Some Logical Questions about the Big Bang and Evolution

[Perfection]

Assuming the average IQ to've been 100 before he rejoined

which would be impossible due to my whopping IQ of 10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^10))))))))

 

[The Last Conformist]

which would be impossible due to my whopping IQ of 10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^10))))))))

Well, this, of course, means he's even brighter.

Nice new avatar, BTW!

 

[Smidlee]

i don't see where people even see the "missing link" anymore. what link is it that needs to be filled. and you say 'between man and monkey' do some research because there are a lot of species in between.

I no expert but I do listen to those who spent their whole life trying to produce the link between man and a ape-like ancestor . My favorite subject is science and math so I interesting for years in science even with evolutionist since I still believe I can learn something from them even if I don't agree in their theory.Both Richard Leakey and Mary Leakey even question their own life work. Richard Leakey said on PBS in 1990 about some of the evidence :
"If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving."
Both Richard and Mary was strong evolutionist and wasn't questioning the theory itself but was question the evidence. Why should I whole-hearted believe in evidence that even those in the field questioned it?

this whole anology is flawed because for example human and chimp genomes are 98.8% the same, so only very small 'programming' changes need to be made, where as civ3 and doom3 don't share 98.8% of their programing.

It somewhere between 93%-98% since it depends how it is examined. Even if 98.8% is the true figure it doesn't necessary it closer than 90%. It just like a maze , you could be just a few feet from the exit yet be at a dead-end and still be far from exiting the maze.
******************************************************
One part I find with science is it's too much one-sided. In Politics we got two parties and even in the church we have those who believe in creation and those who believe in evolution and some between the two. Yet in science either you a evolution know-it -all or a doubter who must be creationists ( science heretics).
I personally don't mind being a science heretic since history has shown that even heretics has been right before ( even though I love science myself). While evolutionist see evidence of a common ancestor in biology, I see this same as evidence for a common language in DNA. The same God spoke animals into existance also spoke man into existance so it sound reasonable there should be simiarities in the DNA between God's creatures. I see evidence the the universe is built upon laws,words, and language (The Word Of God) not just on mathematics. I also believe our brain in built upon language and not math like a computer.( I said all this to show there is more than one way of seeing and interpreting evidence) It may be true I lack understanding and knowledge to see the Emperor's clothes but I still have to cry " the Emperor has no clothes".

Here is an article I find interesting of an evolutionist named Michael Behe
who feel it may be time for the science community to change some rules.
www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1783

please note Michael Behe isn't a creationist and has no reason to doubt common descent yet feel that the evidence in biology points to intellegent design which here I agree. (I notice Talkorigin.org criticize him and even claim he was ignorant about his book Darwin's Black box. It's funny they seem to be quick to assume everyone is ignorant who they disagree with ( even other evolutionist)yet never think that it could be them that are ignorant.)

Edited : Here a interesting articles that describes some of the problems with the Big bang theory as long as you can look pass it from a creationist site (science heretic.. hehe). www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2003/r&r0305a.htm (you may not agree with everything in this article but it does has got some good points.)

 

[Neomega]

Other models of the universe such as the steady state theory have all fallen by the wayside. Only the big bang model - which is continually being refined - stands up to observational tests.

"It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe."
-Stephen Hawking (A Brief History of Time)

Could you explain this statement by Hawking then?

Gravitational energy is negative. You can create a lot of it if you create positive energy at the same time. Starting from nothing, it is possible with a big enough fluctuation to create the initial point that was our universe. There was no matter but a lot of energy. We dont have a working quantum theory of gravitation which is needed to fully understand this but there are strong indications from existing theories that this is not only possible but inevitable at some point. Cosmologists usually indicate that time itself began with this step so there was no 'before'.

This is interesting. So now gravity is an energy? And in fact, an opposite to "known energy"

Even in a vacuum, quantum fluctuations of energy due to the uncertainty principle are creating and annihilating new matter all the time. This has been experimentally confirmed.

