Do you believe in the Big Bang or have you completed the research and know?

[Farsight001]

I’ll leave you alone to think that one through.

I already did. That’s why I said what I said. It is you who needs to think it through.

 

[Marc]

I’m using an 8-inch SCT. Would need a little more than a better piece of equipment to do direct investigation. The Mount Wilson Observatory (where the 100 inch Hooker telescope was located) is much further removed from light pollution whereas where I live the sky glows orange at night. Some of the better observatories tend to be high altitudes in dry places away from the rest of the population. What those of us can do in the lower altitudes where there’s plenty of lighting is severely limited beyond what we can get from the data feeds from the telescopes in the better regions.

I was being facetious. I fully understand the capabilities needed to observe something like galactic red shift. You can’t even buy professional telescope time. So if I really could get the funding, it would have to be to purchase a mountaintop under magnitude 8 skies and build a private 4m+ telescope. One can dream…

 

[POJIUJH]

I already did. That’s why I said what I said. It is you who needs to think it through.

Geez, I really don’t why you are so huffy What have I said that could possibly offend?

 

[edwest2]

Of course it has been tested! Every good theory is testable and they are all, eventually, tested; the Big Bang theory is no exception. In chronological order of test:

(1) Georges Lemaître and Alexander Friedmann’s solutions for the spherically symmetric field equations, now known as the Hubble law, preceded Hubble’s experiments by 2+ years–Friedmann’s solution came about in 1924, Lemaitre’s in 1927, while Hubble’s redshift survey came out in 1929.

(2) Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman predicted the CMB in 1948 and it was not discovered until 1964 by Penzias and Wilson and later confirmed by the COBE, WMAP, and Planck missions.

(3) Big Bang Nucleosynthesis provides good data for all the primordial elements (H2, He3, He4, and the isotopes H3 and Be7) compared to the aforementioned WMAP data, but is a little off on Lithium–this is currently being investigated, but is possibly due to some different values of reaction rates.

There are some others, but I believe that these are the big three tests and I hope that they are referenced enough for you.

Thank you for the references. I do have a problem with redshifts though.

haltonarp.com/bio

electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Please do not forget that a space-time manifold must exist in order for science to describe it. Since neither space nor time (or anything, for that matter) existed until the Big Bang, neither then did science. Thus, it is perfectly scientific and valid to ignore the where did the “primordial atom” come from question.

This is what Americans call ‘hand waving.’ So the something the came from nowhere exploded into nothing and became something?

Doesn’t work for me from a scientific standpoint.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

This is a common misconception, the big bang does not attempt to describe the origin of the universe. It attempts to describe how the universe and everything as we see it now developed from a very tiny, hot, dense state. It’s actually silent about how the universe came into existence in the first place or where this hot, dense state came from.

It assumes time, space, energy, etc already existed and doesn’t mention where these things came from.

So is gravity, i invite you to test your skepticism by running off a cliff.

Gravity? Is that a joke? We know how gravity works. We knew how it worked well enough to send astronauts to the moon. I can test it right now. The Big Bang? No.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Farsight001]

Gravity? Is that a joke? We know how gravity works. We knew how it worked well enough to send astronauts to the moon. I can test it right now. The Big Bang? No.

Peace,
Ed

Not a joke. That’s the point. We actually know more about the big bang and evolution than we do gravity. You can’t call gravity a sure thing while denying the other. It was the very reason gravity was used as an example.

 

[LongJohnSilver]

I reject the theory of the Big Bang. No one has shown me any evidence of it. It doesn’t seem at all likely.

Why should I believe scientists? Because other scientists (or people who believe scientists) tell me I should? Hardly a sufficient reason. If was to believe scientists on the weight of ‘scientific evidence’, I would logically have to believe astrologers and Mormons, too, because they (and those who believe them) claim to be right.

Remember, the alchemists and astologers of the past did ‘science’ in their time, and our now wholly discredited. It seems probable that in the future, scientists of tday will also be wholly discredited.

Also, consider, the proposition- “The universe came into being”. The subject of the proposition is “the universe”. Now, if the subject of the proposition (‘the universe’) does not exist, the proposition cannot be true. On the other hand, if the subject (‘the universe’) does exist, it cannot come into being again. Therefore, the universe never came into being. So, the Big Bang seems to be an absurdity.

I found this post interesting. What’s your idea then, Qoeleth?

 

[edwest2]

Not a joke. That’s the point. We actually know more about the big bang and evolution than we do gravity. You can’t call gravity a sure thing while denying the other. It was the very reason gravity was used as an example.

can’t call gravity a sure thing? I’ll tell that to my friend who will pass it on to his pals at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Sky_Pilot]

It is my understanding that the Big Bang was as burst of very high energy electromagnetic radiation, i.e. light.
So what is the problem in believing it?

