Evolution and the Big Bang...

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Czar
I have my own theory that I have no idea if its true or not, but because no one knows for sure then thats what I like to think untill someone knows better

big bang was a huge blackhole exploding, or imploding or something, and therefor all matter was reformed

how could a black whole explode if light can't escape it then how could matter. Also doesn't time stop in a balck whole so if time is stopped what could cause an explusion. If nothing caused an explusion doesn't that violate the laws of theormodynamics?

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Personally Im of the belief that a mere human being trying to comprehend reality at its all encompassing level is like trying to teach astrophysics to a squirrel. We are just animals, and like all animals, we have limitations. Including cognitive ones.

That's the most intelligent statement in this thread!

btw, since a couple of you don't seem to realize it, the Vatican (the Pope) accepted the Big Bang theory in the (early 1960's?) That is to say, the Catholic Church believes in the Big Bang theory. (And they would ask, what caused the big bang? Their answer: God) The order of events in Genesis is pretty much the order of events in the creation of the universe up to the creation of the Earth, albeit a day in that sense wouldn't be 24 hours long.

Also, a technical note: the universe could have started from a particle that popped into existence and suddenly expanded before it had a chance to pop back out of existence. This happens ALL the time (well, except the expanding part). One might think of a vacuum as being completely void of *anything*. While that's true on a larger scale, on the subatomic scale, particles are constantly popping into and out of existence. Empty space is like a chaotic sea of these particles popping into and out of existence. Do a little googling and reading if you're in the mood for a headache. But, IMHO, it makes for quite interesting reading. (look under Quantum Mechanics)

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Caveman
The other recent thread on evolution got me thinking... What about before the big bang? Where did the matter come from that supported this event. Even if it was a miniscule peice of something, it was "something". What about energy? How did that just "happen"? There has to be a source... In scientific terms... to say otherwise would be absurd.

Right?

Directly answering that question: No, there doesn't have to be a source. Particles/energy (since the two are different forms of the same E=mc^2) pop into and out of existence all the time. Plenty of experiments have proven this.

 

[everman]

The best examples that make the most sence to me anyways is that everything must have a cause, being an effect of that cause. But what's interesting is that if you regress back far, and farther, with effects and their cause, you end up going back infinitly. Because since every effect needs a cause, that would seem like nothing would exist at all if indeed all effects needed a cause. So basically, it would take an uncaused-cause to create the effect known as the universe. This seems logical.

Now the actual nature of this uncaused-cause ranges from supernatural to natural forces etc etc. But my main point is the above confusing paragraph.

 

[ReiAyanami]

Welcome to the Matrix.


anybody recall Asimov's story about humans creating computers creating humans?

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: everman
The best examples that make the most sence to me anyways is that everything must have a cause, being an effect of that cause. But what's interesting is that if you regress back far, and farther, with effects and their cause, you end up going back infinitly. Because since every effect needs a cause, that would seem like nothing would exist at all if indeed all effects needed a cause. So basically, it would take an uncaused-cause to create the effect known as the universe. This seems logical.

Now the actual nature of this uncaused-cause ranges from supernatural to natural forces etc etc. But my main point is the above confusing paragraph.

The book reference above, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, discuss this notion of a casual universe rather succinctly. Your points are valid, but the book will elucidate your thoughts nicely.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Caveman
The other recent thread on evolution got me thinking... What about before the big bang? Where did the matter come from that supported this event. Even if it was a miniscule peice of something, it was "something". What about energy? How did that just "happen"? There has to be a source... In scientific terms... to say otherwise would be absurd.

Right?

Directly answering that question: No, there doesn't have to be a source. Particles/energy (since the two are different forms of the same E=mc^2) pop into and out of existence all the time. Plenty of experiments have proven this.

I think that the reason for this is due to a misunderstanding of the data, or our physics just isnt there. If they pop into and out at the same time, where is it going, and where is it coming from. Perhaps it is just changing form in some way, in a way that we are unable to detect, or perhaps the answer is right in our face as we dont see it. String or M-theory is still highly, highly theoretical, but it makes a valiant attempt at explaining why things seem so jumpy and weird at the quantum level. Throw in strings, branes, and 11 dimensions, and it starts to make more sense.