Wow, excuse my disbelief, but I am going to have to google this statement. Experimentally confirmed? In a vaccum matter has been created? That is just nuts, and I am really not sure I could ever accept it, unless I were to see it with my own two eyes.

Where does relativity fit into the big bang, since the Big Bang seems to have a beginning, hence a reference point, from which all other points could be measured?

We have good models of the universe as has previously been stated back to the first few picoseconds.

What exactly are these models based on? What real scientific observations?
Are they based on approximations of distance through astronomical observation? Fluctuations in orbits, to estimate gravity, and what of the gravity caused by Dark matter... how does that fit into the models?

I do computer modeling, but it is based on observable patterns in thermodyanmic law here on Earth... in other words, it is based on tangible, scientifically studied proof, and bounded by the parameters of Earth. It warns of not attempting to model nanoscopic or non-Earth environments. I take it as incredibly more solid, since we can get a cubic litre of water and weight it, determine it's mass, and specific heat.

But somehow, good basics as such, I would think, would be required for planetary models. Accurate measurements of the masses of stars and such. I may be incorrect, but it seems to me we base almost all gravitational modeling on the understanding of our own solar system, which in itself is poorly understood, I just wonder whart kind of proof there is that gravity and energy even behaves the same way in other solar systems... In fact, I daresay, I wonder what proof there is that light, over enormous distances, does not lose speed. How could we ever say that light does not slow down, (or speed up), over the distance of 60 trillion light years? Would it not take 60 trillion years to observe?

Understand me, I like to read about such theories as the big bang, but I started with the quote I found most evangelical. The theoris about the origin of the universe are expanding as we speak, and it will only be a matter of time befoe rhte pendulum will swing back towards steady state. I believe it will be one of those eternal debates, that can never be solved.

 

[betazed]

@Neomega: Sorry to say this, but reading that post from you made me question your knowledge in computer modelling and thermod. (unless of course you meant the entire post as a joke)

So now gravity is an energy? And in fact, an opposite to "known energy"

In General Relativity it is hard to pin down where exactly the energy lies (that is in fact one of really bothersome part of GR) but the stress-energy tensor is a very well defined which lets us calculate the energy component for any system bound by gravity. For example you can calculate the total gravitational energy content of two bodies rotating around each other or just a body that is held together like the Sun.

And btw, never did Col say it was opposite to known energy. You made that assumption.

Wow, excuse my disbelief

Yes, quantum fluctuations are well-confirmed. Cassimir effect is a result of quantum fluctuations. All you need ot test it is bring two metal plates close together. There is an attractive force.

as for

Where does relativity fit into the big bang

I can't even begin to answer this question unless you read up on GR (which you obviously have not). Sorry some things cannot be explained without one getting some prior knowledge.

 

[Neomega]

@Neomega: Sorry to say this, but reading that post from you made me question your knowledge in computer modelling and thermod. (unless of course you meant the entire post as a joke)

Why? Where is my logic wrong?

In General Relativity it is hard to pin down where exactly the energy lies (that is in fact one of really bothersome part of GR) but the stress-energy tensor is a very well defined which lets us calculate the energy component for any system bound by gravity. For example you can calculate the total gravitational energy content of two bodies rotating around each other or just a body that is held together like the Sun.

Very bothersome indeed. And the search for the graviton continues. But we can speak with certainty, that all modeling based on this mysterious energy, (BTW, 90% of it cannot be accounted for, but let's us forget for a moment that gives our calculations essentially an error of +/- 90%. I always am astounded by the confidence of Big Bangers.

And btw, never did Col say it was opposite to known energy. You made that assumption.

I know this, however, he talked of gravity as a "negative" energy. Very, very strange indeed. If it is negative, one can only go to conclude it requires a positive, or it would be neutral, no? So exactly what is the opposite of gravity? THere was a thread here once before addressing this question... I don't think the answer ever came.

