The God Thread

[Satchmo]

45 minutes ago, RupertKBD said:

 

 

One of the things that has always bothered me about the BBT, is "Inflation"....basically something that they came up with that "explains" a major flaw in the theory itself.

 

We all know that the speed of light is a universal constant. Nothing can move faster....It's also widely accepted that the age of the known universe is just under 14 billion years...

 

A few years back, I read that the size of the known universe is in the neighborhood of 80 billion light years across.....but given the two above factors, this should be impossible. If the Big Bang happened 14 billion years ago and the universe expanded at the speed of light, then the size of the universe should be less than 28 billion light years from edge to edge....yet, it's roughly three times that....

 

Inflation gets into some quantum mechanics and photons "communicating" with each other and it probably all makes sense to a physicist (if not to a layman like me).....but, there's no getting around the fact that somehow the universe expanded at faster than light speed for a short time after the Big Bang....

I have never really worried about the BBT being entirely correct.   I do think it is on the right track and remains the most plausible explanation of things.   

 

I tend to see the bigger theories as just boxes to hold all our ideas on the subject while we work out the finer details.   

 

I agree that questions can, and should, be raised about many aspects of all theories.    

 

-  particles 'communicating' or 'entangling' is a truly odd and curious thing I'd be happy to get into in the science thread.   Or maybe just not on Boxing Day - one of the few days of the year when I'll have a large dash of Cointreau in a 3:00 pm coffee.

[Inkidu]

The Big Bang has always represented only the largest minority of cosmologists -- kind of like how MAGA dominates the Republican party. Cosmic inflation theory was just one more bandaid to keep the Bang banging but the Webbscope should put an end to it.

 

Until now lip service has been required for funding and acceptance (again like MAGA) but here's hoping for that leap of insight that incorporates all reality, not just the segments that self-centred science promotes. 

 

 

 

[Gurn]

I think humans would be better off saying "what we currently believe' than 'what we know'.

We find  ancient cities on our own planet, that we didn't know about, yet say we know about the size of the entire universe?

 

 

Edited December 27, 2023 by Gurn

[Satchmo]

38 minutes ago, Inkidu said:

The Big Bang has always represented only the largest minority of cosmologists -- kind of like how MAGA dominates the Republican party. Cosmic inflation theory was just one more bandaid to keep the Bang banging but the Webbscope should put an end to it.

 

Until now lip service has been required for funding and acceptance (again like MAGA) but here's hoping for that leap of insight that incorporates all reality, not just the segments that self-centred science promotes. 

 

 

 

I agree that we will learn much from Webb and what we learn may change or even replace the Big Bang idea.   I'm fine with that as long as it's sensible.

 

I'm mostly commenting on the MAGA reference.  Science and the business of science has some warts but I've never heard it described that way before. 

[Inkidu]

22 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

I agree that we will learn much from Webb and what we learn may change or even replace the Big Bang idea.   I'm fine with that as long as it's sensible.

 

I'm mostly commenting on the MAGA reference.  Science and the business of science has some warts but I've never heard it described that way before. 

Just meant to point out the phenomenon of how a minority can act like a majority, thereby increasing the possibility of error. 

[Satchmo]

26 minutes ago, Inkidu said:

Just meant to point out the phenomenon of how a minority can act like a majority, thereby increasing the possibility of error. 

So you feel it's only a minority of cosmologists supporting the Big Bang?   If so, what would you say the majority support?

[Inkidu]

1 hour ago, Satchmo said:

So you feel it's only a minority of cosmologists supporting the Big Bang?   If so, what would you say the majority support?

 

It's the largest group but less than 50% overall--at least that was the case fairly recently. It appears larger because many cosmologists are compelled to support it or risk not being published or funded. 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2023 by Inkidu

[UnkNuk]

44 minutes ago, Inkidu said:

 

It's the largest group but less than 50% overall--at least that was the case fairly recently. It appears larger because many cosmologists are compelled to support it or risk not being published or funded. 

