2: Not quite. We can most certainly see infrared as well, using sensors. Beyond that, you would certainly be able to FEEL, an infinite amount of infrared energy radiating down upon you. What you suggest would still mean there IS an infinite amount of energy hitting the earth all the time. Clearly there is not.

Actually, no, so far it can't. The examples you give are specifically not possible, because of the shape and nature of the observed blackbody spectrum from the CMB. This has been discussed at length here; try searching old threads using the search function. Also try Ned Wright's Cosmology page.

Wow, I've certainly stimulated a lot of discussion!
Musashi asked how God could have always been around. God is outside of time, and therefore entropy does not apply to Him. This is why it says in the Bible that a thousand years are to God as a day and vice versa - to show that time does not matter to Him. Thus, He has been there in eternity past and will be in eternity future, but matter and energy, which are in the physical universe, could not have been since they would have gone into heat death.
By the way, Musashi, I approve of your quotation from Beowulf.

A lot of points were raised over the Big Bang or cosmic egg originating from a black hole in another universe, or from something called a 'false vacuum' ( is that the same as an 'atmosphere'?). Yet whichever one is used, matter still needs to be created at some point, either here or in another universe. Matter can be created from energy and vice versa, but one of them has to be there in the first place, and that defies the Laws of Thermodynamics.

You can avoid entropy by introducing energy, as with the Sun shining on Earth. But where did the Sun's energy come from? Essentially, it and the energy of every star in the universe is supposed to have grown out of the Big Bang. Entropy in reverse.

It has been added that perhaps the Big Bang theory is not bound by the laws of physics since they turned up afterwards. I hesitate to delve into this realm... I can feel my brain going into critical already... The theory then is, that the universe was not created by design, but instead came out of a bang, and laws of physics were only designed later to keep things in working order? Who designed these laws of physics then?

Dark matter is a prevailing idea, yes, but just an idea... it has never been observed.

Don't hesitate to offer further opinions on my arguments.

Baryonic dark matter has been observed.

But I've been trying to understand your type of reasoning so perhaps you can explain. If the universe was created by God (something science cannot address) then why couldn't the Big Bang be the way God chose to create it? Why can't the discoveries of science be the way God intended the universe to operate?

On another thread I've asked why it is that some choose to literally interpret the Bible and thus limit the scope of God's universe. Isn't it more compatible with the concept of an omnipotent creator if we live in a 13.7 billion year old universe that might be teaming with life on other planets as opposed to a 6000 year old universe in which we are the only life? I would think God can handle billions of civilizations as easily as one can be handled. I would think God can oversee the universe for billions of years as easily as 6000 years.

Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 8:33 pm Post subject:

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

cyrek1 wrote:
The CMBR can be explained in other ways.

The Bad Astronomer wrote:

Actually, no, so far it can't. The examples you give are specifically not possible, because of the shape and nature of the observed blackbody spectrum from the CMB. This has been discussed at length here; try searching old threads using the search function. Also try Ned Wright's Cosmology page.

Cyrels reply:

I accessed Ned Wrights web and will review those sites later.

However, the black body curve is common to all radiations.
Our Sun has a BBC although it is distorted to a degree because of all the solar activity.

In the Bohr atom, the electron transitions will trace out a BBC because of the variation of the electron velocity and its curved trajectory.
Incidentally, the physics books show the curvature in a reverse position.
the lower radiation portion should be the lead portion because the electron starts out at a slower velocity and finishes at the higher velocity
in the smaller inner orbit were the stronger radiation point is.

The dust particles in space will absorb sunlight and reradiate a BBC.
I believe molecules would do likewise because their radiations are a result of electron transitions.

You are clinging to a fallacious scope of the big bang. At least half a dozen people including myself explained before that your understanding of the scope is incorrect. The "explosion" itself is not part of the big bang theory - there are other theories that speculate on that. The big bang theory itself fits entirely within the realm of our current laws of the universe.

So the Big Bang theory cannot be considered as a cosmology or cosmogony.The Big Bang only limit the speculations to what append after.

I'll chime in to say that this has always perplexed me as well. It has always seemed to me that the universe as revealed through the study of astronomy is far more impressive and majestic than anything we'd imagined. For many Christians, this is just evidence that God is even more amazing. The stance of many denominations is in fact simply that God created the universe with a Big Bang (and created humans through the process of evolution, though we don't need to get into that here). The fact that current cosmology points to a universe that in fact had a definite beginning would seem an open invitation to suggest that it was God that created it at that point. Since science doesn't discuss what happened "before" the Big Bang, there's no conflict with such a belief.

So I would likewise be genuinely interested to understand why it's important to your faith in God that the universe be young.

If God can be outside of time, why couldn't the pre-big bang matter have been outside of time. In fact, from what I understand of the theory, there was no "time" before the big bang, so thermodynamics would not have caused heat death...

If one side is allowed sidestep the rules, then it biases the result. I have heard that God has always been and always will be, and it never comes with an explanation. But if someone says, the univers has always been, then all of a suden it requires a higher standard of proof. In other words, if God can step outside the laws of natures, then I submit that so can nature, on occasion. If we take it to that level, then it becomes a matter of opinion between choosing to believe in God or no God. If we remove all the expectation of credible explaination, then we can no longer debate, we can only state opinion. Sidenote; I hope you do not take this as an attack on you. I do not mean it as such, but I realize that sometimes things can seem harsher in written word.

Also, I am trying to find a more applicable Beowulf quote, but I haven't had the time.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Again, I will say that we cannot apply *any* of our current physical laws to anything "preceeding" the big bang, because A: we have no evidence that any of the physical laws applied, and B: it is most likely that time originated at the big bang. So, before the big bang has no meaning, and even if it did, it would still not indicate that any processes that we observe today would apply to the original singularity.