Yes, quantum fluctuations are well-confirmed. Cassimir effect is a result of quantum fluctuations. All you need ot test it is bring two metal plates close together. There is an attractive force.

I will look into it later today.

as for

I have read quite a bit into it. I have also noticed that finally they are attempting to do a scientific study to lend some concrete evidence to it. It will be interesting to see the results. In the mean time, it is all just math.

 

[betazed]

I have also noticed that finally they are attempting to do a scientific study to lend some concrete evidence to it. It will be interesting to see the results. In the mean time, it is all just math.

Believe it or not, right now I am using a device that uses GR. I use it everyday. And everyday it proves that GR is right. Can you guess what it is? I will tell you. It is a bluetooth gps unit that I use with my iPaq. GPS satellites are so accurate that they have to use GR to calculate their positions around earth. Using Newton's laws GPS satellites will have so much cumulative error that they would be useless in a few days. Not many people know that GR has such a practical use.

Apart from that, let me list just a few more examples of GR's test

(a) bending of light by sun. this was the first test of general relativity; it was done in 1919. Since then it has been done many many times again and again with more and more precision and the result has been validated.

(b) speeding up of clocks when they are taken to heights. GR provides the only explanation for this

(c) Gravitational lensing of distant galaxies

(d) Precession of the orbit of Mercury

(e) Decay of orbit of two rotating masses rotating around each other. This observation validated GR to an exquisite precision. Next to QED, GR is the most accurately validated theory

and last but not the least

(f) Why the night sky is dark. There would be no explanation to this simple question without GR.

edit: corrected. Clocks speed up (and do not get slower as I mentioned earlier) when taken higher.

 

[Neomega]

Believe it or not, right now I am using a device that uses GR. I use it everyday. And everyday it proves that GR is right. Can you guess what it is? I will tell you. It is a bluetooth gps unit that I use with my iPaq. GPS satellites are so accurate that they have to use GR to calculate their positions around earth. Using Newton's laws GPS satellites will have so much cumulative error that they would be useless in a few days. Not many people know that GR has such a practical use.

Apart from that, let me list just a few more examples of GR's test

(a) bending of light by sun. this was the first test of general relativity; it was done in 1919. Since then it has been done many many times again and again with more and more precision and the result has been validated.

(b) speeding up of clocks when they are taken to heights. GR provides the only explanation for this

(c) Gravitational lensing of distant galaxies

(d) Precession of the orbit of Mercury

(e) Decay of orbit of two rotating masses rotating around each other. This observation validated GR to an exquisite precision. Next to QED, GR is the most accurately validated theory

and last but not the least

edit: corrected. Clocks speed up (and do not get slower as I mentioned earlier) when taken higher.

Could you do me a favor, read this, and tell me the flaws in his logic? It is something that is really, really bothering me.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/light.htm

I am especially interested in hearing what relativity believes the speed of gravity is, since it cannot be faster than the speed of light, yet, if the sun were to disappear tomorrow, would not the entire universe be effected immediately by the loss of mass, and adjust accordingly?

(f) Why the night sky is dark. There would be no explanation to this simple question without GR.

surely you jest.

 

[betazed]

surely you jest.

I never jest about GR. It is my favorite subject.

I will read thru that link and see what it has to say. I am going home now so I will probably get back only tomorrow. Not sure I may be able to do it tonight. You see unlike TLC I am trying to get a life outside CFC OT.

 

[Perfection]

I am especially interested in hearing what relativity believes the speed of gravity is, since it cannot be faster than the speed of light, yet, if the sun were to disappear tomorrow, would not the entire universe be effected immediately by the loss of mass, and adjust accordingly?

The speed is C

 

[Neomega]

The speed is C

Thank you. Now we know, the force of gravity has a speed, and it is c, as proven by perfection's elegant mathematical equation, vG=c.

