Cosmology (3/10)

Free learning from The Open University http://www.open.ac.uk/openlearn/science-maths-technology/science

---

Professor Russell Stannard explores what kind of universe we live in and what caused the Big Bang.

(Part 3 of 10)

---

Articles by Professor Russell Stannard on OpenLearn http://www.open.ac.uk/openlearn/profiles/professor-russell-stannard

Study 'Astronomy' with the OU http://www3.open.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/course/s282.htm

Study 'Astronomy' with the OU http://www3.open.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/course/s282.htm

---

Category:

Education

Tags:

• cosmology
• Big Bang
• Russell Stannard
• universe
• creation of time
• question of creation
• Hubble telescope
• galaxy
• open university
• ou_s207

[HecklerBoy7]

This guy's grandkids must be really lucky.

[scubadope]

The more we discover the more questions we create

[kanojo1969]

@EruIluvatar That question is pretty interesting, but my answer is bit different than the one below.

When Christians talk about Atheists, some of them say things like 'If you don't believe in God, why bother living? What is the point?'. For me, as an atheist, your question makes me react in a similar way. The study of cosmology is very much the study of the meaning of life for people who aren't satisfied with 'God did it' as an answer.

[AktivityNow]

@EruIluvatar, actually it does. You owe your very life to the universe itself. For example, if no stars were to explode, none of the elements heavier than Helium would exist, this then leads to the fact that you nor I nor anyone else would exist either.

[EruIluvatar]

what does all this have to do with my life? nothing.

[outofpeanuts]

@Shreddah But what if you call the "something", "somehow" and "for some reason" "God", and define "God" as exactly that? It's like calling the unknown factor of an equation "x". It's not less a less humble approach than calling it "?", it's just easier to operate with. I'm not saying that's how creationists approach it, I'm just trying to close a gap of prejudice. :)

[outofpeanuts]

@outofpeanuts poorly* (pardon my poorly formulated sentence) formulated, but we know for sure men don't tend to fly.

[outofpeanuts]

@outofpeanuts And "nothing" is only interesting for science as long as there is space. "Nothing" can only be proven if there is space. If you choose to think of a "before the Big Bang", it isn't for science. Science is proving-, seeking understanding of- and predicting what can be measured. You'll need something else for what you seem to have in mind. And the Big Bang shines trough about just everything astrology. Denying it is much like denying gravity: it may very well be either is badly

[outofpeanuts]

@signalchef Everything seems to move away from a single point at a speed indicating that this movement started at a point in time corresponding to CMB. Measuring space only makes sense when measured relative to mass, as there are otherwise no reference points defining dimensions. Only as long as anything at all exists, the idea of infinite space makes sense. But the same goes out for time. Therefor, there is no "before the Big Bang", as there were no sensible time or space "before" singularity.

[VanKlaunch]

@signalchef The Big Bang is a fact; just as gravity is. Look up cosmological red-shift, the Doppler Effect, and the speed of galaxies. The general fact that the universe is expanded is pretty well understood and undisputed in the astronomical community.

[signalchef]

IMO:

There was no big bang, the universe is infinite.

Nothing can emerge from nothing.

There's space that is occupied by matter and there's free space which is infinite.

Can someone point me to something that explains why everything came from 1 spot and how the hell they'd calculate it cause i'm not buying it! ;-) Enjoy your day!

[Shreddah]

@dharshana81 Except creationism can't even be consider a scientific approach in any way, it's very fundamental difference, actually. Sure, creationist posit that god created everything, and has to be the cause to everything, but that's making a argument from ignorance. At least the scientific approach is humble, and simply says "we don't know".