Age of the Universe - Shedding light on the matter (1 of 2)

[hamdanae]

hehe,he says nitrogem hydrogem and other chimicals in the space are like us and what our bodies made up,i know where hes going on this,that we are coinsdence,fkr how do u explain our sex organs,liver kidnies heart,stomec,all desigened for purpos,how the fk u become scientist!

[ivorbigun20]

@hamdanae um natural selection?

and laugh at it all you want all the elements that make me and you are found in the supernove of stars, somtimes only hydrogen healium and other basic elements but in big stars the entire periodic table can be found in layers of a star ready to go supernova

[nytecam]

this video oversimplifies - Wikipedia correctly quotes "The English chemist William Hyde Wollaston was in 1802 the first person to note the appearance of a number of dark features in the solar spectrum. In 1814, Fraunhofer independently rediscovered the lines..."

[mortenrobinson]

Does the theory of relativity not state that it is impossible to establish the age of the universe? I mean the theory of relativity states that time moves at different rates in different places in the universe, and therefore the universe does not have the same age everywhere. That means that it should be impossible to put an age on the universe cause it's age depends where you meassure it.

[theinquisitor]

That's a really good question and I'm not sure what the answer is. I'll have to think about that and do some research. I suspect this is something that physicists have taken into account, but I would be interested to know how this problem could be resolved.

[approximator]

From here (earth) the universe appears to be about 13.8 billion years old +/- some error. This means that we see that an event (the big bang) happened about 13.8 billion years ago when measured against events that happen approximately now. A measurer would not see a lot of difference from the opposite side of the Milky Way 0.1M ly away. An observer in another galaxy like Andomeda 2.56M ly away could make the same measurement and come up with darn near the same answer with a dif 2.56/13,800 ~=0.

[vengencefrom1979]

something one rarely hears questioned, how old will the universe appear with the next generation of telescopes? 20 billion years old? 50? 100?

[al424242]

@vengencefrom1979 thats not true, although the estimates for age jumped up as more accurate messurements are taken the age has now shrunk slightly to 13.7 billion years plus or minus 0.37 billion years.

[wwhit2001]

@al424242 I just read that "The region visible from Earth (the observable universe) is a sphere with a radius of about 46 billion light years,[18] based on where the expansion of space has taken the most distant objects observed" but you said that the universe is 13.7 billion years how is that true if there is 46 billion year ago light?

[cagefite007]

Relativity states time differentiates based on location; gravity and velocity. We can still easily date our universe based on time from which we experience on earth. We can even quantify time differentiation at, or very near the Big Bang. It is often refered as the million million fold in physics.

[voltus360]

Oh and can I mention I love science, especially astronomy and geography, Love it! Only I just cant get past the evidence for the 'so called' myth of the bible.

[voltus360]

My faith in Jesus is better than your faith Duke Nukem Forever will be released this century. XD

My question is what will we laugh at in the future as though it were a flat earth theory that we hold as true scientific fact today?

[dion1tj]

The flat earth theory was never a scientific theory. And if something that is believed as fact due to scientific discovery is somehow disproven, it'll be because facts lay bare the errors of thinking.

[voltus360]

Really?

Characterization 'we cant see past the horizon' hypotheses 'I bet it ends over there' prediction 'dont go over there or you'll fall off.' Experiments 'no one came back so it must be true!' Scientific method satisfied (in their context). Yes flat earth was a scientific theory.

[darkforce333]

"Yes flat earth was a scientific theory."

You have to have to have strong evidence for a scientific theory. Flat earth was more of a speculation.

[vengencefrom1979]

flat earth was cool lol.

[DukeNukem4]

Christians believe in a book that has talking animals, Wizards/Sorcerers, Witches, Demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, hundreds of dead people reanimating, and all sorts of magical, silly, absurd and primitive stories - and it's the ones who DON'T believe this that are insane or deluded.....Zeus help us.

[filmwannabe2009]

I like your point. I never looked at it that way before. I'm not a religious fanatic but I'm skeptical of the whole scientific thing. So, the universe just starts and we go on forever? I guess it is too big for humans to understand. So, one thing is if the universe starts then it has to end right?

