# Which Came First , Time or the Big Bang? What about Space



## BAYLOR (Nov 2, 2014)

According to the big bang theory , the universe started out as a primordial atom. Then it exploded in spectacular fashion and suddenly you have instant universe ,Time Space  galaxies ,stars , light, gravity, dark matter ,  ect.

The big bang was an event, the first in time. But how could it have happened all? For an event (any event )  wouldn't there would have to be time flow  ?

And how could there be no space in existence before the big bang?  We don't know the exact size of the primordial atom , it could have been any size , from tiny all the ways up to galaxy size. But whether it was tiny or gigantic, wouldn't it have occupied space which didn't yet exist?

How can anything happen or exist without Time and Space?


----------



## chrispenycate (Nov 2, 2014)

There can be no before to the big bang. Any more than there can be anything into which the universe is expanding. Our conceptual imagination is not capable of handling this situation, so it's much easier to see it as a problem in mathematics than metaphysics.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 2, 2014)

chrispenycate said:


> There can be no before to the big bang. Any more than there can be anything into which the universe is expanding. Our conceptual imagination is not capable of handling this situation, so it's much easier to see it as a problem in mathematics than metaphysics.




No Before ? Why? For all we know there could have been a previous universes prior to the big bang .  There Could have been a whole cycle of universes that come  and gone . Maybe this one where we exist now will come around again and Ill be typing this same comment again.

The thing of it without the mechanism of time thee no kind of activity or event can occur, not even activity at the subatomic level.

The  primordial atom existed for who knows how long.  if it existed,  it occupied space , so therefore space existed . For it to have exploded , implies that time already existed .  Wouldn't that make sense ?

I do have to admit that the possibility of all of this repeating again is depressing possibilityto contemplate .


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 2, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> If it existed,  it occupied space , so therefore space existed . For it to have exploded , implies that time already existed .  Wouldn't that make sense ?



From what you've written there it seems to view the big bang under a common misconception - that it was an incredibly vast explosion of matter, light and energy that occurred in an already present three dimensional space (well at least three dimensions.)

No, that's not what the big bang was all about. Space-time itself came into existence (mathematically) at the moment of the big bang and it is that that is really expanding. 

The easiest analogy is that of a rubber balloon. Take a balloon and draw spots on it with ink. In this analogy the rubber of the balloon is 'Space-time' and the ink is matter. Blow it up and the surface area of rubber gets bigger and the spots of ink get further and further apart. In a similar way the universe is expanding and drags the matter away from each other at a particular rate. Now you could view Time as some sort of 'property' of the expansion and internal interactions of a three spatial dimension Space-time universe...*

...so under some explanations of the start of the universe, the big bang singularity just popped into existence from a piece of 'false vacuum' (whatever that is!) and then started to expand**. Therefore if you believe Time is some sort of state wrapped up with Space-time, matter and energy, then it becomes totally meaningless to apply any concept of time to the state of the false vacuum (which apparently does not have matter or space-time)

However, that does not mean that like you say there have been other things 'before' the big bang. The issue here though is (and I apologise for banging on about this!) evidence, hypotheses and testing - back to science. It may be that we are stuck in infinite loops of: big bang, expansion, contraction, compression into some incredibly dense singularity, then big bang, expansion and it goes all again etc.... But if there can be no evidence of anything before the big bang, i.e. information from one expansion is wiped out in the eventual contraction of itself then we have no way of knowing if that actually happened. The fact of the matter is then really _anything _could have existed or happened 'before'. Thus is becomes physically meaningless yet again. 

That is not to say that we might find echoes or clues of what happened before - never say never - but at the moment it's difficult to see where or what they might be. 



-----------------------------------------------------

* Of course this just raises all sorts of question like, will there be the same sense of time if the universe _contracts_ instead of expanding, or will be 'go backwards'. Would the entropic arrow of time go backwards? It rapidly gets quite complex 

**This must have the ancient Greek philosophers spinning in their graves - who basically believed that you can't create something out of nothing. They did have starting points, big bangs if you will, but forms were made out of formless matter. In their minds there was always something there.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 2, 2014)

When Black Holes were postulated, I seem to recall an idea that matter that entered a Black Hole could exit through a White Hole - effectively, creating a new universe. This also invoked Inflation, a theory by Alan Guth, critical for describing the Big Bang, which suggested that the universe was simply one of many - like bubbles in water.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 2, 2014)

However it now seems unlikely that Black holes go anywhere.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 2, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> However it now seems unlikely that Black holes go anywhere.



Whatever goes in gets irradiated first , stretched out and crushed down to a very small size and sucked into the mass of the black hole. It's likely a one way trip for as long as the black hole endures.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 2, 2014)

Brian Turner said:


> When Black Holes were postulated, I seem to recall an idea that matter that entered a Black Hole could exit through a White Hole - effectively, creating a new universe. This also invoked Inflation, a theory by Alan Guth, critical for describing the Big Bang, which suggested that the universe was simply one of many - like bubbles in water.



The problem I have with inflation (as well as making my nights out more expensive over the years) is that it's origins are just as mysterious as any questions about why there was a big bang or what happened before it. Namely, that inflation is seen to have happened in the early universe but no one knows why it occurred. There just isn't any explanation for it. It just did. And I'm not sure anyone is going to be able to answer that question any time soon (if at all!) 

So building huge numbers of universes from it seems again to me tantamount to building castles in air. Fun for a SF writer of course, I for one love all these extra universes (possibly there's one where I manage to actually get published), but IMHO probably not correct


----------



## Dinosaur (Nov 2, 2014)

A quite good and obviously dumbed down version I heard was that our universe version of time did not exist until the big bang. As such what went before could not be observed as observation requires the passage of time which we simply cannot comprehend.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Nov 2, 2014)

We are trying to comprehend something which to our limited comprehension is... incomprehensible.

Personally I think it is cyclical ; bang, boom, bust - then back to bang. But that is pure speculation/guess-work; something that my mind is capable of dealing with/comprehending.

We'll probably never know, certainly not in our lifetimes anyway; but wouldn't it all be so dreadfully dull if we knew all the answers?


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Nov 3, 2014)

Big Bang?

Why only one?

If more than one could there be an infinite number of them?

If there are/were how far away (collectively) would they need to be to explain the apparent expanding area we seem to have landed in? I.E. picture multiple bangs a long way away.

What prevents multiple bangs within bangs?

If there have been super-nova popping off here and there, presumably some of them must have been further away from the original centre. When they went bang how come the subsequent gas clouds and resulting suns never travel toward us - IE why is everything red shift out there.

Why is the speed of light (supposedly) only now fixed?