Exactly.
Good willed it, and BANG it was done!
God does nothing halfway so it was a BIG bang!

 

[edwest2]

Very high electromagnetic energy is not light. No one actually knows what was there at the moment of detonation.

Peace,
Ed

 

[kingpomba]

I was more trying to point out what theory really means in the scientific sense of the word.

Totally missed the below but as a science student myself i find this shocking.

I reject the theory of the Big Bang. No one has shown me any evidence of it. It doesn’t seem at all likely.

With all due respect, do you have the education and training to fully understand it even if someone did show you? Could you muster an equally as complex and comprehensive alternative or does your work simply stop at declaring “No, i dont like that”? If you can’t come up with a better explanation, i hardly see what grounds you have for rejecting the one thats currently the best.

Would you feel confident going into an OR and performing surgery? How about evaluating plans for a bridge? Science is a professional field like any other.

Scientist don’t spend years in university playing video games and drinking beer, surprisingly, just like the engineer or the surgeon, a lot of learning and development goes on.

Why should I believe scientists? Because other scientists (or people who believe scientists) tell me I should?

Why do you believe doctors, engineers or historians? It almost seems like you have some kind of grudge against science.

Do you believe your doctor when he tells you that you have something? Why do you do that?

Remember, the alchemists and astologers of the past did ‘science’ in their time, and our now wholly discredited. It seems probable that in the future, scientists of tday will also be wholly discredited.

This is an incredibly shallow and flawed understanding of science. You do realise both of these aren’t scientific fields and these things came into being pre-modern science and scientific method. It’s quite clear alchemy or astrology don’t follow the scientific method.

You’re comparing apples with oranges.

All your philosophical objections aside, it’s quite clear science does work. Look around, you’re typing on a marvel of engineering and science. The information from this website probably hosted in the USA reaches me in Australia in under a second. You are surrounded by plastics, by new materials created by science. Medicines have allowed you to live as long and as healthily as you have. Vaccinations have saved millions upon millions of lives.

If you need one reason at all to believe in Science it’s that it simply works.

 

[edwest2]

I was more trying to point out what theory really means in the scientific sense of the word.

Totally missed the below but as a science student myself i find this shocking.

With all due respect, do you have the education and training to fully understand it even if someone did show you? Could you muster an equally as complex and comprehensive alternative or does your work simply stop at declaring “No, i dont like that”? If you can’t come up with a better explanation, i hardly see what grounds you have for rejecting the one thats currently the best.

Would you feel confident going into an OR and performing surgery? How about evaluating plans for a bridge? Science is a professional field like any other.

Scientist don’t spend years in university playing video games and drinking beer, surprisingly, just like the engineer or the surgeon, a lot of learning and development goes on.

Why do you believe doctors, engineers or historians? It almost seems like you have some kind of grudge against science.

Do you believe your doctor when he tells you that you have something? Why do you do that?

This is an incredibly shallow and flawed understanding of science. You do realise both of these aren’t scientific fields and these things came into being pre-modern science and scientific method. It’s quite clear alchemy or astrology don’t follow the scientific method.

You’re comparing apples with oranges.

All your philosophical objections aside, it’s quite clear science does work. Look around, you’re typing on a marvel of engineering and science. The information from this website probably hosted in the USA reaches me in Australia in under a second. You are surrounded by plastics, by new materials created by science. Medicines have allowed you to live as long and as healthily as you have. Vaccinations have saved millions upon millions of lives.

If you need one reason at all to believe in Science it’s that it simply works.

The issue is unlike other sciences where reproducibility is required, that cannot be the case here. Assuming something exploded, there is no way to prove what it was, where it came from and why it felt the need to go from a stable state to exploding.

This is not about a broad disbelief in science. It is about one event. We can visibly see the results of a lot of applied science. With this, no.

Peace,
Ed

 

[kingpomba]

The issue is unlike other sciences where reproducibility is required, that cannot be the case here. Assuming something exploded, there is no way to prove what it was, where it came from and why it felt the need to go from a stable state to exploding.

This is not about a broad disbelief in science. It is about one event. We can visibly see the results of a lot of applied science. With this, no.

I’m not a physicist or cosmologist or anything like that so it’s far outside my professional domain as someone who’s in biomedical sciences, probably shouldn’t have said much to begin with.

Again though, the big bang deals with the early evolution of the universe and why things unfolded where they did. It doesn’t speak about where this “bang” came from or why things started to expand.