[illuvitarv5]

@filmwannabe2009 infinite coldness is the end of the universe it will expand and expand until all matter is too far apart to get together and everything just ends as atoms.

[jc00213]

hey u have any more videos. Im a eager 9th grade student who wants to learn more about the new discovies of the universe

[theinquisitor]

I have some physics lectures on my channel (click my username to see), they're very interesting, stuff about the big bang and relativity. Search youtube for "stephen hawking universe" to find all the episodes from this series. Google video often has a few episodes of Cosmos by Carl Sagan on there (one of the best science and history documentaries). Also google "nova science now" for some short science documentaries.

[jc00213]

Could it be possible that evidence from science and evidence from religion can all be linked together in some point

[theinquisitor]

Depends which interpretaion of which religion. There is the idea called the "god of the gaps", which is that god is invoked to explain things where there are gaps in our knowledge. As our knowledge increases, the idea of god retreats into the remaining gaps. God used to make the rains come, but now we understand the water cycle, god used to be the creator of all life as it is now, but now we understand evolution. I think as we learn more the god of the gaps will diminish further.

[theinquisitor]

Religions as I understand it all seem to agree on one thing, that the universe is here for us, and that god is very concerned with how we think and behave. Science over the centuries has told us that the earth is not the centre of the universe, that disease is caused by micro-organisms not sin, that humans are just a branch of a huge tree of life and that the universe is vaster in size than any of the founders of religion could have even described.

[theinquisitor]

So it seems to me that science is taking us away from the view of the universe that religion presents, and religions today show great adaptation to this increase in knowledge. Religion is based on faith and personal internal feelings, and science is based on doubt and external demonstratable experiments and observations. The two approaches to truth could not be more fundamentally different.

[lostnalone]

I liked your video.Maybe im moving from the point of your video but I have discovered that Buddhism has a very different stance to the purpose and meaning of human existence than other religions...anyway its thought: impermanance-craving for permanance-suffering-liberatio­n through loving kindness gives my life meaning. I have no words to express the wonder I feel at this amazing universe. Not everyone has a need to express this wonder of course. Animals are unable too.

[theinquisitor]

Well I heard that the Dalai Lama said that if a scientific fact arises that contradicts Buddhist doctrine, then science wins. That's definitely not like other religions.

The ideas about reincarnation and karma actually have some very disturbing moral implications if you take them to their logical conclusion. They also have no confirmed reality outside our own imagination.

[Talatacus]

Cool post. Could you please tell me the source of this video?

[theinquisitor]

It's from a series called Stephen Hawking's Universe.

You can find a few of the episodes by searching google video for hawkings universe, that will take you to a site called guba, the videos are big and take ages to load but are good quality.

They're also on youtube, cut up into 10 minute sections. The first part of the first episode is here: watch?v=jd1tgLQg4ZU

Also worth checking out the other videos uploaded by the same user, Gravitationalist.

[Talatacus]

thanks a lot theinquisitor. but what i meant was who produced this show. i'm a little skeptical about science programs in youtube. most turn out to be pseudo science in the end. well anyway this as authentic as it can get. :-) . As for the religion debate i'd refer rafi6700 to the videos on Dawkins.

[rafi6700]

Thanks alot Talatacus, I've been watching Hawkins on youtube for the last 2 hourS and he is now my hero. He can not be argued against because he talks logic and fighting agaisnt logic is like fighting against 25 ufc fighters at the same time.DON'T EVEN TRY IT !

the only way you can defete logic is with logic,so get 24 of your bigest buddies before you open your mouth.

[Talatacus]

Dawkins was not a typo rafi6700, he's a guy called Richard Dawkins.. a biologist basically, but a good guy to listen to. i'm not an atheist but i do not try to prove that god exists or that science cannot explain everything. AND the very fundamentals of science rests on the fact that anyone CAN argue against it. You just have to be able to defend your argument in a testable way.