 

[Ovulator]

I no expert but I do listen to those who spent their whole life trying to produce the link between man and a ape-like ancestor . My favorite subject is science and math so I interesting for years in science even with evolutionist since I still believe I can learn something from them even if I don't agree in their theory.Both Richard Leakey and Mary Leakey even question their own life work. Richard Leakey said on PBS in 1990 about some of the evidence :
"If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving."
Both Richard and Mary was strong evolutionist and wasn't questioning the theory itself but was question the evidence. Why should I whole-hearted believe in evidence that even those in the field questioned it?

you didn't answer my queston. between which species is the missing link?

It somewhere between 93%-98% since it depends how it is examined. Even if 98.8% is the true figure it doesn't necessary it closer than 90%. It just like a maze , you could be just a few feet from the exit yet be at a dead-end and still be far from exiting the maze.

so your saying that even though only 2.2% of the chimp code is changed it still won't beman despite the identical genome. or are you saying its imposible to change the last 2.2% for some reason?

 

[Esckey]

Humans and plants share 90% of the same DNA. 1 Strand of DNA basically makes or breaks a homo sapien.

 

[Smidlee]

you didn't answer my queston. between which species is the missing link?

i was mostly referring to the links involving man ancestor

so your saying that even though only 2.2% of the chimp code is changed it still won't beman despite the identical genome. or are you saying its imposible to change the last 2.2% for some reason?

AFAIK noone knows. Scientist still have a lot to learn about DNA which they are debating exactly how many genes in our DNA.(70 k the last I read) 2% is still a huge jump when it comes to DNA. I wouldn't mind having only 2 % of Bill Gate's 50 billion (I would be happy with 0.02%).

 

[carlosMM]

Smidlee:

I have no time now, but I will answer that rather longish post you made here. I now finally understand part of where you are coming from, a basic misunderstanding I think that makes ti hard for you to understand us scientists. Please give me until Monday, OK?

 

[betazed]

I am especially interested in hearing what relativity believes the speed of gravity is, since it cannot be faster than the speed of light, yet, if the sun were to disappear tomorrow, would not the entire universe be effected immediately by the loss of mass, and adjust accordingly?

The speed is C

Perfection is almost right (in this particular case). But we should be very careful when we talk about speeds and velocities and time in GR. For example the following seemingly innocuous questions are meaningless in GR

• What is the speed at which that distant galaxy is moving away from us?
• What is the maximum speed at which I can travel?
• What is happening in Alpa Centauri now?
  etc. etc.

The basic reason why the above questions are meaningless is that you cannot compare two vectors (velocity is a vector, time is also a vector in GR) unless they are at the same point. To compare two vectors at different points you have to bring them to a same point using a mathematical technique called parallel transport (which is actually one of the central mathematical theme of GR). Since that distant galaxy is not here we cannot compare that galaxy's velocity with whatever ours is. Since Alpha centauri is not here it's now is totally incomparable to our now etc. etc.

So to say speed of gravity is C strictly does not make sense. Speed relative to what? Speed compared to who? But mostly, there is no one thing in GR called 'gravity'! C is the speed of gravitational radiation (or to geeks, speed at which a perturbation in the metric can propagate). But there is no limit to at what speed curvature change can propagate. That can 'move' at any arbitrary velocity. Check out Alcubierre's warp drive for example.

As for the sun thing that you asked, yes we will feel the dissappearance of the sun at the same time we see it dissappear. So will the rest of the Universe. Everyone will feel it at the same time he/she/it sees it dissappear.

As for the link you asked me to read, I have not got a chance to read it yet. Will do today and see what it has to say.

 

[Thedrin]

I am especially interested in hearing what relativity believes the speed of gravity is, since it cannot be faster than the speed of light, yet, if the sun were to disappear tomorrow, would not the entire universe be effected immediately by the loss of mass, and adjust accordingly?

If I have this remembered correctly; Newton's law of gravitation predicted an immeadiate effect, but this is faster than the speed of light. GR remedies this problem.

