week I measure it and it hasn't grown, does this mean the tree has always been this height?


 :)

Of cource no,,,tree and planets has own life-cyccle,,, sizegrowing period//time.

Growing,,,because tree and planets take growing-material round of it,,like we also,,eat food.


But do whole universe has same life-cyccle?

 :)

« Last Edit: 24/02/2009 07:46:30 by Hei-Tai »
 

Offline Darkcoder

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #143 on: 24/02/2009 14:15:17 »
Quote
If you calculate 6000km-diameter ball energy-amount at lava-temperature,,,my thought is that surface level must much more warm be.

It's a 6000km radius, not diameter(the diagram even shows that). And you keep mentioning 'calculating it', did you do this or did you just make this all up? One major thing you likely didn't factor into your 'calculations' was the extreme pressure at the depths of the Earth's core.

Quote
6000-km diameter ball and if it is full of 600-800C temperature matter then it's thermal power is so big that this 30km thin layer-surface cannot be so good thermal insulation.

Why not? Oven gloves can insulate you from 100 C of heat very well and they are at most a centimetre thick, besides, Earth starts to get very hot before you reach this 30km depth, for example: newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole [nonactive] so I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with :s.

Quote
Example moon,,,if moon get layers,,cave,,oil-pocket etc,,then can comes heat,,lava,etc.

The moon is made from layers(like almost every planet/moon in this solar system/universe), including magma so what are you talking about?

Quote
But do whole universe has same life-cyccle?

No idea, nor will we.

I can't be bothered to post any more as you haven't bothered researching any of this and are just making random assertions.
 

Offline Hei-Tai

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #144 on: 24/02/2009 17:53:42 »
 :)

The moon is made from layers(like almost every planet/moon in this solar system/universe), including magma so what are you talking about?

Who says that inside moon is full of magma? What scientific measured evidence we have that?

Moon can be only rock-ball,,like many balls in space is.

What is the moon diameter/year growing speed?



What is gravity,,my opinion,,,space is full od matter and when in this matter is some object like planets,,then round of planet matter-density increase because planet push this matter,,and if some object is near this planet it stay that position up the surface level where object density is same than density round of that object itself.

Example gas-balloon or submarine.

 :)
« Last Edit: 24/02/2009 17:59:11 by Hei-Tai »
 

Offline nel

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #145 on: 08/03/2009 13:15:07 »
 :) :) :) :)
 

Offline ichatfilipina

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #146 on: 09/03/2009 09:54:41 »
yep correct there are lots of universes similar to our universe. When you go inside of the black hole you are delivered to other universe. As far as I know, different planets or universe when going inside in the black hole. Going inside in black hole will pull you very fast and very long way to arrive the new universe.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #147 on: 12/03/2009 13:25:44 »
what do you believe?

Let us put it this way. If it's not correct, then there will be a lot of other ideas that will have to be 'corrected/discarded' too. Let us start with redshift as that is the stepping stone from where the rest will come. Redshift as seen here is when electromagnetic energy is shifted towards its lower, less energy containing electromagnetic spectrum. It should be pointed out here that cosmological redshift and Doppler redshift is not seen as the exact same though even though you can use Doppler redshift for explaining both the expansion and redshift effects due to the relative motion between two frames of reference.

It is referred to as the Doppler effect from Christian Doppler who 1842 proposed that frequency and wavelength of a wave was a relation between any two frames of reference. A simple example of that is you hearing that ambulance passing you, receding in the distance (redshift), noticing how the sound changed from when it was approaching you (blueshift). "Doppler correctly predicted that the phenomenon should apply to all waves, and in particular suggested that the varying colors of stars could be attributed to their motion with respect to the Earth. While this attribution turned out to be incorrect (stellar colors are indicators of a star's temperature, not motion), Doppler would later be vindicated by verified redshift observations." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

We tend to say that it was Edwin Hubble and Humason that discovered the redshift of galaxies but this idea existed before they presented their 'empirical Redshift Distance Law of galaxies' 1929 (Hubble's law). "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".