Kind of how astronomy used to still be quite accurate even when we thought everything revolved around the earth. I forget the astronomer, but he created these strange circles within circles to account for the erratic movements of the planets. It was totally wrong in reality, but appeared to be right in testing.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Czar
I have my own theory that I have no idea if its true or not, but because no one knows for sure then thats what I like to think untill someone knows better

big bang was a huge blackhole exploding, or imploding or something, and therefor all matter was reformed

how could a black whole explode if light can't escape it then how could matter. Also doesn't time stop in a balck whole so if time is stopped what could cause an explusion. If nothing caused an explusion doesn't that violate the laws of theormodynamics?

no idea, but its all about the amount of energy a black hole can contain
untill we know more about black holes we cant realy say anything for a fact on the subject

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Caveman
The other recent thread on evolution got me thinking... What about before the big bang? Where did the matter come from that supported this event. Even if it was a miniscule peice of something, it was "something". What about energy? How did that just "happen"? There has to be a source... In scientific terms... to say otherwise would be absurd.

Right?

Directly answering that question: No, there doesn't have to be a source. Particles/energy (since the two are different forms of the same E=mc^2) pop into and out of existence all the time. Plenty of experiments have proven this.

I think that the reason for this is due to a misunderstanding of the data, or our physics just isnt there. If they pop into and out at the same time, where is it going, and where is it coming from. Perhaps it is just changing form in some way, in a way that we are unable to detect, or perhaps the answer is right in our face as we dont see it. String or M-theory is still highly, highly theoretical, but it makes a valiant attempt at explaining why things seem so jumpy and weird at the quantum level. Throw in strings, branes, and 11 dimensions, and it starts to make more sense.

Kind of how astronomy used to still be quite accurate even when we thought everything revolved around the earth. I forget the astronomer, but he created these strange circles within circles to account for the erratic movements of the planets. It was totally wrong in reality, but appeared to be right in testing.

Copernicus?

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Czar
I have my own theory that I have no idea if its true or not, but because no one knows for sure then thats what I like to think untill someone knows better

big bang was a huge blackhole exploding, or imploding or something, and therefor all matter was reformed

how could a black whole explode if light can't escape it then how could matter. Also doesn't time stop in a balck whole so if time is stopped what could cause an explusion. If nothing caused an explusion doesn't that violate the laws of theormodynamics?

no idea, but its all about the amount of energy a black hole can contain
untill we know more about black holes we cant realy say anything for a fact on the subject

We may not be able to say anything for a fact, but that doesn't mean we can just say nonsense either Do some googling for Hawking Radiation, black holes, thermodynamics, and entropy. That should be more than enough to show you what is currently known about black holes, imo.

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
You don't know, but you still believe. That's called faith, baby.

Oh shut up already. You think evolution is "faith" too, you moron.

If it can't be proven then yes. Its faith.

Why are you so damned determined to slap down anyone and anyones ideas that there might be some greater power out there besides ourselves (God).

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Czar
I have my own theory that I have no idea if its true or not, but because no one knows for sure then thats what I like to think untill someone knows better

big bang was a huge blackhole exploding, or imploding or something, and therefor all matter was reformed

how could a black whole explode if light can't escape it then how could matter. Also doesn't time stop in a balck whole so if time is stopped what could cause an explusion. If nothing caused an explusion doesn't that violate the laws of theormodynamics?

no idea, but its all about the amount of energy a black hole can contain
untill we know more about black holes we cant realy say anything for a fact on the subject

Black holes evaporate at a rate proportional (inversely? I'm pretty sure it's not though) to their mass. IIRC, once the mass becomes high enough, the evaporation rate looks like an explosion, and again, IIRC, the singularity may actually explode.

 

[Yzzim]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
You don't know, but you still believe. That's called faith, baby.

Oh shut up already. You think evolution is "faith" too, you moron.

If it can't be proven then yes. Its faith.

Why are you so damned determined to slap down anyone and anyones ideas that there might be some greater power out there besides ourselves (God).

I've got the same question. Seems that it's OK for other people to say they believe it happened this way or that way, but there's no right or wrong and it hasn't been proven yet so they put faith in what they believe is true. However when someone else says they believe God created it, they suddenly get shot down?

Seems a little hypocritical to me.

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Czar
I have my own theory that I have no idea if its true or not, but because no one knows for sure then thats what I like to think untill someone knows better

big bang was a huge blackhole exploding, or imploding or something, and therefor all matter was reformed

how could a black whole explode if light can't escape it then how could matter. Also doesn't time stop in a balck whole so if time is stopped what could cause an explusion. If nothing caused an explusion doesn't that violate the laws of theormodynamics?

no idea, but its all about the amount of energy a black hole can contain
untill we know more about black holes we cant realy say anything for a fact on the subject

Thats really what the big bang is. All matter/energy concentrated in one point. The question is how much do you have to feed a black hole before it explodes? We know there are black holes at the center of galaxies. Once the galaxies themselves are eaten do we get an explosion? If the void of space is infinite could there be other universes on the same plane and new ones forming all the time? What would be the intensity of an explosion like that? What happens when those two expanding universes collide?