[rafi6700]

that's what I ment, Dawkins not Hawkins. sry

[automaticAEV]

well all scientists will freely admit that science cant explaine everything. Be wary of anyone who claimes everything can be explained. anyone who claims that is a liar.

[rafi6700]

I leave that up to the scientists while I enjoy what the bing bang has created for me and my family, aint it beautifull !

[rafi6700]

VERY INTERESTING

I realize that a simple mind like mine can't judge if this theory can be trusted or not. There is only 1 reality on this subject and if I had to choose between science and relegion, science will always win.

I do beleive that science is our only instrument to guide us toward the truth even if I think we are light years away from it. So for now I myself, don't bust my head over the isues like ''beginning of time''

[theinquisitor]

Don't sell yourself short. Your mind is not simple. You were intelligent enough to know that you didn't know something and seek to find out about it. Also I don't think anyone understands things like the beginning of time on a gut level. It's all quite non-intuitive.

I think the biggest problem science has is that it is harder to understand than religion, which I think is why religion wins the simple minds. But the picture it paints is much more marvellous than the burning bush.

[0neInWater]

Science is AMAZING!!

[8arsh]

As well as 'furthermore He comprehended in his design the Heveans And it had been "Dukhan"'---translation: a gaseous smoke- the Ancient and especially lol modern Arabic term for gas. Quran ch,41 verse 11.

this is how your inquiry started in refernce to (hydrogen) ^

[8arsh]

"each chemical element has a particular way of behavior.......if the line appears hear you can say 'ah' this is hydrodgen". 250:-304, your video.... brah.....

[8arsh]

eating peanuts is evil? come on you got to be kidding me? your never going to convince any muslim nor rational person for that 'matter' lol-- with this argument. :)

[theinquisitor]

It's a shame you can't apply the same logic to the koran 8arsh. The claims are just as absurd in your holy book. The fact that it contains some things which are true doesn't mean the crazy parts are true, and just because it says it's true isn't a reason to believe. Try to understand the irony.

[8arsh]

In your book(<metaphor for way of thinking)

science is just like what you CLAIM about religion forbiding people from joining points that are relevant-while science is subject to the same process of learning.

now that is childish "its my party and i will deny what i want to", lol

[GabeWolfGrl]

Oops, I read your post wrong. Sorry about that. It's pointed to the headstrong Christian believers that don't believe in science evidence.

[9taloniris]

MY reason for belief is explained as well as Inferred in my anwser to your Qustions, the Quran claims to be more than a book but something that is written in creation revealed with the Knowledge of Allah.

[theinquisitor]

Are you saying that the only reason you believe it is because it says it's true? Don't you understand that is a circular argument? Anyone could write a book that claimed to be true. I could do it right now, but doesn't something outside the book have to justify it? Are you familiar with the idea of a circular argument? Other holy books make the same claim why aren't they true for the same reason?

[9taloniris]

The quran claims to be more than a book it is written in creation if you can understand my metaphor? a snow flake is about as unique as a finger print but not absolutley unique because some exist like it in shape and form its the same thing with fingerprints. and we know that thier is order in human formation of cells (particularly) without human will to administor this formation.

[theinquisitor]

Yes we see order without intelligent direction, but this doesn't imply god at all, it implies a lack of god. The god idea is the idea that the universe is created, sustained and observed by a being with a mind and a will. This idea is just humans projecting ourselves onto the universe. It's like when children draw a face on the sun, it's called anthropomorphism, seeing human characteristics in something non-human.

[9taloniris]

it is also believed that as We are agents and Allah has agents within the atomic level, subatomic level, as well as agents within the human, angelic realm and jinn. this is also commeserate to the islamic saying la haula wala quwatah ilah bilah- there is no motion strength nor power but through Allah.

[theinquisitor]

I don't mean to be rude, but you just keep insisting that it's true. Do you have any reasons to think this is true? Is there anything you can show to an unbiased person that will convince them? What convinced you that it was definitely true? What essential bit of truth makes the koran more than a book to you? If there is nothing to prove it but how you feel about it then how do you know that it's not just wishful thinking?