 

 

 

 

 

That's a very surprising stat (to me, at least).  Where are you getting it from?

[Satchmo]

30 minutes ago, Inkidu said:

 

it's the largest group but less than 50% overall. It appears larger because many cosmologists are compelled to support it or risk not being published or funded. 

It's not like I'm the self appointed defender of the Big Bang - I've just been part of a few posts on it - but I can't agree with that percentage or with the idea that so many cosmologists have just been pretending all this time.

 

[Inkidu]

1 minute ago, UnkNuk said:

 

That's a very surprising stat (to me, at least).  Where are you getting it from?

 

1 minute ago, UnkNuk said:

 

That's a very surprising stat (to me, at least).  Where are you getting it from?

First at a private lecture involving several cosmologists at UBC a few years ago. They spoke as if it was common knowledge. It made sense to me so i notice whenever I come across something or someone that echoes it. 

 

 

[UnkNuk]

5 minutes ago, Inkidu said:

 

First at a private lecture involving several cosmologists at UBC a few years ago. They spoke as if it was common knowledge. It made sense to me so i notice whenever I come across something or someone that echoes it. 

 

 

 

Did they mention what other theories are popular with cosmologists?

[Satchmo]

2 minutes ago, UnkNuk said:

 

Did they mention what other theories are popular with cosmologists?

The Quasi Steady Deep State Theory?

[Inkidu]

3 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

The Quasi Steady Deep State Theory?

 

Not deep at all, but that's a conversation stopper 

[UnkNuk]

10 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

The Quasi Steady Deep State Theory?

 

I think I'll go to bed now.

[Satchmo]

10 hours ago, Inkidu said:

 

Not deep at all, but that's a conversation stopper 

I have to apologize for bringing an end to an interesting conversation.  I wasn't drunk but it is the season for being a little tipsy.  At the time I thought I was being hilarious.

 

I hope this conversation can continue at least between yourself & @UnkNuk.   I'll stay out of unless I think I have a worthwhile comment. 

 

Upon reflection, I can see how a scientist might pursue a subject - especially one like this - without a full believe in it.  And l know it's a struggle to get grants.

 

So, please tell me more...

[The Lock]

On 12/26/2023 at 10:12 AM, Slegr said:

That doesn’t surprise me. The estimated date of the universe (13.7 billion years old) never made sense to me when the estimated date of our Earth is 4.5 billion years old. The universe is so massive, and the thought that this planet has been around for a third of the universe’s entire existence just doesn’t seem to add up.

 

Yeah that's generally what I mean by "too convenient". We're literally a bunch of tiny humans on a tiny planet trying to make sense of all this. The chance of us being wrong is... astronomical (pun intended). lol

Edited December 28, 2023 by The Lock

[RupertKBD]

On 12/26/2023 at 10:12 AM, Slegr said:

That doesn’t surprise me. The estimated date of the universe (13.7 billion years old) never made sense to me when the estimated date of our Earth is 4.5 billion years old. The universe is so massive, and the thought that this planet has been around for a third of the universe’s entire existence just doesn’t seem to add up.

 

Can you expand on that? It doesn't seem that strange to me.....

[Slegr]

5 hours ago, RupertKBD said:

 

Can you expand on that? It doesn't seem that strange to me.....

It just seems implausible that our little rock (Earth) would have been around for 1/3 of the entire universe's time in existence. Think of how big this universe is supposed to be. I'm talking 200 billion trillion stars (no exaggeration). How could this one planet have been around for an entire third of the whole known universe's time in existence? That one just doesn't pass the sniff test to me, regardless of what today's science will tell you.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Slegr

[RupertKBD]

1 hour ago, Slegr said:

It just seems implausible that our little rock (Earth) would have been around for 1/3 of the entire universe's time in existence. Think of how big this universe is supposed to be. I'm talking 200 billion trillion stars (no exaggeration). How could this one planet have been around for an entire third of the whole known universe's time in existence? That one just doesn't pass the sniff test to me, regardless of what today's science will tell you.