Since there seem to be people here with much more of a math backround than I have I would like to ask a question I've been wondering about.

We know that a stars collapse causes a black hole. How much gravity is needed to restrict the movement of light? Could an extremely massive star do it or only one that has acheived the density of a black hole?

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Czar
I have my own theory that I have no idea if its true or not, but because no one knows for sure then thats what I like to think untill someone knows better

big bang was a huge blackhole exploding, or imploding or something, and therefor all matter was reformed

how could a black whole explode if light can't escape it then how could matter. Also doesn't time stop in a balck whole so if time is stopped what could cause an explusion. If nothing caused an explusion doesn't that violate the laws of theormodynamics?

no idea, but its all about the amount of energy a black hole can contain
untill we know more about black holes we cant realy say anything for a fact on the subject

Thats really what the big bang is. All matter/energy concentrated in one point. The question is how much do you have to feed a black hole before it explodes? We know there are black holes at the center of galaxies. Once the galaxies themselves are eaten do we get an explosion? If the void of space is infinite could there be other universes on the same plane and new ones forming all the time? What would be the intensity of an explosion like that? What happens when those two expanding universes collide?

Since there seem to be people here with much more of a math backround than I have I would like to ask a question I've been wondering about.

We know that a stars collapse causes a black hole. How much gravity is needed to restrict the movement of light? Could an extremely massive star do it or only one that has acheived the density of a black hole?

I'm 90% sure that something must have the density and gravitional pull as great as a black hole to restrict the movement of light, but I'm not exactly sure.

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
You don't know, but you still believe. That's called faith, baby.

Oh shut up already. You think evolution is "faith" too, you moron.

If it can't be proven then yes. Its faith.

Why are you so damned determined to slap down anyone and anyones ideas that there might be some greater power out there besides ourselves (God).

I've got the same question. Seems that it's OK for other people to say they believe it happened this way or that way, but there's no right or wrong and it hasn't been proven yet so they put faith in what they believe is true. However when someone else says they believe God created it, they suddenly get shot down?

Seems a little hypocritical to me.

Mainly because people associate a creator which can exist outside space/time with the God of the Bible which to many is no more than fiction. If you seperate the Bible and just deal with a creator it is no less plausible than anything stated in this thread. However when a "creator" is taken in context with a book that has inconsistencies it leads to doubt . The feeling is that one day we will climb Mt. Olympus and there will be no god there. We may very well find the opposite though. We may just figure out how he did it.

 

[sandorski]

There was no "Big Bang", it was the "Big Drop". You see, we are just the result of some kids science experiment, our Universe is nothing but a Petri Dish growing a Culture. The kid has poor Housekeeping skills though, he threw the Petri Dish into the closet Eons(in our time) ago. One day his Mother will clean the closet and wipe us out in a sink of Hot Water and Bleach!!! We must escape, the Black Hole is our path beyond the Dish!!!!!

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Caveman
The other recent thread on evolution got me thinking... What about before the big bang? Where did the matter come from that supported this event. Even if it was a miniscule peice of something, it was "something". What about energy? How did that just "happen"? There has to be a source... In scientific terms... to say otherwise would be absurd.

Right?

Directly answering that question: No, there doesn't have to be a source. Particles/energy (since the two are different forms of the same E=mc^2) pop into and out of existence all the time. Plenty of experiments have proven this.

I think that the reason for this is due to a misunderstanding of the data, or our physics just isnt there. If they pop into and out at the same time, where is it going, and where is it coming from. Perhaps it is just changing form in some way, in a way that we are unable to detect, or perhaps the answer is right in our face as we dont see it. String or M-theory is still highly, highly theoretical, but it makes a valiant attempt at explaining why things seem so jumpy and weird at the quantum level. Throw in strings, branes, and 11 dimensions, and it starts to make more sense.

Kind of how astronomy used to still be quite accurate even when we thought everything revolved around the earth. I forget the astronomer, but he created these strange circles within circles to account for the erratic movements of the planets. It was totally wrong in reality, but appeared to be right in testing.