In that 1929 paper, by Edwin Hubble and Humason, they suggested that if redshift would be a measure of the galaxies recession speed (withdrawal), then that was "consistent with the solutions of Einstein’s equations of general relativity for a homogeneous, isotropic expanding space." The theory proposed that the distance to a galaxy was proportional to its redshift. the farther away a galaxy was, the more redshifted its light as seen from Earth would become. A implication of that theory was that if the galaxies became more redshifted the further away they were, then that also implied that they once should have been much closer. Another implication was that we had an expansion of the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble

It was Georges Lemaître that 1927 presented his "hypothesis of the primeval atom". In it he suggested that the recession of the galaxies was due to the expansion of the universe (Expansion) and in 1931 he went further and proposed that if you backtracked those galaxies there should have been a single 'point' from where they all must have started, that then would have to be a 'state' of infinite density, a singularity in fact, meaning something we don't really know as our physics laws only starts after that moment (Big Bang).

Unfortunately for him :) he  not only was a scientist (jesuit?) but also a priest. In much the same manner that some see Al Gore to be the 'predecessor' of all evil :) namely Global Warming. And therefore, as they have another political view, disavow any probability of it ever being true, some use the fact that Georges Lemaître was a man of the cloth to repudiate his ideas. As a byside it's worth mentioning that the name itself 'Yhe Big Bang' was coined by Fred Hoyle in a radioshow 1949. Although he in fact was an adversary to that idea, as he stood for a 'steady state universe' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory . I warmly recommend you to read 'The Black Cloud', a real pearl of science fiction :)


There is a lot of indirect evidence for the Big Bang. The idea have tested in high energy physics "resulting in significant confirmation of the theory, but these accelerators have limited capabilities to probe into such high energy regimes. Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition" In here you will find some more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

You can find direct mathematical proof by for example looking at the Friedmann equations. They are also referred to as the the standard cosmology model.

"What you do with the Friedmann equations model is you plug in some values of the parameters and see how it fits the data (Experimental evidence). The test you do then is to see how well you can make a single choice of like 3 main numbers and then have it predict all the data in sight. All kinds of data----galaxy counts and redshifts, supernovas, the temperature map of the microwave background---all sorts of relatively old and relatively new stuff!

The fit is amazing. so the 3 or so main numbers (the parameters) can be determined with remarkable precision and reliability.

This is a big change since 1998. Before 1998 there were various competing guesses as to how to model the universe and what parameters to use. Now the data is a lot better. Better instruments helped.

Anyway, the way the model is confirmed is by fitting to a huge body of observations. Once you have the Friedmann model you can just look at it and it is obvious that, since it is always expanding for all our past history, if you follow it back in time you get to a condition of very high density and temperature

I wouldn't call that a theory. It is more a little piece. It is just an automatic feature of the model that fits all the data over all time in the best way we know, so far. It's how the model that fits begins telling the whole story.

Someday when we get a better model (if we do) maybe it will have a slightly different beginning. To me, for what it's worth, the beginning is not the most important feature. What impresses me is how well it covers the whole story."

If you feel the need for a fuller description of the observational evidence you should read this one.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html


« Last Edit: 17/03/2009 17:05:15 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #148 on: 17/03/2009 17:07:06 »
Here is a up to date view on redshift and Einsteins relativity theory.
http://www.astronomycafe.net/cosm/expan.html
 

Offline aevela78

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #149 on: 18/03/2009 05:57:41 »
i personally believe that we are giving too much credit to science and not our inner human instincts the proper credit they deserve.  yeah yeah, lood at our evolution, technologically speaking for the past 50 yrs., does that not seem odd to you.  yeah, a human being developed and manufactured the computer, but how many are smarter that one?    hit me up with comments. 
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

is the big bang correct?
« Reply #149 on: 18/03/2009 05:57:41 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length