Seer

Curious. How do you know?

__________________

TitusCicero

Because the Big Bang is a proven fact. If the univese started at a finite small point (which had the boundary of itself) and began to expand and is now expanding then would it not have a boundary and be finite?

Kazikli Bey

The Big Bang is in no way a proven fact, it is an extremely plausible theory but there is no solid evidence that such an event occurred.

__________________

TitusCicero

We can detect the heat remnants of the Big Bang Heat from Origin of the Universe: Why the Big Bang Theory Predicts the 3K Cosmic Background Radiation. The Big Bang did occur, sorry to burst your bubble.

Kazikli Bey

Hmm, they base it on the fact that the universe is cooling? Proves nothing, just that the universe is expanding, which I did not dispute.

__________________

TitusCicero

Uh, lol, if the universe is expanding then it must have boundaries?

If you don't believe hard evidence and solid scientific prediction than there is no way for me to convince you of the truth.

Kazikli Bey

Sorry, let me re-word that, they base it on the planets and galaxies slowly getting further and further apart?

And, you actually haven't given me solid evidence but i like how you called it a 'solid scientific prediction' because, that is all it really is, a prediction.

__________________

Seer

But we have no evidence that the empty space surrounding the singularity before the big bang was finite and no evidence that the empty space surrounding the expanding universe is finite. This is what I was referring to. My bad if I didn’t make that clear.

I think my understanding of the terms, ‘extremely plausible’ and ‘no solid evidence’ differ from yours a bit. To me, the two don’t go together very well. Though I think I know what you’re getting at. The evidence presents an image that is hard to grasp in ones mind. I’m not saying you don’t know much about the big bang theory, but I would recommend watching Stephen Hawking's Universe part 2:











Then there is this on microwaves:

__________________

TitusCicero

I don't know if I would call it space. I have no idea what to call it. I don't think it is really an it at all. It's hard to imagine what nothing is? I guess God only knows.

Ygorl

* I would suggest reading this full article (I've only put some of it here) before stating that "The Big Bang did occur. There is proof." When you say that, it only shows how little you really know about this subject.

The fact IS, is that we STILL do not know how this universe we inhabit works. What we DO know is how nearly completely ignorant we really ARE.

Citing "wikipedia" on such matters is rather foolish in my opinion. *



Pg. 73

One set of studies sought to determine the shape of the universe by considering the density of matter in it. Einstein had shown that matter curves space in predictable ways, so that universes with different densities of matter will have different shapes. His theories allowed for three shapes: negative curvature, in which the universe looks like a saddle; positive curvature, in which the universe is spherical and flat, the most unlikely case, in which the overall density of matter doesn't warp space, and photons travel in straight lines. Flat space isn't two dimensional; it just isn't curved.

Each shape corresponds to a density of matter denoted by the symbol Omega. To create a flat universe, matter must reach so-called critical density, which means Omega equals one. In a saddle shaped universe Omega is less than one; in a spherical universe, it's more than one. Astronomers have sought to determine the value of Omega and distinguish among these geometries by measuring the way space bends beams of light. The light they like to measure isn't visible; it's microwave radiation left over from the big bang that glows at the farthest reaches of the universe.

Pg. 74

In the days before dark energy, astronomers believed that the end of the expanding universe would be dictated by the density of matter in it. Just as matter determined the curvature of space, it would also predict the way that space would expand and whether it would ever contract. Back when cosmic expansion was caused solely by the cataclysmic propulsion of the big bang, the gravity of matter was expected to eventually slow it down, maybe even stop it, maybe even reverse it. In short, density equalled destiny.

Based on that reasoning, astronomers proposed three models for the fate of the universe, each corresponding to a different geometry and density of matter. In each scenario, the gravitational attraction of all the matter in the universe tugs at the heels of the big bangs momentum like a tireless dog thats latched onto the leg of a running mailman.

If Omega is less than one, the universe keeps on expanding forever, but at an ever diminishing pace. That universe has the saddle shape and is called "open". If Omega is more than one, the universal expansion slows and eventually reverses, collapsing in a cosmic crunch. That universe is spherical and "closed". In a flat universe, where the density of matter is exactly one, the expansion eventually slows very nearly to a stop but never actually reverses.

But if the universe is made up mostly of repulsive, ubiquitous energy rather than matter, then its ultimate fate isn't inscribed in its shape after all.

Pg. 75

.. universe that expands forever and an open universe or a flat universe that collapses."
The only way to figure out the fate of the flat, empty, accelerating universe, says Turner, is to learn more about the dark energy thats impelling expansion. But even as they begin chasing down Einsteins notion of vacuum energy, physicists are having to grapple with problems that range from the numerical to the philosophical. For one thing, when they attempt to calculate the value of Lambda, the theorists come up with a figure that is 120 orders of magnitude too big. Fitting the known universe with a vacuum energy of that potency would be like filling up a water balloon with a fire hose. "It cannot possibly be correct," says Turner. "If it were correct you wouldn't be able to see beyond the end of your nose, the universe would be expanding so fast." The size of the error has emphasized how poorly physicists understand certain aspects of gravity. "That is the biggest embarrasement in theoretical physics," adds turner.

It gets even more embarrasing, because theorists can't explain why the densities of matter and energy are currently so close in value. Theoretically, either of those densities could be anything from zero to infinity, and their ratio could vary accordingly. The odds of their being within a order of magnitude of each other are very low. The precarious balance between matter and energy that exists today in our universe - one third matter to two thirds energy - seems as improbable as the static universe that Einstein struggled to describe. And some find that improbability especially suspicious, because a universe more dominated by dark energy would be inhospitable to life. The excess energy would prevent matter from clumping forming galaxies, stars and planets. Yet here we are.

The coincidence has driven even notorious skeptics like Weinerg to invoke, in exasperation, the anthropic principle. That much-maligned tautology states that human consciousness can question the terms required for its existence only in a world in which those terms have been met. If conditions were any different, no one would be here to ponder them.

__________________
Why do liberals oppose capitalism except when it produces or promotes perversions and/or degeneracy ?