[9taloniris]

Much of what iam going to say is going to be 'akin' to my saying in the earlier post, that i cannot convince one without the desire or INFERENCE! to be convinced Thus is it also impossible for me to explain at full length One unfathomable.

[theinquisitor]

How can you believe in god if you don't even know what god is. That would mean you literally don't know what you believe. How can you say god definitely exists, if you can't even explain what the idea means, even to yourself. You're saying you know god exists even though he is unfathomable. Isn't it more honest to say that you don't know if god exists, because the universe is unfathomable.

[theinquisitor]

What I like about science is that if we don't know we say so, and if we do know, we have detailed and consistent explanations that make sense. All I get out of religion is double talk and very vague answers. Since there's nothing to justify religious truth except insistence, promises and threats, it's very unsatisfying and empty to me. The answers are made up, they're not from god. If you want answers from the universe, then look at the universe itself like science does, not an ancient book.

[9taloniris]

This comment represents your feelings and desire and is were i will resign, and its the one about (vague answers and ancient books) just to be on common grounds of conversation i will say that we have just as much right to believe that the perceptible effect of his activity on and within the universe is manifest, just as you say that there is order within the universe. its been nice talkin to you or typin with you:)

[9taloniris]

Of course those physical laws are an act and manifestation of His power as you alluded to a mind is more powerfull than a rock in essence. and there is no (what we call a might call a'mind') more powerful than God, thus is also the reason that in Islam no were will you find in the names of Allah "the mind" or "the spirit".

[theinquisitor]

I'm sorry but I'm really having a hard time following, but I am trying. If god is unfathomable, does that mean that even you don't understand what god is? If that is so doesn't that mean you don't know what you're believing in?

I'm still not sure if you're saying god has a mind or not, but he must do in order to have will. Why does there have to be god? Why is it impossible in your eyes for there not to be? Why can't the universe itself and it's cause be mindless?

[9taloniris]

Iam saying that we cant grasp the granduer and magnitude of His Essense but we are well informed about what (as you asked) likness' with human beings that he does not have of which is based on the islamic teaching of bilah Khayf, that we can only say of God what He has claimed of himself. within the Quran.

[theinquisitor]

Here's a short book i wrote:

Everything in this book is true. Grass is green. Eating peanuts is evil.

[theinquisitor]

Let's examine this book the same way you look at the quran. It has some truth we know about, we know grass is green, so that suggest's it's accurate about the real world. It says it's true so that's pretty good evidence that it's true surely. And it says that eating peanuts is evil. Well this book has proved itself on the same grounds that you used to prove the koran so we'd better stop eating peanuts. Are you now seeing the problem with this way of looking at a book.

[kwolf002]

This statement, as i think you know (because you wrote it)... is a (mathematical) logical fallacy.  The first sentence can only be false because it cannot be verified to be true... the book could be lying to you! :) The proper second statement is false also because at least one piece of grass is brown... and of course we know the last. :)

[theinquisitor]

Brown grass? Such blasphemy. I know my book is right because it says so. Everything that contradicts it is just a test of my faith. I'm clever for believing everything my book says because it also says in the book how clever it is to believe whatever the book says.

It really is the mentality of children.

[kwolf002]

cool

[8arsh]

I just felt that i would build upon what the latino gentlmen was experssing about hydorgen and so on, and so forth, and felt it appropriate to make a comment on a video i admired. simple no.... 4 days ago, dont be mad cause someone agrees'.

[GabeWolfGrl]

If this evidence is a test of your faith, what does that make science? A sin? Something the "Devil" made up to make you lose your faith? God didn't write that book, Man did. So, how can you believe a being that is flawed to tell you who God is and what he does? The person could have got it all wrong.

[9taloniris]

what i meant by free from the ability to learn is to come to know of a thing acquire knowlege, or some concurrence of thought in essence or in time.

[theinquisitor]

Some similiarity remains though. God has more in common with us than he does with a rock. A rock can't perceive, we can, and so can god. This is the way in which I mean we are similar. Why would the origin of the universe necessarily have to be able to think, to perceive? Why couldn't it be a mindless process like the way clouds or snowflakes are formed. God doesn't design every snowflake, they form according to physical laws. Why invoke a mind as a cause?