While we're on the topic, what magical force de/accelerates light when it passes from one medium to another?


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 3, 2014)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> what magical force de/accelerates light when it passes from one medium to another


I think the denser mediums it goes slower because not a straight line but zig-zag path, so the speed isn't actually changing, but only seems so from the outside?  This means something has to change at the boundary between two mediums as velocity = frequency x Wavelength, but the frequency inherently is *not* going to change. I think sound can speed up in a denser medium. It also has refraction at medium boundaries. Let's see what Wikipedia says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction

I think there are "meta materials" that at gross level appear to "break" the rules due to nano sized structures that do keep the rules. As Radio is the same kind of thing as light, you can do experiments with cheap microwave sources and suitable meshes, grills and  hoops of metal or sheets and rods and balls of insulators transparent to Radio. Also for light you need a laser for a coherent source (cheap enough now). Most radio sources are coherent and polarised, though creating circular polarisation is slightly more complex than plane. One usual trick is to have a horizontal and vertical  pair of aerials a quarter wave apart driven in phase or together but driven 90 degrees out of phase (a phase delay can be created by longer cable in one path).
A Fresnel lens can easily be made for 10GHz out of concentric metal hoops.


----------



## HareBrain (Nov 3, 2014)

In terms of what the universe is expanding into, isn't it the same stuff (or lack of stuff) that currently exists (or doesn't) between particles of matter?


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 3, 2014)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> Big Bang?
> 
> Why only one?



Where's the evidence for another one?

EDIT - to be fair there are a few astrophysicists who claim to see the influence of another universe in the data of the very large structure of the universe. However I believe that the jury is still out on this, and likely to be out for many years. The effect they have observed could have a far more mundane reason. 



TheEndIsNigh said:


> If there have been super-nova popping off here and there, presumably some of them must have been further away from the original centre. When they went bang how come the subsequent gas clouds and resulting suns never travel toward us - IE why is everything red shift out there.



Not true, some objects are blue-shifted, i.e. travelling towards us (i.e. the Andromeda Galaxy is on a collision course). But the majority of the stuff of the universe is red-shifted relative to us.



TheEndIsNigh said:


> Why is the speed of light (supposedly) only now fixed?



Well the daft answer is that: we only observed it to be a constant.

But it is such a fundamental constant, that if it were to actually be a variable it would have huge knock on effects on a whole range of very noticeable things - we should therefore see a whole range of extremely interesting and weird effects through our telescopes. We don't. (Or to be fair, if they are there they are so slight as currently not be noticeable.)


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 3, 2014)

HareBrain said:


> In terms of what the universe is expanding into, isn't it the same stuff (or lack of stuff) that currently exists (or doesn't) between particles of matter?



I'm slightly not quite sure what your asking. But if I'm getting you right, I think the simple answer is: No.

Currently we believe space-time itself (the very dimensions of our perception) is expanding. We physically see it as most of the matter of the universe travelling away from us (see my Balloon analogy up above in comment #4). Depressingly if the rate of expansion were to remain positive and we could live long enough to witness it (and it would take a very long time), then eventually the night sky would darken and become black as even our closest stars would be too far away for us to visibly notice them.

We have mathematically modelled this expansion and therefore one could argue there is an abstract mathematical space that the our modelled universe 'expands' into. But this is not a physical observable space, it is only a construction of our own conception that we find useful to explain the experimental results. I'll try and think of a nicer analogy!


----------



## HareBrain (Nov 3, 2014)

But where does the gap between, say, an atomic nucleus and the electron(s) come from? Did this also arise from the Big Bang?


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 3, 2014)

HareBrain said:


> But where does the gap between, say, an atomic nucleus and the electron(s) come from? Did this also arise from the Big Bang?



Yes

EDIT - I should qualify that. Yes, according to our current standard model/understanding of what we think happened at the event we call the Big Bang


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 3, 2014)

HareBrain said:


> atomic nucleus and the electron(s) come from


Electrons and Protons attract each other.
Protons repel each other.
Electrons repel each other.
Neutrons ought to weakly stick together.

Something is keeping the Neutrons and Protons close together. Some mix of Atomic glue and gravity?

Something is keeping the Electrons (a probability cloud rather than really orbiting particles like a solar system) away from the Protons.

I haven't ever read any explanations that make a lot of sense and I can't see how it's related to the Big Bang (if that happened)?


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 3, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Something is keeping the Neutrons and Protons close together. Some mix of Atomic glue and gravity?



I agree that this is poorly understood - there is a empirical nucleus model I believe, that essentially worked so well they apparently couldn't be bothered to find a better understanding. 

However the reality is I think that trying to model an atomic nucleus from first principles results in a hugely horrendous many-body equation that we are light years away from even solving numerically. Remember currently we have yet to solve the three-body problem in any really meaningful theoretical situation. 



Ray McCarthy said:


> Something is keeping the Electrons (a probability cloud rather than really orbiting particles like a solar system) away from the Protons.



Ok, this is a bit handwavy, but you could use Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to explain this. 

In steady state a system will be in the lowest energy state that it can be. In general terms Total energy = Kinetic Energy + Potential Energy.

Now an electron and proton have opposite electric charges so the lowest _potential_ energy state is for the electron to be right next to the proton (and in this case be a negative number). However if this were to happen this would tie the electron down with a very high probability to a very small space.

Hence by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle the momentum of the electron must therefore be undetermined and high. Thus the kinetic energy of the electron will be high. (And Kinetic energy term is positive). If we let the electron go 'further out' this Kinetic energy term drops. 

Therefore there will be a happy distance at which the electron 'sits' where the total energy as calculated between these two competing factors is a minimum. Because of the constants that our universe seems to use, mass and charge or electron/proton etc..., that means that electrons operate quite happily in fuzzy clouds outside nuclei.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 3, 2014)

Your hands are flapping so hard you are nearly flying.    Yes, we have a lot of fun stuff to figure out!


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 3, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Your hands are flapping so hard you are nearly flying.    Yes, we have a lot of fun stuff to figure out!



Well if you want, I could go through the general solution of the Schroedinger equation that calculates the orbitals of a hydrogen atom from first principles. And then we could take it from there.

How is your knowledge of solutions of Sturm-Liouville equations - eigenvectors and eigenvalues, all in three dimensional spherical geometry space?

I don't mind admitting that mine is quite a bit rusty


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 3, 2014)

Non-existent. I'm into _applied_ Electronics, Physics, Chemistry, Programming. Simple stuff like Interplanetary high speed data links on Lasers, Nuclear powered Ion Drives and such.

I'm an engineer, not a scientist, so I don't wear a white coat and ask people to trust me.