No. Not at all. Although, I am not qualified to tell you what it is.You have continued to assert that statement even after we have proved it's invalidity. If you have some new logical argument that validates your arguments, state it! However, repeating it will not make it any more valid.

The "Entropy in reverse" argument is a very poorly disguised version of the previous argument, which we have invalidated. If you have some new logical argument that validates your arguments, state it! However repeating it will not make it any more valid.

God.

(If you're allowed to fall back on that argument, so are we, and there's no argument you can give me to invalidate it.)

Hence the name "dark matter." I think I will quote a DC-Talk song.

We can see that there is matter, not directly observeable, because of the way that certain galaxies spin. We can see by the paths of individual stars that they should orbit further out, if there is only the observed amount of matter within it's orbit. So, we are logically forced to conclude that there is extra, unseen mass within the orbit of each star. So, there has to be some form of dark matter.

Looking at the definition of "cosmology" I'm not seeing where you would get that idea.

Cosmology
http://www.infoplease.lycos.com/ipd/A0389263.html
1. the branch of philosophy dealing with the origin and general structure of the universe, with its parts, elements, and laws, and esp. with such of its characteristics as space, time, causality, and freedom.
2. the branch of astronomy that deals with the general structure and evolution of the universe.

By defenition cosmology must deal with the origin of the Universe not only the general structure and evolution.But it seem than this is philosofical branch who deal with that.

No it doesn't. The definition of cosmology that applies to astronomy makes no mention of the origin of the universe, only its evolution and structure. You will note that definition 1 applies to a branch of philosophy, not of astronomy.

That is the bulk of my argument than the origin of the Universe is more a philosophic interest.Does the Big Bang theory is a cosmology if it ignore the origin of the Universe?

Orion, I see what you are getting at, but I still disagree - the word "must" is wrong. 'Cosmology *CAN* include....' Big Bang theory describes the large scale history of the universe right up until (but not including) the origin. It even says something about the origin (that the laws break down right before you get to it). It might not give the entire picture, but it gives a very large part of it.

Christian wrote:
I am qualified enough to tell you what a false vacuum is, at least as far as my own ego is concerned. A false vacuum is what you would think of as a vacuum. The fact of the matter is that everywhere is space there is an underlying layer (if you will) of undetectable energy. This energy can and does form pairs of electron and positrons (anti-electrons), which quickly annihlate each other in most cases, turning back into the energy that created them. Since there are always these pairs of particles, there can be no true vacuum.

It has been observed. drguss said that baryonic dark matter has been observed, and he's correct. You see it every day. Heck, you *are* baryonic dark matter. At least one other form of dark matter has also been observed--neutrinos. The problem is that these forms of dark matter don't account for all of the dark matter that there should be according to the CMB and such.

I don't know much about the Compton effect, but this:

is wrong.

Both GR and Universal Gravitation preclude the possibility of the universe being static. It must be either expanding or contracting.

The galaxies follow paths similar to what they would if they came from an exploding force. That allows for small "sideways" motions. They don't all go exactly radially, some do have small "sideways" velocities, which accounts for colliding galaxies.

John, do you believe this or are you just posting to show us some of the objections?

Well, that's not quite true. Einstein introduced the cosmological constant to allow for a static universe. Though he later described that as his greatest mistake, the recent discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating shows that there needs to be a similar term in the equations (whether this is really just a constant, or if it varies with time or in some other way is still open), so maybe Einstein was smarter than even he knew. Though the universe does seem to be expanding, if you include that term then a static universe is at least a theoretical possibility in general relativity, even if that's not what is actually happening.

I brought this up in my AST class. My Prof. tried a rebuddle, but i was not moved. I never liked nor agreed with the Big Bang

Even with the colsmological constant, it would still be impossible to make a static universe. Two galaxies would end up just close enough to gether to make them attract a little bit, and they would come together. This would increase the "negative gravity" around them, thus making others fly apart, and causing them to attract other galaxies. Altogether, the net effect would end up being expansion or contraction, depending upon how strong the cosmological constant is.

If thats just an astronomy class, I wouldn't expect your prof to know much more than the outline of the Big Bang.

If thats just an astronomy class, I wouldn't expect your prof to know much more than the outline of the Big Bang.[/quote]

Whoa, I take offence to that. What on earth do you mean by that? Why would someone with a PhD in physics or astronomy, working in an astro department, not know more than an outline of the big bang?

I know every possible prof that he could have had, and I know that most of them have a good understanding of the big bang.

Oh, and I have to ask neptune: What prof and what class?

Well I was thinking more in terms of a high school science teacher who drew the short stick and was forced to teach astronomy.

If this was a PhD in physics or astronomy, you would expect him/her to have at least a basic grasp of the Big Bang theory.

Okay. I apologize if I over reacted a little. Some people could have easily missed the U of I in his location line, but I latched right on to it.

I still would like to know who didn't convince him.

Heh, yeah I missed it - my dad went there. No prob. I still wonder why he couldn't successfully defend the Big Bang theory though.

It may not be the case that he couldn't. This is what kingneptune8 wrote(Bolding added):

The professor in question may have been doing this: ](*,)

are you calling kingneptune8 as dense as a brick? :-?

Nope, I'm saying that kingneptune8 has said "I was not moved" and follows that with a statement that he never liked the Big Bang. Sounds like a person that has their mind made up and will not be swayed. No matter how good a job the Prof. did, if the person cannot be swayed you might as well be banging your head against a brick wall. That has nothing to do with intelligence. Smart people can be stubborn about being swayed by logic if they choose to be closed minded on the question at hand.

I know. I was joking. I should have made that more clear. Sorry. ops: