To me the world seems to have lost it's mind. Last few days have looked at pictures of gitmo bay and almost threw up. The dehumanizing of people was beyond words. History talked of hitler and auschwitz. Decades later what I saw in those photos of gitmo made me think of images of the the very humiliation that the United states once fought against. Turkey is burning because of fighting back the government turned on it's own people like a mad dog. here in america we finally start getting rights for LBGT . Along comes salvation army saying that it should be a death sentence. Killing people over religion seems to be on the rise. in india women are burning for supposed witchcraft and girls killed being victims of rape . The catholic church is says birth control is wrong . Nuns who argue with church are being excommunicated. In last political race it was debated whether women had a right to their on viginas . People are dying world over because of religion and lack of even basic medical and dental care. there is hope for this world right?
I would have guessed you fell off a hay baler.
I doubt the big bang hypothesis.
One reason is that a Catholic priest devised it. He had studied math, but I doubt that even math can erase what Catholic dogma does to a mind.
A singularity containing the universe's entire mass is a stretch.
All the stuff cosmologists have had to conjure to fill in the gaps: inflation, dark matter, dark energy, and perhaps more. These are more sophisticated than Ptolemy's circles on circles but they are still patches.
A dictionary definition I saw long ago: cosmology as a blend of metaphysics and astronomy. Metaphysics is too much like religion.
Cosmologists claiming that both space and time originated with the bang. This is pure imagination.
As you say, objects moving away except those that are gravitationally attracted to each other. What forces were strong enough to change the directions of galaxies that were moving away from a singularity? This too is a stretch.
And, more subjective, the unbounded certainty of BB believers. They have made themselves a religion.
Re: "I doubt the big bang hypothesis."
Yea me too. To have a "bang" you need sound waves, to have sound waves you need an atmosphere and ears. :D
Ludicrous idea that big bang stuff, let's go back to the concept that the Earth is the center of the universe and it's flat. LOL
Always enjoy Krause - thanks, Gregg!
Did anyone else hear Krauss, at least three times, say "we have faith..."?
You weren't listening.
Yeah, I caught that.
What do you disagree with in the notion that if you look at the way the universe is expanding and play it backwards it does end up at something we have come to call The Big Bang? Where else could playing it backwards take us?
No one looks at the way the universe is expanding and plays it backwards.
One looks at a bunch of statements about the universe and reverses the verbs that allege what's happening.
No one does that? That's exactly how The Big Bang theory originated! From the Wikipedia entry on Big Bang:
The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory and is widely accepted within the scientific community. It offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and the Hubble diagram for Type Ia supernovae. The core ideas of the Big Bang—the expansion, the early hot state, the formation of helium, and the formation of galaxies—are derived from these and other observations that are independent of any cosmological model. As the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, it is inferred that everything was closer together in the past. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures, and large particle accelerators have been built to experiment in such conditions, resulting in further development of the model. On the other hand, these accelerators have limited capabilities to probe into such high energy regimes. There is little evidence regarding the absolute earliest instant of the expansion. Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.
Georges Lemaître first proposed what became the Big Bang theory in what he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom". Over time, scientists built on his initial ideas to form the modern synthesis. The framework for the Big Bang model relies on Albert Einstein's general relativity and on simplifying assumptions such as homogeneity and isotropy of space. The governing equations had been formulated by Alexander Friedmann. In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts—an idea originally suggested by Lemaître in 1927. Hubble's observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity.
RE: "A singularity containing the universe's entire mass is a stretch."
The idea of the entire mass of a single star, compressed into a singularity is mind-boggling - are you saying this has never happened? Then of what does a Black Hole consist? Or do they not exist either?
I'm saying "A singularity containing the universe's entire mass is a stretch."
What are you adding?
arch, I wasn't driving the turnip truck you didn't fall from.
Good to know, I'm a bit concerned your license may have been suspended indefinitely.
What else didn't happen - evolution?
I need to complete one on my statements above.
What forces were strong enough to change the directions of galaxies that were moving away from a singularity with the result that galaxies collide? This too is a stretch.