I've seen *a* Schroedinger equation a few times. Read about eigenvectors and eigenvalues, but never even heard of Sturm-Liouville equations.  I remember having a sore head studying Maxwell's stuff about 40 years ago. Fortunately haven't needed it. I think he may have been quite clever.  Hilbert is rather amusing.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 3, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Non-existent. I'm into _applied_ Electronics, Physics, Chemistry, Programming. Simple stuff like Interplanetary high speed data links on Lasers, Nuclear powered Ion Drives and such.
> 
> I'm an engineer, not a scientist, so I don't wear a white coat and ask people to trust me.
> 
> I've seen *a* Schroedinger equation a few times. Read about eigenvectors and eigenvalues, but never even heard of Sturm-Liouville equations.  I remember having a sore head studying Maxwell's stuff about 40 years ago. Fortunately haven't needed it. I think he may have been quite clever.  Hilbert is rather amusing.



Never asked you to trust me...just trying to explain in as concise a way as possible . 

Well unfortunately setting up and solving the Schroedinger equation is the usual formal way of showing it. It does make sense, believe me. But then my background is physics so all my learning was geared to getting to that point. (Yep, Maxwell's equations gave me a headache as well.) 

The Schroedinger equation is just a specific example of the Sturm-Liouville equations - which the mathematics department tried to teach us Physics grads to show us who was boss when it comes to proper mathematics - but it does explain where the one to one correspondence between eigenvectors and eigenvalues comes from. Useless knowledge for real world calculations (even in the physics world), but I'm glad that I know that factoid.

QM is used in quite a few applied situations - e.g. chip design, novel materials and is slowly becoming more and more an 'engineering' subject the better we can manipulate particles on an atomic scale. Tis been a while since I've been at the coal face though.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 3, 2014)

Closest to Chip design I ever got is using libraries.

I understand a little QM (well, in the sense that you can, some of it is a bit Lewis Carroll)


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 3, 2014)

The fundamental axiom of QM and really all you need to know is that, on small enough scales, particles sometimes exhibit the properties of waves, and waves sometimes exhibit the properties of particles.*

This insight is encoded into the formal mathematics of QM (along with good old-fashioned common sense thinking, like conservation of energy) - which is then applied to specific situations. 

Which can then give us Lewis Carroll moments, because all we are used to in the macroscopic world is particles behaving like particles and waves behaving like waves. As one of my old secondary school science teacher would tell us when introducing us to the subject - it is pointless worrying if an electron is a particle or a wave, it is in reality something that has properties of both (a wavicle say) and really impossible for us limited beings to understand in a naive sense 'cause there just are no macroscopic examples for us to look at. Thankfully the mathematics we developed to make sense of our wavicles works _really _well.

----------------------------------

* Ok, ok I'm avoiding a few wrinkles like the EPR paradox - entanglement and 'action at a distance' etc... but that's deep philosophy of QM. We of the 'Just Calculate' school of QM didn't bother our tiny heads thinking about such difficult things


----------



## Vertigo (Nov 3, 2014)

With our total inability to wrap our mind around the concepts of before and after with regard to the big bang, I've always considered this to be the point that religion should try and get their foot in the door. It is the ultimate ineffable concept and has always struck me as being the one thing that could possibly lead me to religion (though it hasn't yet).

Even if we eventually decide that space time was not created in the big bang - unlikely as the maths really does seem sound on this point, but still if... - and we decide something did come before (maybe a cyclic universe*), then what came before that? And before that? Eventually you have to run out of befores and you end up with the same dilemma. So we just have to face it that we cannot intuitively understand the original question never mind the answer and can only represent it in mathematics. Our entire mental makeup is completely geared to sequential time so remove time (not 'yet' created) and we simply cannot imagine it.

*How can the universe be cyclic if the big bang created time. There is no concept of "before" the big bang so there cannot have been a previous cycle. As to future cycles, since we have now determined that the universe's expansion is actually accelerating rather than slowing, an apocalyptic collapse (and subsequent new big bang) seems highly unlikely. Instead a continually increasing entropy seems to be the rather glum future. In effect the old "sound of a falling tree" philosophical thought experiment seems likely to be topped with the universe falling into a steady state in which NOTHING ever happens, and if nothing happens then does that universe actually exist since it can no longer be measured?


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Nov 5, 2014)

There's always the fishtank.

Something will come along and stir up the sh*t again.

What came before the before?

This reminds me of a michael bentine program where he is a future archeologist who finds an old BBC sign

"Even before bc"

 Says he


----------



## Nick B (Nov 7, 2014)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> Big Bang?
> 
> Why only one?
> 
> ...





This is why any physicist worth his salt will use the term 'the observable universe' and not 'the universe'. They will also generaly tell you the theory, not what is fact, because quite simply most of it is still only theory.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 8, 2014)

Also
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106-why-does-anything-exist-at-all
if this link doesn't work in UK, please complain to the BBC, who have gone a bit daft on Website content.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20141106-why-does-anything-exist-at-all


----------



## goldhawk (Nov 11, 2014)

Big Bang is a misnomer; it should be called the Big Chill.

The universe start when the gravitational force precipitated out of the other forces. This created space, time, mass, and the elementary particles. The size of the universe was on the order of Planck length and since QM breaks down at those small distances, nobody is sure what is really going on.

Some 10⁻³⁰ seconds after gravity separated, the other forces, that is, the Strong Nuclear, the Weak Nuclear and the electromagnetic forces precipitated out, causing the universe to hyper-inflate. This lasted for about 10⁻⁵⁰ seconds and expanded the universe on the order of 10⁷⁸ in size, leaving it some thousands of light-years across.

From that time until the CMB, the universe is full of mostly electrons, protons, and photons. Other quanta may have appeared and disappeared but their lifetimes were often very short.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 23, 2014)

Okay so out universe is composed of matter as a result of the big bang. Could the Big bang have resulted in an antimatter universe instead? And if we were an antimatter universe other opposite polarity of the substance composing it , would it be any different from the one we have now?


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 23, 2014)

I suppose the current answers to your questions are: 1) We don't know - but we think we have a reasonable guess and 2) mmm we can guess, but really we don't know. 

It has been hypothesized that the big bang _should _have produced an identical amount of matter and anti-matter. But through the process of charge parity violation (here if you want to know more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation) which has been observed, this biased very slightly the production of matter - making a tiny amount more. Hence when all the anti-matter interacted with matter, there was a little bit of matter left over. This mechanism is obviously in favour of matter but I can't tell you if this was an absolute inevitability in a universe like ours. It sounds like it should be to me, but I'd be interested to be corrected. 