 

Sorry. I'm still not following....why is it so hard to believe?

[UnkNuk]

2 hours ago, RupertKBD said:

Sorry. I'm still not following.

 

Neither am I.    How old should the Earth be?

[Slegr]

1 hour ago, UnkNuk said:

 

Neither am I.    How old should the Earth be?

I think the Earth’s age is correct. But I’m not sold on how old the universe is.  The more I think about the Big Bang theory, the more I do want to question what we know. I remember my Grade 8 Science teacher telling the class the universe was once the size of an eraser on a pencil. And then the Big Bang happened. But why the size of an eraser? Something that humans could conceptualize, and somehow a scientist determined that exact size? How do scientists even know how old the universe is when we can’t see it all? There are stars like the Methuselah Star that we occasionally spot that end up being older than the date the universe is. Oh, but it’s just an average, so it’s okay. There are two hundred billion trillion stars out there - we’ve only got data on a small handful but we’re already finding stars older than how old the universe is supposed to be, and we’ve partly based our guess on the universe’s age by the age of some stars. And what was outside the universe when it was the size of an eraser? It had to expand into something, didn’t it? It’s still supposedly expanding, but what is it expanding into? The universe may very well be eternal.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Slegr

[Gurn]

[Satchmo]

12 hours ago, Slegr said:

I think the Earth’s age is correct. But I’m not sold on how old the universe is.  The more I think about the Big Bang theory, the more I do want to question what we know. I remember my Grade 8 Science teacher telling the class the universe was once the size of an eraser on a pencil. And then the Big Bang happened. But why the size of an eraser? Something that humans could conceptualize, and somehow a scientist determined that exact size? How do scientists even know how old the universe is when we can’t see it all? There are stars like the Methuselah Star that we occasionally spot that end up being older than the date the universe is. Oh, but it’s just an average, so it’s okay. There are two hundred billion trillion stars out there - we’ve only got data on a small handful but we’re already finding stars older than how old the universe is supposed to be, and we’ve partly based our guess on the universe’s age by the age of some stars. And what was outside the universe when it was the size of an eraser? It had to expand into something, didn’t it? It’s still supposedly expanding, but what is it expanding into? The universe may very well be eternal.

From a science nerd point of view, I'd (as tactfully as I can) say that you could read up on it all and some of your questions might be answered. 

 

From hockey fan to hockey fan, I'd say just don't worry about it.   Your day won't change much either way.

 

Back to science nerd again - there's a lot of stuff we haven't worked out yet.  I'm just glad we are on the case even if we never really figure it all out.   This pursuit is teaching us lots of things even if the big answer alludes us.

[RupertKBD]

14 hours ago, Slegr said:

I think the Earth’s age is correct. But I’m not sold on how old the universe is.  The more I think about the Big Bang theory, the more I do want to question what we know. I remember my Grade 8 Science teacher telling the class the universe was once the size of an eraser on a pencil. And then the Big Bang happened. But why the size of an eraser? Something that humans could conceptualize, and somehow a scientist determined that exact size? How do scientists even know how old the universe is when we can’t see it all? There are stars like the Methuselah Star that we occasionally spot that end up being older than the date the universe is. Oh, but it’s just an average, so it’s okay. There are two hundred billion trillion stars out there - we’ve only got data on a small handful but we’re already finding stars older than how old the universe is supposed to be, and we’ve partly based our guess on the universe’s age by the age of some stars. And what was outside the universe when it was the size of an eraser? It had to expand into something, didn’t it? It’s still supposedly expanding, but what is it expanding into? The universe may very well be eternal.

 

Space "fossils".....

 

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Herschel/Cosmic_Microwave_Background_CMB_radiation

 

I agree that a lot of our "knowledge" is based on "best guess" scenarios, but the guys doing the "guessing" know a lot more about it than we do....

[Rob Eh]

The devil is in the detail