Christopher Hitchens @ Google - Page 4

07-09-2008, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tadpole256

No one is proposing the idea that nothing became something. We have proven that matter and energy can be neither destroyed or created, they can only change states. The big bag theory postulates that everything became everything, but in a different configuration.

You are wrong. The big Bang theory clearly states that at one time there was absolutly nothing.

AlicornsPrayer · 07-09-2008, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grace

You are wrong. The big Bang theory clearly states that at one time there was absolutly nothing.

Actually Grace, no it doesn't state that.

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

The essential idea is that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time the past and continues to expand to this day. Georges Lamaitre proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, although he called it his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'.

Big Bang Theory - MSN Encarta

Quote:

Big Bang Theory, currently accepted explanation of the beginning of the universe. The big bang theory proposes that the universe was once extremely compact, dense, and hot. Some original event, a cosmic explosion called the big bang, occurred about 13.7 billion years ago, and the universe has since been expanding and cooling.

Basically Grace, that's saying that certain chemicals and elements combined, exploded, creating new chemicals, which then combined and created the universe.

Just like life on Earth came from a 'primordial soup'...So did the Universe. But from a more dence, concentrated form consisiting of gasses and elements, that then exploded.

Like a star, but larger and hotter then is measureable in human terms.

So no...The Big Bang theory DOESN'T claim that the universe came from nothing. It does in fact claim that the universe came from some single point of something.

And that something consisted of basic elements that then were changed by the initial explosion, combined and created more elements, then more elements, and thus created stars, galaxies, planets, and basic life forms on those planets that had suitable conditions to support life that evolved into higher life forms.

What exactly that something is, the Big Bang doesn't say...But not saying it's specifically this/that/the other ISN'T saying that that something is nothing...Just that they don't know for sure exactly what the 'something' was consisted of or looked like.

garysher · 07-09-2008, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tadpole256

No one is proposing the idea that nothing became something. We have proven that matter and energy can be neither destroyed or created, they can only change states. The big bag theory postulates that everything became everything, but in a different configuration.

Are the Big Bang theory and the Biblical account of creation mutually exclusive?

Maybe it's two ways of describing the same process.

cactusman · 07-09-2008, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlicornsPrayer

Actually Grace, no it doesn't state that.

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Big Bang Theory - MSN Encarta

Basically Grace, that's saying that certain chemicals and elements combined, exploded, creating new chemicals, which then combined and created the universe.

Just like life on Earth came from a 'primordial soup'...So did the Universe. But from a more dence, concentrated form consisiting of gasses and elements, that then exploded.

Like a star, but larger and hotter then is measureable in human terms.

So no...The Big Bang theory DOESN'T claim that the universe came from nothing. It does in fact claim that the universe came from some single point of something.

And that something consisted of basic elements that then were changed by the initial explosion, combined and created more elements, then more elements, and thus created stars, galaxies, planets, and basic life forms on those planets that had suitable conditions to support life that evolved into higher life forms.

What exactly that something is, the Big Bang doesn't say...But not saying it's specifically this/that/the other ISN'T saying that that something is nothing...Just that they don't know for sure exactly what the 'something' was consisted of or looked like.

"What is the big deal—the biggest deal of all—is how you get something out of nothing…. Don't let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either—despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. 'In the beginning,' they will say, 'there was nothing—no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which…' Whoa: stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks is all off. Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of the quantum hats"
—David Darling

British astronomer and science write in On Creating Something from Nothing. New Scientist 151 (September 14, 1996) 49.

cactusman · 07-09-2008, 04:15 PM

"The first, and main, problem is the very existence of the big bang. One may wonder, what came before? If space-time did not exist then, how could everything appear from nothing? What arose first? The universe or the laws determining its evolution? Explaining this initial singularity—where and when it all began—still remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology."
–Andre Linde

Professor of Physics, Stanford University – The Self-Producing Inflationary Iniverse, Scientific American Vol. 271, p.48 (Nov. 1994). He has held the position of Plumian Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University, was the founder of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge and is currently an Honorary Fellow of both Emmanuel College and St. John's College Cambridge, an Honorary Professor at Cardiff University of Wales, a fellow of the Royal Society and a Foreign Associate of the US National Academy of Sciences.

cactusman · 07-09-2008, 04:17 PM

"Most disturbing, however, is the fact that despite numerous efforts, we have yet to directly observe the process of stellar formation. We have not yet been able to unambiguously detect the collapse of a molecular cloud core or the infall of circumstellar material onto an embryonic star. Until such an observation is made, it would probably be prudent to regard our current hypotheses and theoretical scenarios with some degree of suspicion"
—Charles J. Lada
& Frank H. Shu
Charles J. Lada, Senior Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and Frank H. Shu, President and Professor of Physics at the National Tsing Hue University in Taiwan and regarded as one of the world's leading authorities in theoretical astrophysics and star formation in The Formation of Sun Like Stars, Science 248 (May 4, 1990), p. 572.

garysher · 07-09-2008, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlicornsPrayer

So no...The Big Bang theory DOESN'T claim that the universe came from nothing. It does in fact claim that the universe came from some single point of something.

But where did that something come from?

No matter how you spin it Big Bang theory is no more plausible than the Biblical account of creation.

07-09-2008, 04:34 PM

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
cosmologystatement.org
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.
Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.
What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.
Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.
Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.
Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.
Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.
Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.
Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.

Tigerwiccan · 07-11-2008, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

Are the Big Bang theory and the Biblical account of creation mutually exclusive?

Maybe it's two ways of describing the same process.

Maybe, but evolution makes alot more logical sense than a dude and a chick popping in out of nowhere.

Tigerwiccan · 07-11-2008, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grace

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

cosmologystatement.org
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

At least it ATTEMPTS to postulate what happened in the beginning. A much more solid effort than the "man in the sky said 'gee, I want light'" variety.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-09-2008, 04:15 PM		#35 (permalink)
	Grace Guest Posts: n/a	"The first, and main, problem is the very existence of the big bang. One may wonder, what came before? If space-time did not exist then, how could everything appear from nothing? What arose first? The universe or the laws determining its evolution? Explaining this initial singularity—where and when it all began—still remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology." –Andre Linde Professor of Physics, Stanford University – The Self-Producing Inflationary Iniverse, Scientific American Vol. 271, p.48 (Nov. 1994). He has held the position of Plumian Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University, was the founder of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge and is currently an Honorary Fellow of both Emmanuel College and St. John's College Cambridge, an Honorary Professor at Cardiff University of Wales, a fellow of the Royal Society and a Foreign Associate of the US National Academy of Sciences.

07-09-2008, 04:17 PM		#36 (permalink)
	Grace Guest Posts: n/a	"Most disturbing, however, is the fact that despite numerous efforts, we have yet to directly observe the process of stellar formation. We have not yet been able to unambiguously detect the collapse of a molecular cloud core or the infall of circumstellar material onto an embryonic star. Until such an observation is made, it would probably be prudent to regard our current hypotheses and theoretical scenarios with some degree of suspicion" —Charles J. Lada & Frank H. Shu Charles J. Lada, Senior Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and Frank H. Shu, President and Professor of Physics at the National Tsing Hue University in Taiwan and regarded as one of the world's leading authorities in theoretical astrophysics and star formation in The Formation of Sun Like Stars, Science 248 (May 4, 1990), p. 572.

07-09-2008, 04:34 PM		#38 (permalink)
	Grace Guest Posts: n/a	An Open Letter to the Scientific Community cosmologystatement.org *(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)* The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy. What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles. Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do. Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding. Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry. Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory. Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology. Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.