The second one...I suppose theoretically there shouldn't be a difference. But we have not done the experiments on real antimatter to see if it does behave as it should (it's what the LHC is helping us answer I think). So I'd suggest the jury is still out on that one.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 23, 2014)

Im thinking that In antimater universe , time Flow and causality would likely be the same. 

In such a universe there would still be me at the keyboard typing this, everything about me would be the same except id be composed of Anti Protons Positrons and Anti neutrons. And from my prospective the antimatter composing me and the universe I live in  would be matter.


----------



## Mirannan (Nov 23, 2014)

Venusian Broon said:


> I suppose the current answers to your questions are: 1) We don't know - but we think we have a reasonable guess and 2) mmm we can guess, but really we don't know.
> 
> It has been hypothesized that the big bang _should _have produced an identical amount of matter and anti-matter. But through the process of charge parity violation (here if you want to know more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation) which has been observed, this biased very slightly the production of matter - making a tiny amount more. Hence when all the anti-matter interacted with matter, there was a little bit of matter left over. This mechanism is obviously in favour of matter but I can't tell you if this was an absolute inevitability in a universe like ours. It sounds like it should be to me, but I'd be interested to be corrected.
> 
> The second one...I suppose theoretically there shouldn't be a difference. But we have not done the experiments on real antimatter to see if it does behave as it should (it's what the LHC is helping us answer I think). So I'd suggest the jury is still out on that one.



It is an inevitability, because if the imbalance had been the other way around then what we now call matter would be called anti-matter and vice versa.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 23, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> Im thinking that In antimater universe , time Flow and causality would likely be the same.
> 
> In such a universe there would still be me at the keyboard typing this, everything about me would be the same except id be composed of Anti Protons Positrons and Anti neutrons. And from my prospective the antimatter composing me and the universe I live in  would be matter.



That's what the experiments are all about trying to answer - we assume a great many things about anti-matter at the moment. However it may be that there are very subtle other differences compared with matter that we just haven't seen but are there (because, well, this universe is just not a great place to be an anti-matter particle so our experiments on the stuff are limited) And just altering some of the fundamental properties by tiny amounts can radically change some big macro things in the universe. Change the fundamental constants or particle masses by a tiny amount and you can stop the formation of stars as we know them (for example)


----------



## apj868 (Nov 26, 2014)

The answer to a lot of this is that we don't know. In the other thread re a grand unifying theory, I talked about 4 fundamental forces gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. Just after the big bang (think fractions of a second) modern science tells us that there was only 1 fundamental force, which split to become the 4 fundamental forces we see today. Without a unified theory, we can't model the time before gravity split from the other forces. Therefore we really don't know what happened, hance why it is a "theory" and not something more concrete like a "law".


----------



## goldhawk (Nov 26, 2014)

apj868 said:


> Without a unified theory, we can't model the time before gravity split from the other forces. Therefore we really don't know what happened, hance why it is a "theory" and not something more concrete like a "law".



Without gravity, there is no time. And no space, for that matter. Time and distance are derived features of our universe, not fundamental ones.

BTW, a theory is a proven hypothesis. A hypothesis is a provable statement. A law is something assume to be correct but unprovable. For example, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the conservation of energy, is both impractical and impossible to prove. To prove it, we would have to know the position and momentum of every quanta in the universe. But it is true in every experiment done on it, so we assume it is true for the entire universe.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 28, 2014)

goldhawk said:


> Without gravity, there is no time. And no space, for that matter. Time and distance are derived features of our universe, not fundamental ones.
> 
> BTW, a theory is a proven hypothesis. A hypothesis is a provable statement. A law is something assume to be correct but unprovable. For example, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the conservation of energy, is both impractical and impossible to prove. To prove it, we would have to know the position and momentum of every quanta in the universe. But it is true in every experiment done on it, so we assume it is true for the entire universe.




Without gravity everything falls apart.


----------



## Michael F (Dec 28, 2014)

I read A Brief History of Tme and understood every word as I read it thanks to Professor Hawkins superb explanations.
Immediately I would turn a page, what was on that page would push out what i had just understood .
Alas, my greatest wonder is that such wonderful brains exist to comprehend such matters as matter and at least try to dumb down that comprehension for the likes of me.


----------



## Gramm838 (Dec 30, 2014)

Isn't this whole idea just a way for some people to not get real jobs - I mean, exactly what use is this type of research to anyone? It won't make the trains run on time every morning when I need to get to work...


----------



## mosaix (Dec 30, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> Without gravity everything falls apart.



Surely, Baylor, without gravity there is no 'falling'.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 30, 2014)

Gramm838 said:


> I mean, exactly what use is this type of research to anyone?


Maybe some day you can commute to Antares.

"Starship delayed due to Engineering work at King's Cross"

This is the thing with Science. You don't know where it will lead. Without it you might not have trains


----------



## Nick B (Dec 30, 2014)

And we may ask who are doing the jobs that actualy matter. Financial services? Entertainment and media? Manufacturing products that are obsolete before they hit the artificial market we have created?

Or researchers and scientists trying to drive mankind forward? This kind of research isn't just worthwhile, it is vital. Certainly more important than the next apple product ( $ 5 dollar i-phone 6 anyone? That'll be $ 500 please)


----------



## oorang (Dec 30, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> The big bang was an event, the first in time. But how could it have happened all? For an event (any event )  wouldn't there would have to be time flow  ?
> 
> And how could there be no space in existence before the big bang?  We don't know the exact size of the primordial atom , it could have been any size , from tiny all the ways up to galaxy size. But whether it was tiny or gigantic, wouldn't it have occupied space which didn't yet exist?
> 
> How can anything happen or exist without Time and Space?



I don't think of time or space as things that exist independently from matter or energy.  Spatial and temporal coordinates are dimensions we use to point to a particular piece of matter or energy.  It isn't so much that some things called space and time popped into existence at the same time matter did, or that they existed before matter did, it is that they are concepts that had no meaning until there was matter.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 30, 2014)

mosaix said:


> Surely, Baylor, without gravity there is no 'falling'.



I failed to appreciate the gravity of that issue .


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 1, 2015)

We have a universe  with stars ,planets and conditions favorable to  life ( at least here on earth so far) and laws of physics that work in balance .  If a few minor things had happened differently with regard to the big bang , our universe as we know it, wouldn't likely exist. We wouldn't exist.


