Is the universe contained in a box?
It could be............................
Posted on 08/19/2014 11:11:23 AM PDT by fishtank
Is there definitive evidence for an expanding universe?
by John Hartnett
The spectral lines for this element still show the same distinctive pattern, but all have been shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. Expansion of the universe is fundamental to the big bang cosmology. No expansion means no big bang. By projecting cosmological expansion backwards in time, they assert, one will, hypothetically, come to a time where all points are the same. Since these points are all there is, then it logically follows that there is no space or time ‘before’ this moment. It is the singularity, and we cannot use language couched in concepts of time when no time (or space) exists.
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
“There is no “before” the big bang: the theory can not explain how the “universe the size of a pea, and unbelievably dense” came into existence.”
It’s even worse than just that. We know from our current knowledge of physics that it would currently be impossible for that much matter and energy to be condensed to such a small area. The only way they can even imagine such a scenario would be possible is if the physical laws of the universe were radically different at that time.
Of course, we have no way of determining what the laws were in the past, since we determine those laws through observation and experimentation. We can’t experiment in the past, and our ability to observe any remnants of that distant past are extremely limited.
Normally, science operates in the framework of uniformitarianism, assuming that the current laws we observe were the same in the past, but in this case, they have tossed that principle in the dumpster, simply in order to support a theory which would otherwise be easily falsified. There’s no real rationale for doing that, except that they want to keep the theory viable, and that type of subjectivity has no place in science.
To me, that all seems like shaky logic. The dark energy itself is a concept invented as a fudge factor to a theory whose predictions did not match the observations. Until we can even confirm if it exists, I think it’s wise to think of it as such, a mathematical abstraction, like a constant, and not an actual thing that we can use to patch up holes in other theories.
Actually there’s a LOT of ideas on what was before the big bang. So the only useless thing here is your total lack of understanding.
Our universe may be nothing more than a bubble in God’s carbonated beverage. Simply one among many more. The only one who would know is God and I’m not convinced that He even gives a care about any of this.
It’s space itself that is expanding
Is a medical theory that can shrink or eliminate tumors but cannot explain their origin useless?
Have any links? I am highly interested. thanks
There’s 3 major theories:
the previous version of this universe, contracting to death until it caused the big bang (which theory also includes how this one ends)
something in a universe next door made a hole in their reality which “banged” ours into existence
a very extremely high level of nothing (which could be tied to the previous theory)
Here’s kind of a survey:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang.htm
Here’s a discussion on why it doesn’t matter:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
Here’s one that says it was so nothing there wasn’t even time so functionally there is no before:
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/september/13-starting-point
Here’s some really heady over view stuff:
http://www.superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo4.html
And many many more.
And then of course there’s still theories that compete with the big bang. Outside of climate change there’s really not that much settled science, especially when it comes to things you can’t experiment on.
Is the universe contained in a box? If not and there is no outside boundary, well...........I gotta talk this over with my homies Friday night at the bar.
Is the universe contained in a box?
It could be............................
“Example:
He observes the reality of “red shift” as a strong indicator of distance in an expanding universe, then rejects it because relatively fast-moving material exhibits a shift different than relatively stationary material, then because a sensible exception does not match the general description he rejects the entire “red shift indicates distance and therefore indicates chronology” reasoning, while completely failing to offer a sensible alternative explanation of redshifting - a rather stupid line of reasoning.”
I don’t think you got the gist of what they were getting at about the redshifts, but maybe the article could have been written more clearly on that point. Here’s the key section, I think:
“Generally at large redshifts the redshift-distance relationship, the large-scale extension of the Hubble Law, is used, so that redshift then is a proxy for distance. However, it may well be true that the Hubble Law applies, as a method of determining distance, but that the mechanism for generating the redshifts is, as yet, unknown.3 In other words it may not be the result of expansion of the universe, yet it may still give us a measure of cosmic distance back to the source galaxies.”
What they mean, in plainer language, is this: just because redshifts do correlate with distance doesn’t mean that the redshift is caused by distance (or acceleration actually). This is just a restatement of a very basic principle, that correlation does not equal causation.
They go on to propose a method for determining whether there is actual causation, by looking at other factors that would vary with distance, and seeing if there are discrepancies with the distances predicted by redshift values.
That’s all quite sensible, in my estimation. Other scientists have already proposed different mechanisms to account for redshift that would not be dependent on distance, but which could still yield the type of measurements we observe. I don’t think there is enough evidence to say any of those other proposals are valid, but this is not an idea that creationists have pulled from thin air.
Except for all of those blue shifted galaxies...
Now, let’s posit that Hubble was retarded. That, over a long enough distance, light waves start to “stretch”... Hence the Constant.
Suddenly, you resolve a lot of standard model issues. Including all of that “Bog Bang/Crunch” mythology.
Big, not bog.
Ugh... iPad typing...
That a reasonable theory is not absolutely irrefutable is not grounds for dismissing it entirely (giving no sensible alternative) just because it offends your axiom.
Maybe it’s all being sucked OUT of this universe!
OMG, we’re all gonna die...
"Okay. That means that our whole solar system could be, like one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being.....This is too much! That means one tiny atom in my fingernail could be--"
"Could be one little tiny universe."
"Could I buy some pot from you?"
“That a reasonable theory is not absolutely irrefutable is not grounds for dismissing it entirely (giving no sensible alternative) just because it offends your axiom.”
Where did they do that? They looked at the evidence and noted, quite accurately, that much of it is lacking. That’s not “dismissing it entirely”.
We are all falling down a gigantic black hole.
The "Big Bang" is its event horizon.
Much of it was lacking? No, they just observed that redshift was not an absolute indicator of distance in all cases.
Across the Universe................ We could be in a universe within a universe within a universe.............Like a never ending series of Russian matryoshka dolls.....................
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.