[9taloniris]

Much of what iam going to say is going to be 'akin' to my saying in the earlier post, that i cannot convince one without the desire or inference to be convinced Thus is it also impossible for me to explain at full length One unfathomable.

[9taloniris]

in response to 2nd post, in islam it is believed that God knows what was, what is, what will be, what would have been, and what could have been, so emotions are much different when sight is different. also he doesnt have mortality in the sense of a christian god who sleeps, or dies or has children, and is also free from the ability to learn,thus ruling out memory in the human sense.

[9taloniris]

also this is why islam is described as a way of life "deen" rather than a religion thus describing that ones way of life even if its science or agnosticism whatever his dominate beliefs are equate to ones actions and way of thinking and time spent (i.e.his lifestyle). just food for thought.

[9taloniris]

just food for thought as the poster said before me arsh8 or? i dont have the power to convince one who is unconvinced by his own desire not to be convinced. or some where around there, lol

[theinquisitor]

But I do want to be convinced, I want the truth no matter what it is. The reason I ask questions is so that I can understand. Religious ideas have such broad implications and there is a lot about it that doesn't make sense to me. I find my experience of reality totally inconsistent with the idea that there is an all powerful loving being watching every atom in the universe and yet allowing child rape and cancer. Can you explain how that makes sense to you?

[9taloniris]

just food for thought but the endowment of a human will has dimesional implications some for the victim and for the accussed and its also that act as also manifest in our ability to believe what we choose and do what we choose that makes us collectively responsible for the develop of society not just as individuals. but each endeavor wont go unaccounted for before God even if one is slain.

[theinquisitor]

When I say god is like us, I mean that god is supposedly a thinking entity with a perceptive mind, that has memory and knowledge, morality, will, even emotion. These are all human traits. Why would the origin of the universe have to necessarily be similar to us small biological entities that live in a tiny tiny fraction of this vast universe? That's why it seems so arrogant to me.

[9taloniris]

As well as the belief that the very universe is an act that manifest the name of God, AL Latiful Khabir, 'the unfathomable' or rabbul Arshil Athim, lord of the tremendous throne (the cosmos and unknown), and this act and manifestaion is a reason to be in awe rather than self glorification.

[8arsh]

I just felt that i would build upon what the latino gentlmen was experssing about hydorgen and so on, and so forth, and felt it appropriate to make a comment on a video i admired. simple no....

[theinquisitor]

But do you see the problem with reading so much meaning into these phrases in the Koran. If you look hard enough for something, you will see it whether it's there or not. Wishful thinking will make you trick yourself. My understanding of Islam is that it requires honesty of it's followers. Honestly read what it says, and try not to add meaning. You'll find that it says very little compared to the vastly more satifying and reliable knowledge of science.

[8arsh]

the experience of wishful thinking and seeing things that are not there is a human experience not confined to religious people, people of science and religion have the same problems just like killing example: spliting the Atom, smashing the atom, dogmatic interpretations and actions that lead to war on the behalf of religous followers and "scientific military industrial complex and chemical warfare on the behalf of science.

[8arsh]

As well as 'furthermore He comprehended in his design the Heveans And it had been "Dukhan"'---translation: a gaseous smoke- the Ancient and especially lol modern Arabic term for gas. Quran ch,41 verse 11.

[theinquisitor]

So the story says god made the universe out of gas. I don't understand what that is supposed to prove. I assume you're trying to prove that the Koran contains things that couldn't have been known unless it was from god. But that's not even what the big bang theory says, so I don't know what you're trying to demonstrate. It's also incredibly vague, proves nothing. You will never convince anyone who understands science with this argument.

[8arsh]

the Quran explains many ways in which Allah created the universe Iam not certaint if your familar with it as most in the west arent, it also isnt meant to be Soley a science book as there are other intrest,professions and appreiations as there are new things to be learned in science, language, archology etc...