----------



## Gramm838 (Jan 1, 2015)

Quellist said:


> And we may ask who are doing the jobs that actualy matter. Financial services? Entertainment and media? Manufacturing products that are obsolete before they hit the artificial market we have created?
> 
> Or researchers and scientists trying to drive mankind forward? This kind of research isn't just worthwhile, it is vital. Certainly more important than the next apple product ( $ 5 dollar i-phone 6 anyone? That'll be $ 500 please)



Jobs that actually matter? I nominate the Engineers in my team who have to adjust the air con about 8 times a day in your office because one person is cold while 7 other are too hot (or the other way round...) - of course, if people dressed for the weather the air con wouldn't need adjusting


----------



## Nick B (Jan 1, 2015)

I don't work in an office. And there isn't air conditioning. I look after people who can't look after themselves. I consider my job to matter, like doctors, the emergency services and the many people striving to make the world a better place for people.

Of course when I did work in a pretty air conditioned office, many years ago, looking after peoples money, I was paid a far, FAR better salary than I am today merely looking after peoples lives. 

But does time exist if there arn't any events to measure it's passing?


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 11, 2015)

Quellist said:


> But does time exist if there arn't any events to measure it's passing?




That's the the big question


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 20, 2015)

There was theory prior to the Big Bang Theory called the Steady State theory which argued that the Universe had always existed?


----------



## goldhawk (Feb 20, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> There was theory prior to the Big Bang Theory called the Steady State theory which argued that the Universe had always existed?



Yes. The problem with it was that the universe would have filled up with light. Nowadays, most scientists think that our universe was smaller in the past but they disagree on how much smaller.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Feb 20, 2015)

goldhawk said:


> universe would have filled up with light


Unless there is a lot of dust?
The Steady State idea (Fred Hoyle?) seems to conflict with a lot of evidence.


----------



## goldhawk (Feb 20, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Unless there is a lot of dust?
> The Steady State idea (Fred Hoyle?) seems to conflict with a lot of evidence.



The dust would just release the light at a lower frequency. That is, until it got hot enough to glow in visible light.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Feb 20, 2015)

Dust attenuates shifts the frequency lower till eventually it's just motion of the dust, as more is encountered between the source and observer.

But anyway dust can't save the Steady State Theory.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 23, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Dust attenuates shifts the frequency lower till eventually it's just motion of the dust, as more is encountered between the source and observer.
> 
> But anyway dust can't save the Steady State Theory.



The Big Bang is more likely.  Radio astronomy discovered the residual noise of the big Bang?


----------



## goldhawk (Mar 23, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> The Big Bang is more likely.  Radio astronomy discovered the residual noise of the big Bang?



You're thinking of the cosmic microwave background, which happened about 800,000 years after the Big Bang. There is no direct evidence of the Big Bang.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Mar 24, 2015)

Though it's the "best" theory at the moment.


----------



## Mirannan (Mar 24, 2015)

goldhawk said:


> You're thinking of the cosmic microwave background, which happened about 800,000 years after the Big Bang. There is no direct evidence of the Big Bang.



Direct evidence, perhaps not. However, one of Hawking's many contributions to physics is the mathematical proof that general relativity in an expanding universe absolutely requires a past singularity. Which doesn't mean there was a singularity in the past, because at very short time and distance scales quantum mechanics takes over. (In other words, it was a mathematical proof; one of the things people often get wrong about science is in believing that there is such a thing as absolute proof in science. There isn't.) But I think it's reasonable to say that Hawking's work indicates a time in the past when the universe was at the Planck scale. Which is more or less what Big Bang theory says


----------



## Venusian Broon (Mar 24, 2015)

Just to add to @Mirannan's point the experimental evidence that Hawkings would use to support his proof is the observation attributed to Hubble - that generally objects such as galaxies in space are moving away from us, interpreted as an expansion. Which is an observation that the Solid State people need to explain. 

From my limited understanding the third main indirect point of evidence (cosmic background being first) is the relative amounts of elements found in the universe, particularly Hydrogen/Helium supports the idea that the synthesis occurred as part of a big bang. However I will point out that there is still wrinkles, I believe, in this strand of evidence - the abundance of Lithium from the Big Bang model just doesn't tally with observation for example.


----------



## Anne Spackman (Mar 29, 2015)

Brian Turner said:


> When Black Holes were postulated, I seem to recall an idea that matter that entered a Black Hole could exit through a White Hole - effectively, creating a new universe. This also invoked Inflation, a theory by Alan Guth, critical for describing the Big Bang, which suggested that the universe was simply one of many - like bubbles in water.




I read a few books about this once upon a time.  _White Holes_, and _Unveiling the Edge of Time_, by John Gribbin among others.  I have yet to read the Stephen Hawking books I have on my shelf, but will as I just saw "The Theory of Everything" and felt inspired to read his books.  Anyway, I tend to think our universe is not alone, as well.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 28, 2016)

Anne Spackman said:


> I read a few books about this once upon a time.  _White Holes_, and _Unveiling the Edge of Time_, by John Gribbin among others.  I have yet to read the Stephen Hawking books I have on my shelf, but will as I just saw "The Theory of Everything" and felt inspired to read his books.  Anyway, I tend to think our universe is not alone, as well.



*A Brief History of Time* is a good read.


----------



## ErikB (Oct 4, 2016)

BAYLOR said:


> According to the big bang theory , the universe started out as a primordial atom. Then it exploded in spectacular fashion and suddenly you have instant universe ,Time Space  galaxies ,stars , light, gravity, dark matter ,  ect.
> 
> The big bang was an event, the first in time. But how could it have happened all? For an event (any event )  wouldn't there would have to be time flow  ?
> 
> ...



Big Bang is a joke. The stupidest and most heavily disproven theory ever supported by science. It was perpetuated by a small oversight that Hubble made which came out in an article in the New York Times in the 30's. 

This one area of science is also the most religiously guarded area by otherwise intelligent scientists like Sagan, DeGrasse, Hawkins, and others. 

It stems from the fact that the establishment spent the last several decades doing research based on the viability of the big bang. These are folks with tenure. 

Younger astronomers and those who have debunked and solidly opposed the laughable notion of big bang found themselves in many cases shut down by a group of astronomers that do not wish to admit that everything they have pushed and based their research on is a farce. 

Its not only an ego thing its a financial thing. Admitting it is absolutely wrong means losing funding, respect, employment, credibility, tenure, etc. So they work hard to cover their collective butts.

Problem is too many credible scientists including more senior and well established physicists and astronomers have continued to pile on more and more proof that big bang is a ridiculous and pathetic nonsense joke!

The methods of disproof are not only widespread, they are overwhelming! Anyone buying into big bang (other than the sitcom which is quite good) is way off base. 

I have a section of it in one of the non fiction books I am working on. Plus it makes no sense to anyone with a modicum if logic. 

