close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

What caused the Big Bang?

Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by Geko45, Sep 13, 2012.

  1. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot CLM

    17,291
    1,246
    Nov 1, 2002
    KCXO
    This is exactly right. Lay people get caught up in the language used, but what most don't realize is that word choice in explaining a theory is largely irrelevant. A theory of physics is expressed in the form of mathematical equations. Equations that when (hopefully) solved yield values that match observed results.

    The human mind doesn't work that way so we come up with a set of analogies (called an "interpretation") that help us visualize what the equations represent. The analogies don't have to be perfect. They are just a tool to aid our understanding. Often times, lay people will point out seeming contradictions in the interpretation thinking they've stumbled upon some fundamental flaw in the theory, but that's not how it works at all.

    Physics is the math, not the words.
     
  2. ModGlock17

    ModGlock17

    4,336
    1,251
    Dec 18, 2010
    DisneyWorld
    lots of Texas chilli would cause the BBang.

    wanna know the science "behind" it ?
     


  3. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    19,598
    1,922
    Jul 12, 2007
    As long as we don't have to smell the science behind it... :supergrin:

    Randy
     
  4. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Watching the motion of celestial bodies and measuring the electromagnetic spectrum can lead to some pretty good stories. But it's all supposition that what you are seeing today, tells you what happened billions of years ago. The snapshot humanity has of this process is miniscule compared to how long the universe has been here. I have very little faith that mankind has it all figured out just yet. There is a constant search to explain it though.
     
  5. Syclone538

    Syclone538

    2,086
    0
    Jan 8, 2006
    You do understand that we can see pretty far, and that light takes time to travel, right?
     
  6. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Yes. But if you see a galaxy a billion light years away, and you've been able to see it for a decade or so, at that distance, considering that light can bend, how accurate is your calculation of it's speed and direction? How accurate is our determination of the chemical makeup of structures outside our solar system?

    It's pretty obvious that most people believe that the area of the universe we can see is expanding. Why that is happening requires a little imagination to fill in some pretty long standing blanks.

    I'm not saying the big bang (and or big chill) didn't happen, I wasn't there. I'm not saying the universe isn't expanding. I'll trust that to be true, even though I haven't spent a lot of time looking through a telescope. Come to think of it, most of us haven't spent enough time looking through a telescope.
     
  7. Syclone538

    Syclone538

    2,086
    0
    Jan 8, 2006
    I don't have the answers to these questions.

    Light takes time to travel and the universe as we know it has not existed forever, so there is a horizon beyond which we can not see because the light has not got here yet. Tomorrow, that horizon will be 1/365 light years farther away, if I understand it correctly.

     
  8. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    We can learn a lot about the universe with telescopes. But if that told you everything, why are we sending rovers to mars again?

    We are in a very small place, and have been around for a very short time, and considering even the most intelligent among us, a lot of imagination is needed to make it all fit together. We THINK there may have been a big bang (or maybe a chill), but we don't really know. We think the universe is expanding. If it is, then something must have caused it to be expanding. What that something is, is cool to ponder. There is no need to pretend we have the problem solved without any important details left out.
     
  9. Harper

    Harper

    2,598
    4
    Aug 10, 2010
  10. Harper

    Harper

    2,598
    4
    Aug 10, 2010
    There's also no need to pretend that the important details you're ignorant of, the physicists must be also. I mean seriously, continually pointing out things you don't know and implying physicists' knowledge is no greater than yours is not an argument for anything.
     
  11. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    19,598
    1,922
    Jul 12, 2007
    Math. When you know how light bends and why, its just math. You know the limits of precision of your measurements, that gives you the margin of error for your determinations of speed and direction.

    Simply because you're ignorant doesn't make it unknowable.

    You're just saying: "I'm a troll and I like to see my words in print on the internet".

    Randy
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2012
  12. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot CLM

    17,291
    1,246
    Nov 1, 2002
    KCXO
    We understand it so well in fact that we can use the known and calculable effects of the speed of light, time dilation and relative velocities to create a global positioning system that can pinpoint your location here on Earth to within a few feet with only a handheld device.

    Yep, that's right, if our understanding of any of these phenomenon were wrong then GPS as it exists today would be nonfunctional, but don't expect any of these facts to deter the incessant pleas for it being unknowable.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2012
  13. juggy4711

    juggy4711 Nimrod Son

    3,060
    0
    Sep 20, 2006
    Galveston County, TX
    X being a variable, there are so many things that x could stand for in the above statement. Existence as we know it, is completely dependent on our understanding of basically every thing science has discovered from the late 1800s forward.
     
  14. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    There is no need to hide the speculation and inference needed to come to conclusions. The only way to validate some of the claims, like being able to tell the chemical makeup of stars millions of light years away is to go there and test them.

    There is nothing wrong with understanding the difference between:

    This star is mostly hydrogen and we think this star is mostly hydrogen.
     
  15. Woofie

    Woofie Disirregardless CLM

    9,991
    20
    Apr 10, 2007
    Here
    Not really. Every element emits it's own unique spectral line. When the light from an object is examined, the presence of a particular pattern indicates the presence fo that element. It's just more math.
     
  16. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot CLM

    17,291
    1,246
    Nov 1, 2002
    KCXO
    He's just gonna say that spectral analysis on a distant star has never been confirmed directly by going there in person to test it. Therefore, it's unknowable. He's a one trick pony.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012
  17. Harper

    Harper

    2,598
    4
    Aug 10, 2010
    Again, your ignorance is not everyone else's. Stop listing stuff you know nothing about, we'll be here forever.
     
  18. juggy4711

    juggy4711 Nimrod Son

    3,060
    0
    Sep 20, 2006
    Galveston County, TX
    You simply do not grasp physics at this level. To keep insisting on language like BB, BC, or cause and effect demonstrate that you do not understand it.

    There is something wrong with that because that isn't the case. It's actually like:

    This star is mostly hydrogen and if the math used to determine that it was mostly hydrogen was wrong, all of existence as we know it would not be possible.

    You don't have to like or believe it, but it is what it is.

    Every observable, measurable and repeatable test we can come up with continues to prove that the math is correct. Taking issue with the language used to describe it is pointless. As it has been explained to you multiple times, language is not capable of properly describing the math.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012