Thread: MinutePhysics - Science, Religion, and the Big Bang

At the end he should have said it was a cyclical idea of the universe, which correlates to much earlier religions than Christianity, such as Hinduism.

A question for Big Bang scientists, scholars, believers.

The distance between galaxies is said to be expanding at this moment in time.
For some reason each galaxy is actualy moving faster, and faster away.
Put this model in an animation, and run it forward. After a while we would be vast distances apart, and travelling at much faster speeds.

Now here is the bit I do not understand.
Put the animation in reverse, and run it for a while. We would be much closer together, but travelling at very, very slow speeds.
This puts the idea of the age of the universe at much older than we are led to believe.

Why is the age of the universe calculated some other way ?

The rate of expansion is accounted for when calculating the age of the universe. What do you mean by 'some other way'?

Interesting how in a sense, the big bang created order in a way, and life out of nothing

Originally Posted by Carabas

The rate of expansion is accounted for when calculating the age of the universe. What do you mean by 'some other way'?

Well if going back in time. -
You have a big bang, everything moves at phenominal speeds outwards.
The rate of expansion then slows down to a trickle.
Then the rate of expansion speeds up again, and continues to accelerate.
In fact it continues to accelerate for billions of years.

Is this science ? NO it is an unproven theory.
Lots of information out there is only theory.
It seems, as sheep, we are fed a great deal of theories, and take them as fact.

The word 'theory' in science is a technical term, it doesn't mean 'unproven' the way it does in common usage. It's pretty much the opposite. 'Explanation' would be a better definition. A scientific theory means a model or a formula that describes the facts we have and makes predictions that have been tested and found accurate. If something hasn't been tested, it's called a hypothesis, not a theory.

So when you hear gravity or relativity or the Big Bang being called a theory, it doesn't mean we're unsure about it. It means it's a reliable way of describing and predicting the way the world works.

Originally Posted by TiredPhil

A question for Big Bang scientists, scholars, believers.

The distance between galaxies is said to be expanding at this moment in time.
For some reason each galaxy is actualy moving faster, and faster away.
Put this model in an animation, and run it forward. After a while we would be vast distances apart, and travelling at much faster speeds.

Now here is the bit I do not understand.
Put the animation in reverse, and run it for a while. We would be much closer together, but travelling at very, very slow speeds.
This puts the idea of the age of the universe at much older than we are led to believe.

Why is the age of the universe calculated some other way ?

Your logic is flawed... there is no way to deduce from what you say that at the beginning things were moving at "very very slow speeds". As a matter of fact things were moving very fast. Just because things are accelerating away from each other today... it does not somehow follow that they were not moving back when they were closer together.

If the speed in which everything is spreading apart is increasing(which it seems to be doing), then the idea of of the big crunch where everything will be pulled back together, seems unlikely.

Originally Posted by Xei

Your logic is flawed... there is no way to deduce from what you say that at the beginning things were moving at "very very slow speeds". As a matter of fact things were moving very fast. Just because things are accelerating away from each other today... it does not somehow follow that they were not moving back when they were closer together.

If something is now going faster, and is accelerating, then it is getting faster. Y/N ?
This means that it was previously going slower.
How can this logic be flawed.

In at least two severe ways. One, because "slower" is not the same thing as "very, very slow speeds", and two, "previously" is not the same thing as "at the beginning of time".

pe·dan·tic

You should probably look that word up, because it doesn't mean "pointing out a colossal error".

Seriously, grow up.

Sorry, I have grown up now. Is that better ?

Would you like me to admit my point of view is wrong, and yours is right ?
Would you like me to take back all my arguements ?
Are you getting frustrated that I will not agree with you.

Well my apologies, but my opinion is staying exactly as it is.
Stop getting too excited about it all. After all, its all just a game.

I have noticed a trend on here for some to get all bothered, if anybody else does not agree with their point of view.
You should be like the majority of members, and relax once in a while.
Your opinion is valid, but it is not your opinion. It is something you read in a book, or saw on the internet.
Be original, and I will argue with you further, but getting silly quotes off the internet will no longer illicit a reply.
And above all, stop with the insults.

Yeahhh... people being chilled out doesn't mean they have to just roll over when you decide to be petulant with them.

Funny
Not great that you have resorted to name calling.
But it's what I expected.
Oh well. Have fun with this topic, I am now unsubscribed, and will not be adding any more comments.

Cool. I recommend for your future posting that you probably shouldn't dish out acerbic comments if you're not mature enough to take 'em in return without feeling indignantly violated.