GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-13-2012, 13:08   #1
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,405


What caused the Big Bang?

Yes, science has a theory as to what caused the Big Bang and the theory makes predictions that should be observable and testable still today. So, I don't want to hear theists claim that "scientists have no idea what came before the Big Bang" anymore. If you want to challenge the validity of the theory, here it is complete with all the supporting math. Break out your slide rule and microwave detector and have at it.

The Ekpyrotic Universe: Colliding Branes and the Origin of the Hot Big Bang - Justin Khoury (Princeton), Burt A. Ovrut (Univ of Pennsylvania), Paul J. Steinhardt (Princeton), Neil Turok (Cambridge)

Quote:
We propose a cosmological scenario in which the hot big bang universe is produced by the collision of a brane in the bulk space with a bounding orbifold plane, beginning from an otherwise cold, vacuous, static universe. The model addresses the cosmological horizon, flatness and monopole problems and generates a nearly scale-invariant spectrum of density perturbations without invoking superluminal expansion (inflation). The scenario relies, instead, on physical phenomena that arise naturally in theories based on extra dimensions and branes. As an example, we present our scenario predominantly within the context of heterotic M-theory. A prediction that distinguishes this scenario from standard inflationary cosmology is a strongly blue gravitational wave spectrum, which has consequences for microwave background polarization experiments and gravitational wave detectors.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 09-13-2012 at 13:11..
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 13:12   #2
Roering
Sorting nuts
 
Roering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,429
__________________
=================================
Warranty voiding
Roering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 13:15   #3
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,405


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roering View Post
The paper has several charts. You'll have to make do.

__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 13:18   #4
X-ray 4N6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London (ex SA)
Posts: 398
Quote:
We propose a cosmological scenario in which the hot big bang universe is produced by the collision of a brane in the bulk space with a bounding orbifold plane
Where did this "brane" come from?
That's the problem with both the religious and the scientific approach. Whether it is a deity, a brane, a cosmic soup, a wind-up universe generator or naughty pixies, the problem is the same: can't get something out of nothing.
X-ray 4N6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 13:23   #5
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by X-ray 4N6 View Post
can't get something out of nothing.
Religious Issues
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 13:24   #6
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,405


Quote:
Originally Posted by X-ray 4N6 View Post
Where did this "brane" come from?
We are talking about what existed "before" (quoted because we have no correct word to accurately describe the relationship) spacetime itself. A brane is not an object made of matter like everything around you. It is an extradimensional construct with characteristics totally unlike what you see in classical physics. If nothing else then it should be a sufficient candidate for the primum movens that theists here insist must exist (and usually ascribe to "god").
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 09-13-2012 at 13:27..
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 13:37   #7
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,405


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
massive image
Dood! Could you replace that with a slightly less massive image? You're gonna cause a brane collision with that thing!

__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 09-13-2012 at 13:37..
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 13:41   #8
X-ray 4N6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London (ex SA)
Posts: 398
Quote:
We are talking about what existed "before" (quoted because we have no correct word to accurately describe the relationship) spacetime itself. A brane is not an object made of matter like everything around you. It is an extradimensional construct with characteristics totally unlike what you see in classical physics.
So it could in fact be a wind-up universe generator, or an extra-dimensional goblin or two jube-jubes rubbed just the right way. It could be anything other than nothing. So the problem still remains, something came from nothing...
X-ray 4N6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 13:47   #9
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,405


Quote:
Originally Posted by X-ray 4N6 View Post
So it could in fact be a wind-up universe generator, or an extra-dimensional goblin or two jube-jubes rubbed just the right way.
So, do you have a mathematical model for any of these other options that gives us testable predictions?

Quote:
It could be anything other than nothing. So the problem still remains, something came from nothing...
Not really, no.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 14:14   #10
Roering
Sorting nuts
 
Roering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
The paper has several charts. You'll have to make do.

Is there any video of him successfully creating/re-creating it?
__________________
=================================
Warranty voiding
Roering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 14:21   #11
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,405


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roering View Post
Is there any video of him successfully creating/re-creating it?
Read the paper, if the theory is correct there should be tell-tale signs in the cosmic background radiation. Like I said, the theory provides testable predictions. If the math is right then it predicts observable consequences for the universe today. If you want to challenge its validity then bust out your microwave detector and get to work.

If video evidence is your standard of proof then I want to see video of god actually speaking something, anything, into existence.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 09-13-2012 at 14:34..
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 14:23   #12
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Read the paper, if the theory is correct there should be tell-tale signs in the cosmic background radiation. Like I said, the theory provides testable predictions. If the math is right then it predicts observale consequences for the universe today. If you want to challenge it's validity then bust out your microwave detector and get to work.