I’d raise the same challenge to you as i did to someone above, can you provide a comprehensive alternative theory besides being Dr. No and just declaring it all can’t be so? The cosmologists assure us this is the best current theory we have for the early evolution (note, not origin) of the universe, i can’t see why i should take an objection without an alternative over what they say is the best theory. Likwise, unless we have any cosmologists among us, are any of us sufficiently equipped to really be able to fully understand it all?

[Just coincidentally, a really great documentary on the possible origins of the universe - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vdkmj ]

 

[Farsight001]

can’t call gravity a sure thing? I’ll tell that to my friend who will pass it on to his pals at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Peace,
Ed

You have willfully misread my post. I did not say that gravity was not a sure thing. Read it again. I pointed out that the big bang and evolution are more of a sure thing than gravity. Your intentional twisting of other’s words is getting really tiresome, Ed. Try behaving respectfully of others sometime.

 

[POJIUJH]

Gravity? Is that a joke? We know how gravity works. We knew how it worked well enough to send astronauts to the moon. I can test it right now. The Big Bang? No.

Peace,
Ed

To clarify, gravity is a theoretical & mathematical concept. What we call gravity in ordinary speak (push something off table, something falls) is a little different. We know that what goes up goes down, but the theories regarding it still aren’t bulletproof. It almost works in reverse to the big bang theory, we know “gravity” and we try to explain it with theories, whereas our current theories lead us to the big bang. From a law to a theoretical concept in the former and a theoretical concept to a theoretical conclusion in the other, which will always be harder to test. The problem came when kingpomba confused “gravity” and gravitational theories together and suggested that since we aren’t positive about gravitational theories (which none of us are yet) then we can’t be positive about the effects of “gravity” itself. It would be funny if it didn’t look like it was serious.

Try behaving respectfully of others sometime.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Thank you for the references. I do have a problem with redshifts though.

haltonarp.com/bio

electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

Peace,
Ed

Please do not believe Halton Arp. The evidences does not support him. Every good theory is testable and every good theory passes those tests, Arp’s theory, however, fails entirely at its first test.

Further the so-called “plasma cosmology” (or “electric universe”) has many issues with its base theory.
–Link 1
–Link 2
And you can probably find a lot more just by doing a Google search of “electric universe is wrong” or “plasma cosmology is wrong.” The facts do not line up with that theory.

And perhaps you should read up on science from sciencepseudo.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Alberti_Devoveo;10141515:

Please do not forget that a space-time manifold must exist in order for science to describe it. Since neither space nor time (or anything, for that matter) existed until the Big Bang, neither then did science. Thus, it is perfectly scientific and valid to ignore the where did the “primordial atom” come from

question.

This is what Americans call ‘hand waving.’ So the something the came from nowhere exploded into nothing and became something?

Doesn’t work for me from a scientific standpoint.

Peace,
Ed

This is not at all hand-waving, it is understanding what science does. Science can only explain physical phenomena. Before the big bang (which is technically a nonsense phrase, as time did not exist until the big bang), there was no physical anything, so there is nothing that science can explain, in all manners of the word nothing.

You are wanting the impossible and being irrational about it; science cannot explain the unphysical, yet you want it to be able to do so.

 

[exnihilo]

I am not a physicist and have not done any significant research. I find theories about the nature and past development of the physical world interesting. But when it comes to certainty regarding explanations of the development of the world I do not think anyone can be very certain.

The problem with any past event is that it is in the past. You can develop models and demonstrate how given your starting point, which you assert, you will end up with something like what we observe now. But what you are doing is only modeling based on an assertion on what was there at the starting point of your theory. You can’t really prove in any meaningful way what was truly there. This is different from other science where we show how physical things interact on a starting condition we truly know.

I consider these theories very speculative. I think if we mock ancients theologians for supposedly debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin then we should show equal respect for any scientists that proclaim to know what the world was like in the beginning.

 

[InJesusItrust]

I reject the theory of the Big Bang. No one has shown me any evidence of it. It doesn’t seem at all likely.

Why should I believe scientists? Because other scientists (or people who believe scientists) tell me I should? Hardly a sufficient reason. If was to believe scientists on the weight of ‘scientific evidence’, I would logically have to believe astrologers and Mormons, too, because they (and those who believe them) claim to be right.

Remember, the alchemists and astologers of the past did ‘science’ in their time, and our now wholly discredited. It seems probable that in the future, scientists of tday will also be wholly discredited.

Also, consider, the proposition- “The universe came into being”. The subject of the proposition is “the universe”. Now, if the subject of the proposition (‘the universe’) does not exist, the proposition cannot be true. On the other hand, if the subject (‘the universe’) does exist, it cannot come into being again. Therefore, the universe never came into being. So, the Big Bang seems to be an absurdity.

What books do you recommend for a philosophy noob? I really enjoyed your last point. I want to be able to reason just as clearly.