Such a poor joke. The most amazing thing about the big bang theory is not that it has been given so much credence, but that it was even postulated in the first place.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 5, 2016)

The popular theory prior to big bang was the *Steady State Theory * .


----------



## Venusian Broon (Oct 5, 2016)

ErikB said:


> Big Bang is a joke. The stupidest and most heavily disproven theory ever supported by science. It was perpetuated by a small oversight that Hubble made which came out in an article in the New York Times in the 30's.
> 
> This one area of science is also the most religiously guarded area by otherwise intelligent scientists like Sagan, DeGrasse, Hawkins, and others.
> 
> ...



Erm*...what are the 'overwhelming' methods of disproof?

-----------------------------------------------------------

* he says not sure he wants to get heavily into a debate, but...**

** What the hell, I'm a Fortean, so always interested and willing to give everything a listen...


----------



## goldhawk (Oct 5, 2016)

Venusian Broon said:


> Erm*...what are the 'overwhelming' methods of disproof?



Don't feed the trolls. Don't ask for evidence; they should supply it.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Oct 5, 2016)

goldhawk said:


> Don't feed the trolls. Don't ask for evidence; they should supply it.


I'm curious!


----------



## goldhawk (Oct 5, 2016)

Venusian Broon said:


> I'm curious!



Curious about what? Please be specific.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Oct 5, 2016)

goldhawk said:


> Curious about what? Please be specific.


Curious as to what the 'overwhelming' methods of disproof are. It's a bold claim, so I'd like to see the evidence.


----------



## goldhawk (Oct 5, 2016)

Venusian Broon said:


> Curious as to what the 'overwhelming' methods of disproof are. It's a bold claim, so I'd like to see the evidence.



Ah, "overwhelming" is just hype I'm afraid.


----------



## ErikB (Oct 5, 2016)

Fair enough. I'll share a little of it here, since I don't want to have the bangers think of me as a "troll" for pointing out the obvious stuff and now the stuff they are too comfortable accepting to research or question.

First off theory supporters date the big bang as taking place between 13.5 - 19 billion years old. Depending on which person you go with.

But unfortunately for those to postulate these numbers there are stars close to us that have been accurately dated to be over 22 billion years old.

So if we just went with this tiny paradox alone the question arises how is it that one has Stars between 3 - 8.5 billion years older than their supposed point of origin?

You don't.

In 1929 Edwin Hubble discovered that if you looked at a spiral nebula that the shifts in their light wave width was directly proportional to their distance from us. This led toward supporting the idea of an expanding or non static universe as Einstein had originally predicted. This meaning that the red shifts were getting larger and larger as they looked suggesting that they were moving further away from us. Thus the New York Times stated in 1930 that we live in an expanding universe.

What becomes known as the "Hubble Law" states that the feinter a galaxy is the larger its red shift and thus the faster it was moving away from us.

In the 1960's we discovered quasars, which appeared as faint blue points of light and have huge red shifts implying that they are at greater distances from Earth.

Some astronomers discovered that vast numbers not quasars abounded next to spiral galaxies, and that these objects could be seen not only with radio telescopes, but also with optical and x-ray sources.

Quasars had two properties that did not mesh with expanding universe notions. First if you plotted their brightness against their red shift pattern as one would for galaxies they were scattered rather than on a gradual curve like galaxies. This indicated that they didn't follow the Hubble Law and may not be at their proposed red shift locations.

In fact it is widely argued that if Hubble had pointed his telescope at quasars first, he and other astronomers would never have proposed an expanding universe.

The second problem with quasars is that they are very small objects no more than a light year across. Yet they are intensely bright objects which (if they were at the distances projected by the expanding universe notion) would be so bright that the energies needed to generate that amount of light would require an unnatural explanation.

On the flip side, if they are placed at their observed distances the light mass becomes normal and no special or metaphysical explanation is needed to justify their location.

This has led astronomers reviewing the findings to realize that if the red shift distance evidence is false as the data shows, then there is no need or likelihood for an expanding universe, meaning big bang never happened.

Shall I go on?

You want to learn about Dr. Halton Arp's discoveries and peculiar galaxies?

Perhaps Dr. Margaret Burbridge and the case of NGC 7603 and the embedded filament stuff?

Perhaps the two Hill Type quasars studied by Martin Lopez Corrediora?

Or perhaps the cosmic background radiation fallicy that disproves Big Bang?

Or maybe the discrediting by science of the Element Abundance predictions? Or Non-Varianic/Dark Matter ideas disproved? Or the Dark Energy fail?

Guys these are not even all of the massive and ever increasing scientific evidence tossing big bang where it rightly belongs, in the garbage!

And let's leave aside all of the huge body of science that destroys this childish and ignorant notion and go back to basic logic.

Time and space are infinite. Apparently the meaning of "infinite" has been lost to most of humanity. It is too large and disturbing for people to grasp.

Time does not have a beginning or an end. Suck it up. If time had a beginning, bear with me here, what was happening during the time before time began? Time was happening.

We live in a plasma universe. Nothing wrong with that. What surrounded the point from which the BBT was supposed to have started? Space surrounded that point. Space is also infinite. And the universe is endless.

Humanity has an obsession with linearity. Everything having a beginning a middle and and end. It just bugs the crap out of us that something could just be. As in always "be" in existence.

Limitations of human thinking are really mind blowing. But I am not going to keep listing the massive pool of evidence that makes what most children could figure out logically into a "here let me crush the BBT in this thread" answer.

Instead I will simply say do your own research if you really wish to know. And trust me as a biologist I can say that there are a lot of minor and a few larger mistakes made here and there among scientists. Perfection is hardly a job prerequisite.

What is inexcusable is that MOST of the scientists still touting the BBT to the public and the scientific community know that its crap and a total farce. They also know that admitting it is a career ender for many of them and they are unwilling to set aside pride for the sake of education. And that to me is inexcusable.

When I make an error or get proven wrong I admit it, own up, and move on. I don't cling to it for the sake of tenure or scientific accolades. The facts come first in science. And I feel passionately about the way some otherwise brilliant minds have played this little deception out for their own sake!

Sorry if I seem a bit moody when addressing this but it is a full blown and silly sham. Check it out more closely and you'll soon see past the nonsense too.

Cheers!


----------



## Vertigo (Oct 5, 2016)

Just to pick one point could you name one of these 22 billion year old stars for us. HD 140283 wouldn't be one of them would it?


----------



## ErikB (Oct 5, 2016)

Not sure the designations for all nearby stars. I am not an astronomer, merely someone having looked into the subject extensively and in agreement with those who have shared the information publicly.

I don't know off the top of my head. Sorry. Have to look it up more in depth.

The research was shared with me by astronomers that I am willing to trust based on what was shared.