If video evidence is your standard of proof then I want to see video of god actually speaking something, anything, into existence.
Hell I'd settle for video of God. There's more footage of Bigfoot to be had.
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 15:06   #13
Kingarthurhk
Isaiah 53:4-9
 
Kingarthurhk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Yes, science has a theory as to what caused the Big Bang and the theory makes predictions that should be observable and testable still today. So, I don't want to hear theists claim that "scientists have no idea what came before the Big Bang" anymore. If you want to challenge the validity of the theory, here it is complete with all the supporting math. Break out your slide rule and microwave detector and have at it.

The Ekpyrotic Universe: Colliding Branes and the Origin of the Hot Big Bang - Justin Khoury (Princeton), Burt A. Ovrut (Univ of Pennsylvania), Paul J. Steinhardt (Princeton), Neil Turok (Cambridge)
So, in other words, you want to dazzle us with B.S. Creating your own conditions and then validating them on those conditions is cyclical logic, then cloaking it in purposefully bloviating pendantic lexicon.

I can also mask a message in intentionally cumbersome language.

For instance, the author's explanation is attached to another object by an incline plane, wrapped helicly around an axis.
__________________
Glock 17, 19, 20SF, 21C, 22, 26, 27, Glock E-Tool, Glock knife
Quod ego haereticus appellari sequere Jesum.
Kingarthurhk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 15:18   #14
rgregoryb
Sapere aude
 
rgregoryb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Republic of Alabama
Posts: 12,704


a Glock 10mm
__________________
"I don't know why we are here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves."
Ludwig Wittgenstein

"demography is destiny"
rgregoryb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 15:19   #15
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,595
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk View Post
For instance, the author's explanation is attached to another object by an incline plane, wrapped helicly around an axis.
So you are a fan of The Big Bang Theory
ArtificialGrape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 15:20   #16
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,405


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk View Post
So, in other words, you want to dazzle us with B.S. Creating your own conditions and then validating them on those conditions is cyclical logic, then cloaking it in purposefully bloviating pendantic lexicon.
Ah, so your true opinion of scientific research is finally revealed. You go on and on about the logical need for a primum movens and when one is finally provided to you (fully defined) all you can do is harangue and toss out apsersions.

And since when is providing a testable theory cyclical logic? The math and techniques needed may be beyond your capability, but that doesn't make them nonsensical. The math here is solvable. The predictions it makes are real-world testable. You are just to entrenched in your dogma to allow for the possibility that you have been wrong this whole time.

I consider this matter settled. Not only have you been shown to be demonstrably in error, your intellectual dishonesty is now fully confirmed. Fare thee well, CavD... err, I mean Kingarthurhk.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 09-13-2012 at 15:25..
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 15:22   #17
rayetter
Senior Member
 
rayetter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: texas
Posts: 551
Send a message via Yahoo to rayetter
16 gr. Bullseye in a. 357 mag round.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
__________________
you gonna skin that smokewagon or just stand there and bleed?
rayetter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 15:39   #18
Kingarthurhk
Isaiah 53:4-9
 
Kingarthurhk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Ah, so your true opinion of scientific research is finally revealed. You go on and on about the logical need for a primum moven and when one is finally provided to you (fully defined) all you can do is harangue and toss out apsersions.
To be blunt, I don't like being lied to even if the the prevarication is wrapped in gilded art deco box. The author seeks to create unprovable, untestable conditions that he conjures into his imagination, and then proceeds to attempt to obfuscate that fact in purposefully stilted language. In essence, he creates a Universe and then goes backward and states that because there is a Universe, the singularity can exist, and then it in turns creates the Universe. Perfectly cyclical, completely illogical. It doesn't explain primum movens. Unless, of course you are suggesting that the singularity exists completely outside time and space, and then once again, you may as well say "God".

Quote:
And since when is providing a testable theory cyclical logic? The math and techniques needed may be beyond your capability, but that doesn't make them nonsensical. The math here is solvable. The predictions it makes are real-world testable. You are just to entrenched in your dogma to allow for the possibility that you have been wrong this whole time.
Again, complete fabrication. It is not testable, observable, or repeatable. Creating your own prexistant conditions and then inserting a singularity within a prexisting Universe is not primum movens.

Rather, it is simply explaining a phenomena within a prexisting Universe. Now, I don't really have a problem with this concept. I fully believe and understand the Universe is expanding. That is not a point of contention.