Copernicus?

no potolmeic cosmology (sun-centered) and many before copenricous they're called epicycles
This is what your talking abour right?

theres a phrase "adding epicycles" you see it every so often

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Czar
I have my own theory that I have no idea if its true or not, but because no one knows for sure then thats what I like to think untill someone knows better

big bang was a huge blackhole exploding, or imploding or something, and therefor all matter was reformed

how could a black whole explode if light can't escape it then how could matter. Also doesn't time stop in a balck whole so if time is stopped what could cause an explusion. If nothing caused an explusion doesn't that violate the laws of theormodynamics?

no idea, but its all about the amount of energy a black hole can contain
untill we know more about black holes we cant realy say anything for a fact on the subject

Thats really what the big bang is. All matter/energy concentrated in one point. The question is how much do you have to feed a black hole before it explodes? We know there are black holes at the center of galaxies. Once the galaxies themselves are eaten do we get an explosion? If the void of space is infinite could there be other universes on the same plane and new ones forming all the time? What would be the intensity of an explosion like that? What happens when those two expanding universes collide?

Since there seem to be people here with much more of a math backround than I have I would like to ask a question I've been wondering about.

We know that a stars collapse causes a black hole. How much gravity is needed to restrict the movement of light? Could an extremely massive star do it or only one that has acheived the density of a black hole?

I'm 90% sure that something must have the density and gravitional pull as great as a black hole to restrict the movement of light, but I'm not exactly sure.

You just need enough mass to make the escape velocity greater than the speed of light. The earth could be a black hole if you compressed it enough (like to tennis ball size IIRC).

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Czar
I have my own theory that I have no idea if its true or not, but because no one knows for sure then thats what I like to think untill someone knows better

big bang was a huge blackhole exploding, or imploding or something, and therefor all matter was reformed

how could a black whole explode if light can't escape it then how could matter. Also doesn't time stop in a balck whole so if time is stopped what could cause an explusion. If nothing caused an explusion doesn't that violate the laws of theormodynamics?

no idea, but its all about the amount of energy a black hole can contain
untill we know more about black holes we cant realy say anything for a fact on the subject

Thats really what the big bang is. All matter/energy concentrated in one point. The question is how much do you have to feed a black hole before it explodes? We know there are black holes at the center of galaxies. Once the galaxies themselves are eaten do we get an explosion? If the void of space is infinite could there be other universes on the same plane and new ones forming all the time? What would be the intensity of an explosion like that? What happens when those two expanding universes collide?

Since there seem to be people here with much more of a math backround than I have I would like to ask a question I've been wondering about.

We know that a stars collapse causes a black hole. How much gravity is needed to restrict the movement of light? Could an extremely massive star do it or only one that has acheived the density of a black hole?

I'm 90% sure that something must have the density and gravitional pull as great as a black hole to restrict the movement of light, but I'm not exactly sure.

You just need enough mass to make the escape velocity greater than the speed of light. The earth could be a black hole if you compressed it enough (like to tennis ball size IIRC).

But can an extremely large mass do it or just an extremely dense object. I guess my question is - Is there a point at which a star is so massive that it will not emit light?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
You don't know, but you still believe. That's called faith, baby.

Oh shut up already. You think evolution is "faith" too, you moron.

If it can't be proven then yes. Its faith.

Why are you so damned determined to slap down anyone and anyones ideas that there might be some greater power out there besides ourselves (God).

Because there is absolutely NO basis, NO evidence that supports the existence of a God.

However, from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

The word "theory," in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Barnhart 1948]. In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
That life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
That life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
That species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
That natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.

The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas [Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003].

Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is useless.

If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
You don't know, but you still believe. That's called faith, baby.

Oh shut up already. You think evolution is "faith" too, you moron.

If it can't be proven then yes. Its faith.

Why are you so damned determined to slap down anyone and anyones ideas that there might be some greater power out there besides ourselves (God).

Because the "God did it." thing is a complete copout. Just because we can't currently explain something doesn't mean we shoud just sit back and assume some amorphous higher being set everything up for us. History is littered with a trail of events formerly attributed to "Higher Power X" and the Big Bang or however we all came to be is no different. It's only a matter of time.

 

[upsciLLion]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
You don't know, but you still believe. That's called faith, baby.

Oh shut up already. You think evolution is "faith" too, you moron.

If it can't be proven then yes. Its faith.

Why are you so damned determined to slap down anyone and anyones ideas that there might be some greater power out there besides ourselves (God).

Because there is absolutely NO basis, NO evidence that supports the existence of a God.

However, from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

The word "theory," in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Barnhart 1948]. In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
That life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
That life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
That species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
That natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.

The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas [Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003].

Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is useless.

If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these.

You certainly put a lot of effort into arguing against something that so clearly isn't true.

 

[QueHuong]

I would imagine the universe would be expanding forever. Every life born, every star formed...everything that requires order is done at the expense of the universe, it has to become more disordered and so it expands.

 

[BD2003]

Yep, ptolemy.

Every time we think we have the definitive answer to something, something comes in and screws it up. To me, quantum fluctuations are just TOO freaky. Like epicycles.