----------



## mosaix (Oct 5, 2016)

ErikB said:


> Not sure the designations for all nearby stars. I am not an astronomer, merely someone having looked into the subject extensively and in agreement with those who have shared the information publicly.
> 
> I don't know off the top of my head. Sorry. Have to look it up more in depth.
> 
> The research was shared with me by astronomers that I am willing to trust based on what was shared.



But how does a, purportedly, older Universe refute Big Bang Theory anyway?


----------



## ErikB (Oct 5, 2016)

mosaix said:


> But how does a, purportedly, older Universe refute Big Bang Theory anyway?



If a star or any other body is older that the origin of what supposedly created it then either the event is not accurately measured or more to the point it did not happen.

Its rather simple.


----------



## ErikB (Oct 5, 2016)

There's actually a very good documentary on this on YouTube called "The Big Bang Never Happened." Its a bit over an hour long and covers a lot of the various evidence and discussions of not only why its is an invalid theory, but how this came about. 

If you are interested in hearing physicists, astronomers, mathematicians, and others breaking it down in greater depth.


----------



## mosaix (Oct 5, 2016)

ErikB said:


> If a star or any other body is older that the origin of what supposedly created it then either the event is not accurately measured or more to the point it did not happen.
> 
> Its rather simple.



_*If*_ the star _*is*_ older than the than the estimated age of the Universe it's obvious that the estimated date of the Universe is incorrect. How does that refute the Big Bang? 

And please no condescending comments. It isn't simple at all. None of it's simple. If you think it is then there's something fundamentally wrong with your theories.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 5, 2016)

Yes, very good point mosaix - while I'm sincerely grateful for the sharing of information, and always love the raising of questions within science, I would be grateful, ErikB, if we could keep such discussions well-mannered. 

Even when talking about "Dark Energy".


----------



## Phyrebrat (Oct 6, 2016)

Okay this thread has been very interesting - if challenging for this simple dance teacher's mind to grasp - and my head is a little muddled. 

I like the concept of ErikB's 'be' i.e. There's always been _being_, but I'm intrigued as to what alternative there is. 

Does it mean that BBT deniers have an alternative or that everything has always 'been' and always will 'be' and that, therefore time is a philosophical construct that came into play when we did?

I probably shouldn't have got involved as this science stuff is way above my pay grade but it's intriguing. 

pH
Ps is it time to talk about uk freshwater fish yet?


----------



## Stewart Hotston (Oct 6, 2016)

Sigh. I'm a physicist. The big bang is the most plausible explanation of how time, space and spacetime came into being. I can suggest many good, proper, rigorous academic books on it. I'm cautious about posting here because I'm not really interested in debating it in the same way I'm not interested in debating whether milk is a liquid or if the postman delivers letters.

On the more interesting point about whether time or the big bang came first? The answer is (apologies if someone else has gotten here before me) that time does not exist without space hence the two emerged together at the same point of expansion of this brane of spacetime.


----------



## Vertigo (Oct 6, 2016)

ErikB said:


> Not sure the designations for all nearby stars. I am not an astronomer, merely someone having looked into the subject extensively and in agreement with those who have shared the information publicly.
> 
> I don't know off the top of my head. Sorry. Have to look it up more in depth.
> 
> The research was shared with me by astronomers that I am willing to trust based on what was shared.


You see I tried to find any mention on the internet of any stars older than the big bang theory's current estimate of the age of the universe and the nearest I could find was HD 140283 which originally appeared to be 16 billion years old which was indeed older than the BBT estimate. However based upon more recent improved theories of stellar structure** and improved distance data from the Hubble telescope the new estimate of that star's age now falls within the margin of error for the age of the universe. However it is indeed a fascinating star as, from it's low metal content, it is likely a first generation star formed shortly after the big bang and I don't believe there are a great many of those still around and observable.

Other than that I found absolutely no other mention of 22 billion year old stars or indeed any mention of any stars older than the big bang theory's estimate of the age of the universe. Now I know the internet is not the great omniscient oracle of all things but it shouldn't be too hard a thing to search for and I'm not a complete Google incompetent but I found absolutely nothing. Which suggests those who have researched these older stars are extremely reticent.

**Remember that is how the scientific method works; if you find observations that contradict your theory you attempt to adjust the theory to take those observations into account. If you can't do that then you probably need a new theory. As far as I'm aware, and as @Stewart Hotston states, the big bang theory is still the best fit for all the current observations.

Also I think it is rather insulting to scientists to state that 'most' of the scientists 'touting' the big bang theory 'know' it is false and are only pushing a false theory to protect their reputations and jobs. From my experience of all the scientists I have known that strikes me as a frankly ludicrous assertion. You may get one or two scientist who might behave badly in such a way but 'most'?


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 6, 2016)

Vertigo said:


> if you find observations that contradict your theory you attempt to adjust the theory to take those observations into account.



My physics teacher taught that the opposite happens - that observations are adjusted to fit the theory. 

And, to be fair, from my reading of the science literature, there's a lot of conflicting ideas in theoretical physics. The Big Theory is perhaps thought of as a "moderate consensus", but god forbid you should ask for details, because that's when any consensus falls apart.

Also, in the 1990's when I was reading New Scientist and Scientific American regularly, I remember arguments about the age of the universe were at their peak. There was no clear figure - some estimates said the universe must be much older than 13 billion years, others said much younger - depending upon what was observed. Eventually, a "definitive" value for Hubble's Constant was agreed. The caveat is, the assumption is that universal constants never change, and even then, it was clearly hinted at that they may vary with the age of the universe...

I do not think I would classify research physicists as dishonest, though. There are rival schools of thought and different areas of speciality. And we still profoundly misunderstand one or more fundamental properties of the universe - hence why the greater goal is a unified theory of everything, and that it remains elusive.

2c.


----------



## Vertigo (Oct 6, 2016)

My problem with any steady state theory is that something must be pumping energy into the universe to counteract the ever increasing entropy. The universe is burning energy and consequently entropy is always increasing therefore the universe must eventually 'burn out' and that just doesn't fit with the idea that the universe has always been and always will be as it is now; that's essentially proposing perpetual motion.

For me the concept of a big bang where at the instant of the big bang entropy was at it's minimum and everything was just potential energy and mass and where progressively over the aeons that potential is gradually transferred into ever increasing entropy until we do indeed reach a quiescent state in which entropy is at its maximum and nothing is happening any longer. This is to me completely logical; the only real question being whether gravity will pull it all back in again and return all that entropy back into potential. ie. a cyclic universe. Which is currently not looking too likely.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 6, 2016)

Oh, I'm personally not against the Big Bang Theory - simply pointing the complexities and disagreements inherent in theoretical physics. Or at least, from an outsider's point of view.