[theinquisitor]

It explains things maybe, but there's no proof that it's any more than just a book. You're trying to find meaning, rather than just reading what is there. If you can read so much meaning into these vague phrases, then you could do the same with ANY text and justify it with the same argument. The same arguments are used to 'prove' that Nostradamus predicted the future. If it's vague enough it can mean anything, and nothing. Can you prove that it's more than just a book?

[8arsh]

in resoponse to your things maybe post.... we are allowed to find meaning in things arent we, iam mean that what allows speach and articulation right, joy happiness pain? and i cant prove anything to you that you dont sincerly want to be proven i admit my mind isnt God.

[theinquisitor]

I do want it to be proven. I want to know the truth no matter what it is. That's what has led me to science, since it's seems to give results that other approaches to truth do not. But if I believe something without evidence, then I would easily end up believing something false. There are so many religions, which offer only ancient texts containing threats and rewards for obeying rules, which have come from a time when people were far more ignorant than we are now.

[9taloniris]

our world is no better than thier's was people often forget that where still dealing with a human being killing,crime, war on a much greater scale,ect..ect..

[theinquisitor]

What allows consciousness? Surely the answer is incredibly complicated and will take centuries to fully answer. Invoking god explains nothing and it's very unsatisfying after being shown the real world evidence that science can offer. You can actually see the proof of scientific claims. Hard evidence, as sure to be true as anything else I experience. Religion has never come close and so I never see anything to really assure me that the answers are true, so they seem empty.

[8arsh]

i intend you well being in your endeavors.

[9taloniris]

how could it be a vauge impossibilty to infer that there is Order in the universe and that within the physiological make up of human beings there is order. this phenomena is found in microbiology where in cell division certain cells only make bonds with the necessary cells needed to form organs and other features of human beings. science even uses hypothesis people should be aloud look to their religion but not dogmatically is what I propose as well.

[theinquisitor]

Order is certainly there, but what has that got to do with religion? Science is based on the idea that the universe makes sense and behaves consistently. God is a projection of our own arrogance, we assume that the universe must have been made by something like us. It's the easiest answer. The more we learn, the more we learn we aren't special, we're here because the laws of physics gave rise to us. I see no special treatment from a caring higher power.

[9taloniris]

but within the very way of life he spoke of, thier arent any insinuations that God is like us in fact it teaches Wa lam yakun lahu kufuwan ahad, translation there is nothing like Him. or Alimul gaiybi wash shahadahtil kabirul Muta'al-translation- He knows all that is beyond the reach of a created beings perception as well as all that can be witnessed by a creatures senses or mind the Great one far above anything that is or ever could be Q:13v9, Q112v4.

[8arsh]

the consitution of protoplasm is about 80 to 85 percent

water, the instructions transcribed from D.n.a. to make proteins for cells are held together by hydrogyen bonds (molecular biochemical acids)within the nuclei envolope with hydrogen being the most prominent element in the universe. and some of the scholars infer from this that it is the meaning of 'His throne was on water' juxtapose to Quran ch.21 verse 30. His Author-rity over all creation.

[theinquisitor]

You got all that from "His throne was on water"? I suppose "twinkle twinkle little star" predicted the existence of pulsars. Don't you see that those words really don't describe the same actual things and processes? If the Koran did describe that, then why didn't Muslims discover quantum physics and DNA centuries ago? Maybe because the words really don't mean that. Try to understand why it sounds exactly as ridiculous as "twinkle twinkle" describing the nature of pulsar stars.

[8arsh]

I was paraphrasing and iam sure your familar with the term "Dark ages' "middle ages" you see the problem with these terms is that it casually implies that the world was dark because european civilization had fallen or that Because of the decline of Rome a European civilization in particular, had fallen the world was to struggle incramentively toward progress hence 'middle age' but i perfer a more UNIVERSAL understanding.

[theinquisitor]

Was that meant to be to me? It seems unrelated to what we were talking about. Labels aren't important, what's important is what's in the tin. It doesn't matter what you call that period in history, what matters is what happened. Language is tricky and can be used to deceive. Always seek clear definitions, something you'll find in science, and not in religion.

[bighomie415]

GOD IS REAL.