Quote:
I consider this matter settled. Not only have you been shown to be demonstrably in error, your intellectual dishonesty is now fully confirmed. Fare thee well, CavD... err, I mean Kingarthurhk.
You considered the matter settled before your started. And once again, interjecting ad hominum simply indicates the emotional investment you have in the argument, and your inability to properly reinforce your thesis.
__________________
Glock 17, 19, 20SF, 21C, 22, 26, 27, Glock E-Tool, Glock knife
Quod ego haereticus appellari sequere Jesum.
Kingarthurhk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 15:46   #19
Roering
Sorting nuts
 
Roering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Read the paper, if the theory is correct there should be tell-tale signs in the cosmic background radiation. Like I said, the theory provides testable predictions. If the math is right then it predicts observable consequences for the universe today. If you want to challenge its validity then bust out your microwave detector and get to work.

If video evidence is your standard of proof then I want to see video of god actually speaking something, anything, into existence.
Easy Gecko. It's a fair question. After all, the hypothesis should be tested right? And in that testing wouldn't the results be recorded?

So has it been tested?
__________________
=================================
Warranty voiding
Roering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 16:36   #20
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,405


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roering View Post
Easy Gecko. It's a fair question. After all, the hypothesis should be tested right? And in that testing wouldn't the results be recorded?

So has it been tested?
Don't worry. There was no accusatory tone meant in my post. I may have towards King, but I only resort to that when confronted with willful ignorance and/or intellectual dishonesty.

The equipment necessary to test it is far from common (a microwave observatory) so I don't know for sure if it has been yet or not. They've laid out a method to do so and published it, so if it has not been, it will be soon.

My point in posting this is to show that progress is continually being made and that it is unfair to simply point at an area of study that is still developing and say that since we don't yet know we never can know.

The god of the gaps is constantly being pushed back. In this case, "he" was right behind the Big Bang, but now we are unraveling that mystery and "he" is receding further. I take this pattern to indicate that "he" is not needed to explain anything at all. If only we are patient and keep struggling to learn then we can discover how just about everything came to be.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 16:47   #21
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,405


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk View Post
Again, complete fabrication. It is not testable, observable, or repeatable.
You clearly did not even read (or understand) the abstract. They mention specifically that if the theory is correct there will be a measurable result in the polarization of microwave background radiation. They elaborate further in the paper the exact characteristics they predict.

I have a background in electromagnetic radiation and understand exactly what they are referring to when they talk about microwave polarization. It is not nonsensical, this is a real phenomenon.

Furthermore, we are talking about foremost researchers at Princeton, Cambridge and Univ of Pennsylvania. Are you seriously suggesting that they just made up and published nonsense and submitted it for peer review?

If the answer is yes then you are a lost cause. No amount of evidence will ever be enough for you.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 09-13-2012 at 16:50..
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 17:01   #22
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,405


I will add that testing this will require a microwave survey of the entire visible sky with equipment calibrated to look for their predicted results. That could take several years and millions of dollars. But this is what science is all about. It will be tested (if not already underway).
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 17:06   #23
Harper
Senior Member
 
Harper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by X-ray 4N6 View Post
It could be anything other than nothing. So the problem still remains, something came from nothing...
How do you know it was 'nothing'? I mean what you may think of as nothing may actually be something. For instance, empty space is actually something. So my bet is no one is claiming something came from literally nothing.
Harper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 18:04   #24
Woofie
CLM Number 293
Disirregardless
 
Woofie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Here
Posts: 9,902
Send a message via AIM to Woofie
Those equations are a little bit beyond my ability. I did notice that they mentioned the phrase heterotic M theory. . .
__________________
"Turns oit i had irrisputable proof i was out of the country" - youngdocglock

"I don't need to figure probabilities, and I don't need facts." - JBnTx

"Maybe they should drink like Woofie and come up with pure brilliance." - OXCOPS
Woofie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 19:30   #25
juggy4711
Nimrod Son
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Galveston County, TX
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
The Ekpyrotic Universe: Colliding Branes and the Origin of the Hot Big Bang - Justin Khoury (Princeton), Burt A. Ovrut (Univ of Pennsylvania), Paul J. Steinhardt (Princeton), Neil Turok (Cambridge)
I recently finished a book that included this subject. Don't expect any of the usual suspects to even bother considering it, or have the capacity to understand it.

To be fair however, I know atheists that can't believe what science tells us about things of this nature. Once you delve into quantum mechanics and m-theory, things are so counter intuitive the mind rebels and rejects as one's existence is defined by classical experience. Some folks simply can't wrap their brains around it.

Last edited by juggy4711; 09-13-2012 at 19:30..
juggy4711 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 17:01.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,466
401 Members
1,065 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42