Edit; Betazed has covered the reasons, I see.

 

[betazed]

@Neomega: So I read thru the article. For those who do not have the patience to read thru it, here is a one line synopsis of the article. The author has a beef about the current theory of light in physics. First a few quotes from the article.

By inexplicable, I mean it in its philosophical sense rather than the scientific.

The author admits that the scientific theory of light is accurate and he has no bones with it as such. Although, I must say that the author may not be up to speed with the actual physics of light. While he admits the correctness of Maxwell's equations I am not sure he understands that they can be derived from QED. Be that as it may, the entire article is just philosophical beating around the bush. I find that really annoying. When talking philosophy talk philosophy. When talking physics talk physics. Why bring them head to head and then challenge physics to come up with answers to philosophical questions. Can we ask philosophy to calculate the trajectory of a moving ball? If not then why burden physics with philosophical mumbo-jumbo.

No one has yet proved that light can gravitate,

Apparently the author is not up to date with the experiments in GR either. Or with the the basics of quantum mechanics as the following quote eminently portrays.

There seems no clear cut way to say that an electron at one point influences an electron at another point. It occurs only in a probable sense. We assign a causal relationship only after we have made our measurements, not before or during its randomness.

although he mentions Bell's inequality I doubt if he undertands it.

Anyhoo, his basic beef is that a photon being emitted from A to B does not exist between A & B. It only exists at A and B. If we want to make sure whether the photon exists between A & B then we have to conduct an experiment between A & B and that experiment causes interaction with the photon. However, we define a photon by its very interaction, so we can as well say that we created the photon because we chose to measure it. Hence there is no way we can say the photon was there before we conducted the experiment.

Well, the author is well within his rights to take such an objective view of things namely "Something does not exist unless it is measured". But I fail to see how our physics would change if we abandon that view or hold that view as sacrosant. No theory of light, (Maxwell's equations or QED) hold the unique separate existence of a photon as sacrosanct. Specifically, QED is entirely an interaction picture. The wiggly lines of Feynmann diagram that the author hates and takes to task is only for our benefit to aide computation. Physics does not demand the actual existence of those lines in nature no more than GR demands the existence of a gravitational field precisely defined as in GR.

So Neomega, here's my final 2 cents. Don't take everything you read seriously. The web is not the best place to learn anything in general and physics in particular. If you really want to learn about the classical theory of light then I suggest you pick up the following books. (a) Feynmann Lectures in Physics - Vol 2. It is easy from a mathematical point of view (if you know calculus, which I am sure you do that should be enough). This provides a brilliant introduction to EMFT. The only drawback is that it does not follow it up with the tensorial version of EMFT. To remedy that (b) The Classical theory of Fields by Landau and Lfschitz. [The best part of this book is that it will also teach you a little bit of GR at the end]. Once you have mastered those then a brief introduction to QED can be found in the many many introductory books on QFT. Happy reading (for the next few years ).

 

[Rik Meleet]

8. Are there, currently, any instances of transition between one species and another?

Yes; the fish called "Furu" in lake Victoria evolve extremely quickly; within generations

The small perch-like fish found in Lake Victoria are known as cichlids but called furu, a name that means ?wanderer,? by the East African people of the Mwanza Gulf. They are a group of closely-related species that descended, during a relatively recent past, from a common ancestor. As the cichlids evolve, they develop a diversity of shapes, colors, and behavior patterns. To the delight of scientists, new species are literally appearing, changing, and disappearing before their very eyes. Cichlid radiations ? the production of many species from a small number of ancestral species ? are among the most spectacular in the world and can be observed at different stages of evolution as living organisms.

 

[Zwelgje]

The puzzling part of these furu is that they live in one lake and evolve in different directions. I've read a book on it by a biologist who worked on these fish for years. Scientists still don't understand how fish who live in the same environment can evolve into different species. Very interesting stuff!