This shows Why 12-15% of the worlds Atheist population

is idiotic and doomed to hell :)

ill laff at you from above :)

[filmwannabe2009]

Jeez. I thought Christians were people who understood and tolerated other minorities. Maybe Jesus was a good person but Christians sure aren't. This proves that your own religion is contradictory and in my opinion you won't be laughing from any place. There will only be silence.

[gjk0005]

what's all the debate among creationists about the age of the universe?

fact is, we can see stars that are millions of light years away. Ergo, it has taken the light millions of years to reach us, invariably, and the universe must be at least as old as the time it takes that star light to reach us

Simple proof that the universe is much older than many would have us believe (the age of the Grand Canyon was removed from pamphlets there because of complaints from Christian fundamentalists!)

[theinquisitor]

It's a good argument but they have a stupid answer for everything. They say that god created the light <i>already</i> on it's way from the distant galaxies. This is what I like to call intelligent deception. When their idea requires so much distorting that they have to admit that if god exists, he is fucking with us. The people who come up with this shit know it's crap, but they know they can get power and money by marketing it to desperate scared christians. It's fucked up.

[fiendin281]

they think the universe is closer to 30 billion years old now

[theinquisitor]

What's your source?

[fiendin281]

nevermind i thought i had heard some english guy say it but it turned out he was just saying 13 haha my bad

[quantumuniverse]

Big bang theory does not explain where the energy and matters come from, but it explains what happened IF matters and energy were packed at a singularity and what would happen afterwards. It is the best they can do at the moment, they can not yet have the technology to re-create the universe to test the big bang theory. All what scientists can do is just like what a detective can do after a crime scene, only collect datas and make up a model of how it happened.

[alweky]

dunno, when my QM professor went talking he said "people offend ask me what i do, whether there was anything valuable or important, I would say that I create universes" Well everyone in the lecture laughed, but what was he implying when he said that? He also said that you could rob banks with a Quantum Computer O_O

[theinquisitor]

Well he might have been referring to the creation of models of the universe or if he has access to a particle accelerator I think it's possible to create microscopic black holes. The idea being that in a black hole is another universe and our universe is a black hole in another universe. The part about robbing banks is about breaking the 128-bit encryption in online security, but there are no quantum computers that are big enough yet, only a few atoms in size.

[LOLOLOLOLOLman]

That's not why stars collapse. Stars collapse because once the energy creation process in the core of the star stops, there is no outward pressure to cancel out the inward force of gravity. So gravity pulls all of the gases towards the core, which heats the gases up to incredible temperatures. The energy that's created in the collapse causes the star to 'explode' in a supernova. (That's for main sequence stars anyway)

I just saw the comment and wanted to clear it up

[ultimatenarutofan2]

i dont kno about the matters

but i beleive from what iv learned is that a star seeks energy from the center so when it runs out the outer shell tries to get energy but it cant so the energy left will collapse trying to reach the center causing the expansion

[kmcheng]

You STILL haven't answer my question - if big bang theory is true, where is all the matters come from, as well as the energy needed for the expansion??

[theinquisitor]

I don't know. But that's beside the point. Science doesn't claim to know that. We can see the big bang happening. We can see the stars moving away from us. The WMAP has shown us collaborating evidence, along with the evidence of geology and evolution. The expansion of the universe is a fact. The universe has not yet been completely explained but that doesn't mean what we're seeing isn't real just because we can't 100% explain it.

[lumpazi]

The big bang theory is a hoax. The truth is that God is dreaming all of this up in order not to go bananas. He is, after all, doomed to exist forever, with nothing to do but think.

[theinquisitor]

Are you being sarcastic lumpazi?

[kmcheng]

crap, light speed is different already when goes through air and water, what makes you assume it is the same all through in universe?

Why all people always always assume the situation right now is as the same as before? Why we assume the earth right now is the same as 5000 years ago, and the universe right now is the same as before?

People need to stop with all these big assumptions.

[theinquisitor]

The speed of light is constant within a given medium. It's always a certain speed through water and always a certain speed through vacuum (space is almost complete vacuum).