----------



## Vertigo (Oct 6, 2016)

I wasn't suggesting you were @Brian Turner. But it's my fault as it does rather look like I was!  

I was merely highlighting my main objection to the steady state theory.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 6, 2016)

Oh, I'm not accusing anyone of anything - I simply love the mystery that lies behind a lot of science. But that can sometimes leave it unclear what I'm actually standing up for.


----------



## ErikB (Oct 6, 2016)

Vertigo said:


> Also I think it is rather insulting to scientists to state that 'most' of the scientists 'touting' the big bang theory 'know' it is false and are only pushing a false theory to protect their reputations and jobs. From my experience of all the scientists I have known that strikes me as a frankly ludicrous assertion. You may get one or two scientist who might behave badly in such a way but 'most'?



You know were it ANY other field of science I would agree with you wholeheartedly. However within the astronomy and physics community there exist a LOT of people who have treated this in the very manner in which one might expect religious deference.

You really might wish to check out that documentary I shared. Hear it first hand from the scientists that experienced this within these communities. You have a right to believe whatever you wish.

Before I learned about the pretention and the acts involved I would have been skeptical myself. But I will say that scientists can be far more petty in spite of their intelligence than the general public might be aware.

I mentioned in another thread the bad behaviour of rival entomologists discovering new insects and using the naming process to further their digs at each other in what are childish and jealous grudge matches.

Ex;

Parker discovers a beetle and names it in Latin, James is an idiot.

Then James names his newly discovered silk moth in Latin, Parker is impotent.

Back and forth this behavior is well known in entomology. In my eyes its a disgrace! And that is just one example of bad behavior from academics that ought to act better.

But astronomers and some physicists have earned almost celebrity status (or are in fact celebrities in their own right) while others with tenure control the ability to get telescope observation time. They control the peer review process refusing to give any credence to the mountain of evidence which negates the BBT.

They act like a cult or secret society more than a science discipline and having spent many decades supporting an erroneous Theory their work and findings and publications are ALL predicated on the function and existence of BBT and an expanding universe idea.

Plasma or static universe is what the evidence supports. Its what the growing new generation of astronomers and physicists are embracing because it is what true science points toward.

So if I seem a bit rude about a branch of scientists acting unscientific to protect their collective butts, then please realize that it is because I respect science and loath those who malign it for personal gain. That is not what science is there for.

Its a tool for discovery. For testing and observing. For understanding.

It is not a club for the elite and in support of findings that are not only ludicrous but entirely contradicted. And anyone that conducts their field of scientific studies as an agenda selling opportunity rather than allowing for the field to go to what the data and evidence suggests for the sake of reputation and does so knowingly, deserves to be called out and to feel the brunt of the rest of the scientific community and the public for perpetuating false science.

It is an area that I think people deserve to learn the truth about. You may want to learn what happened to Halton Arp when his findings and his papers came out. This is a very strong figure in the field of astronomy and one of many that were discriminated against and their findings suppressed and intentionally ignored and buried. (Or attempted to be).

Have a look at that video I mentioned in the previous response. See for yourself what the others who discovered various breaks in BBT went through. If you were willing to hunt the star names using the net, then watch a documentary. There are more than one. But the one I mentioned is VERY damning in and of itself.

Cheers!


----------



## Stewart Hotston (Oct 6, 2016)

I think there are some comments here that betray an utter lack of understanding of the scientific process and an ignorance of how those communities operate. Science doesn't propose Truth (see Popper on this). It proposes truths which may, or may not be useful until a better understanding comes along. As a friend of mine says (and we're both physicists although I left the discipline a while back he's carried on to be an eminent scholar) 'science is the art of getting things wrong constructively'.

The difference here between fantasy narratives like the one @ErikB is telling and other more common forms of debate in common discourse is that science generally publishes its findings in the open, does not balk at harsh critique and is looking for ways of expressing understanding that it knows are going to be overturned. There are always fools who say 'we're at the end of history' but serious academics accept that their contribution to human knowledge is limited, typically incremental and likely to be obsolete before they turn around. 

Scientific discourse is one that is structured upon nuance and fragile certainty - I think it is this that so often perplexes amateurs and people on the outside. It IS true that any rigorous system of knowledge will have features that exclude outsiders - be that gang culture, high energy particle physics, management consultants, medicine or religious systems. Those similarities are to do with the grammars of knowledge not to do with the content of those systems themselves and we should be very careful NOT to say 'well it quacked like a duck so it MUST be a duck'.

If you want to read decent, accessible, books on scientific process then I'd recommend 'the structure of scientific revolution' by Tom Kuhn and 'Against Method' by Paul Feyerabend. If you're interested in how different grammars among different communities can look similar then pretty much anythingby Aaron Wildavsky or Mary Douglas is a sensible place to start. If you're a writer I'd highly recommend these too for world building purposes too. 

I find the social drive towards many world theory fascinating. It MAY be true, it's certainly mathematically consistent (but so if Bohm's hidden variables interpretation of QM and almost no one considers it logically credible even if it is mathematically credible), but my big question is so what? We can't go there (the most advanced interpretation is about how all probabilities encoded in a wave function are actualised somewhere and we just happen to be riding one of those probabilities - so by definition there's no stepping from one to another. Happy to explain that further if you want. I remember having a conversation at a physics conference in the US with some friends and we concluded that a lot of MWT proponents came out of families where they no longer had religious impulses and we looking for a way to eliminate God from the equation. Their reasoning went thus: if there are many worlds then God (in the judeao-christian sense) can't exist. It's not great theology I admit - that's why they were astrophysicists and not theologians - but I was more interested in why that was such a strong drive to prove the theory. 

The same is true in neuroscience - a real baby of a science - I've met people who are strong advocates of the brain being a computer (Susan Greenfield for instance) but then you remember their religious affiliations (some or none, it's irrelevant) and discover their favoured interpretation of the evidence they have so far miraculously accords with their belief system. I remember Crick dismissing an interviewer who proposed the brain was a computer with the words 'you would think that, you're a budhist' which was as smart a put down as I've seen in a while. 

I'm not saying (because I know it'll need reiterating) that science therefore can't be trusted! God no. Science is the art of getting things wrong constructively and is a system of knowledge that, on the whole, has massively benefitted the human race - just having antibiotics should make that case if you're in any doubt. But like ALL human endeavours, it is not free of humans.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 7, 2016)

So far lots of really interesting stuff.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 22, 2016)

It all boils down to how the universe started out, which we just don't know with any certainty.


----------