Light comes to us from the stars from millions of years in the past since it takes so long for it to get to us. So we can actually look into the history of the cosmos the further we look out. Geology can tell us what the rocks were like 5000 years ago and long before.

[theinquisitor]

Have you heard of the WMAP satellite. It measures the background radiation of the universe. If the big bang had occured, the light and heat left over from the big bang would still be around today. However it would be massively redshifted from visible light into faint microwaves. Take a look on wikipedia for WMAP and look at the microwave radiation map of the sky. This is light coming to us from the edge of the universe and so very close to the beginning.

[theinquisitor]

This microwave pattern was analysed to determine what the possible densities of matter were near the beginning. These variables were then put into a computer model which uses the known laws of physics to calculate how matter in that arrangment would organise itself over billions of years due to gravity. When the simulation played fowards, it created galaxies and led to the shape of the universe as it is today.

[theinquisitor]

So if these theories and models are so innacurate and so full of assumptions, why do they agree so much with not only how the universe looks today, but how it looks from as far as we can see. If the light was really so unreliable, the simulations wouldn't produce the same results. So the burden of proof is on the skeptics. Indeed if you can disprove this stuff, you'd be the greatest physicist since Einstein.

[kmcheng]

Science is the study of things can be repeated, observed and tested. We can't repeat and test big bang, so all we got is a theory.

Besides, you still haven't answer where is the matter and energy come from.

[theinquisitor]

Perhaps you haven't heard of Einstein's theory of relativity. It states that the speed of light is constant. If someone really had evidence that contradicted this, they'd win a nobel prize. In fact it would be the biggest breakthrough in understanding the universe since Einstein. Where's the evidence that the speed of light varies?

[bighomie415]

Lets not forget to emphasise the word "Theory"

[theinquisitor]

Let's also not forget to learn what the word means in a scientific context. Gravity is also a theory, but I reckon you'd bet your life on it. Rational observation tells us that gravity is always in effect on earth, just as rational observation tells us about the expansion of the universe. You never question your rational understanding of gravity and think you can fly. You distrust rational observation only when it contradicts your assumptions. Think about it.

[lewisfisher]

I think there might be a bit of a mistake here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Gravity already gone past being just a theory to become a law? After all, we don't call it the "Theory of Gravity" anymore, we now call it the "Law of Gravity".

[theinquisitor]

I think you might be thinking of Newton's laws of motion. Those ironically are now found to be not absolutely correct, but the error is so tiny at Earth like velocities that it is imperceptible. The theory dealing with gravity now is the theory of relativity.

In science, the word theory is used to apply to ideas that have gone through an intense effort to disprove them. A theory can be disproven by one fact, and they are desgined so that there is always potentially a way to disprove them.

[weirdbizdotcom]

The word "theory" really confuses the idiots of the world... :( like the other feller says Gravity is a "theory" too.

[theinquisitor]

Even when you cannot repeat an event, you can get information about the event from multiple sources. The age of the earth and the universe is consistent with all of the evidence science presents. The big bang theory is consistent with all of the known physics up to the singularity point. However no other theory comes nearly as close to explaining the early universe, even if the beginning is still unknown. I suggest you look up "Scientific Method" on wikipedia as a starting point.

[kmcheng]

Light speed is not constant, and furthery away the source is, the less reliable data we get

Scientists just use the data we got right now and build a model to assume what happened "billions of years" ago, ASSUMING things has been in this way as always.

Besides, I choose my professor's comment other than those so called "facts". What happened in the beginning is up to believe.

[kmcheng]

as the professor in the astronomy class back in fall 2006 I took said - big bang is STILL a theory, we ASSUME the whole universe is expanding, bit it's NOT a fact yet.

And, if big bang theory is true, answer me this - where is all the matters come from, as well as the energy needed for the expansion??

[theinquisitor]

Not assumption, deduction. Watch the second part. The doppler shift is observed in all light coming from space. The further away from us a source is, the greater the speed it is moving away from us. It is evidence, it is fact. Explaining it is one thing, but the fact that the universe itself is telling us this, through it's own light, are you saying the light is lying?