PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     New theory of Big bang

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi,


I was interested to know more about the New theory of Big bang as published in
http://www.indiaexpress.com/indepth/newshtml/cat6/indextp69-1.html

Thanks

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 05:31 AM on August 12, 2003 | IP
FifthEdge

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm not noticing too much of a difference, all of the old proofs against a big bang still exist with his new twist.. Check out these threads if you want more:

http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=1396

http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=1397

http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=1398
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 01:07 AM on August 19, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

*deleted* my mistake, sorry (dont ask its embarassing)

(Edited by Void 4/17/2004 at 8:26 PM).
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 8:25 PM on April 17, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Have you guys ever read the following:

Smoller, J. and Temple, B, Shock-wave cosmology inside a black hole, Proceedings of the National Academy of  Sciences 100(20):11216–11218, 30 September 2003.

It seems to have some similar aspects of another book from 1994 -

Humphreys, D. Russell, Starlight and Time, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 1994

Both have some decent evidences that challenge a lot of long standing thought on 'the big bang'.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 2:00 PM on April 20, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Have you ever read it?  I did and it makes little sense to me (the maths are way over my head).  Here it is for anyone who wants to read it (Thanks again Gup for providing links!)
black hole bang

Somehow I doubt that Humphrey's work would "have some decent evidences that challenge a lot of long standing thought on 'the big bang'."


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 2:38 PM on April 20, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are indeed quite correct - I did not provide a link to it.  Thank you very much.  The math is over my head too ... but there are some concepts that I can grasp.  

For example, their theory involves the universe having an edge, and therefore a center, in which goes against the current assumption of the 'big bang'.  

Your skepticism of Humphreys work is probably due, considering I brought him up, and he is a creationist (of which you are not).

His book deals with the same type of issues as the smoller/temple paper, however from the standpoint that it explains why we can see light from stars that are Millions of light years away when the creation model puts the age of 'creation' at approximately 6000 years.  

It has to do with the time dialaton between things closer to the center of a 'big bang' (which is perhaps a white hole) and the edge.  

As you said, the math is far beyond me, but I can conceptually understand the general idea.  

obligitory AiG link
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 2:54 PM on April 20, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Go here for a more in depth explanation of Humphrey's cosmology:

AiG .pdf file


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 3:04 PM on April 20, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Go here for a more in depth explanation of Humphrey's cosmology:

I like this appraisal of Humphrey's "theories", it's from fellow YEC Hugh Ross:Ross

"To our knowledge, not one person competent in general relativity and cosmology theory who has examined Starlight and Time has given a "pass" to this theory12. Despite the lack of expert corroboration of his work, Humphreys continues to insist on the validity of his demonstrably false theory. Unfortunately, most of the major young-earth organizations13 are continuing to follow Humphreys and are ignoring the demonstrations of the falsity of his theory which have arisen from both inside and outside the young-earth movement."

Obviously, Humphreys stuff is SO bad even other YEC's don't accept it!




 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:43 AM on April 21, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon, Ross is an Old Earth Creationist. Listen to the Ross vs. Hovind audio debate.


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 09:00 AM on April 21, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, what do you know gup?  You're wrong again.  I emailed the authors of the paper, and here is their response:

Dear Adam:

Thanks for the e-mail and the interest in our paper.   I do not think that  the idea that some sort of time dialation reducing the age of the universe to 6000 years has anything whatsoever to do with our paper.  In our paper, we explore the possibility that the explosion of the Big Bang that caused the outward motion of the galaxies, was an explosion of finite total mass, instead of the infinite mass explosion as touted by the standard model based on the Friedmann universe since the 1930'3.   In our model, the explosion of the Big Bang generated a shock wave that went out from the center of the explosion, (like the outward shock wave of a nuclear explosion), and the expanding
galaxies correspond to the region inside the outgoing spherical wave.   What is new here is that when the shock wave is far enough out to be consistent with observations, (beyond one Hubble length--the distance light can travel since the Big Bang explosion), the whole explosion begins inside a (time reversed) black hole----a black hole in which everything is running backwards, exploding outward instead of collapsing inward.   In our model, the universe eventually emerges from the black hole, and from then on expands like a huge finite ball of matter into empty space----we are inside the explosion, but to someone far out, this would look like a giant supernova explosion.   It
also follows from our model that information about the shock wave propagates inward from the shock wave, into the large central region of uniform expansion----and thus to an observer (like us) on the inside of the bubble, everything would look exactly like the  Friedmann universe up until the time when the shock wave came into view from the farthest field of  observations.   In particular, up until the shock wave comes into view, everything looks the same as in the Friedmann model, inclulding the age of the universe---so I see no connection to a new idea on the age of the universe.

We believe that there very likely is such a shock wave out there---and that a model like ours is pretty much forced on you once you assume that the Big Bang was an explosion of finite total mass.  (Assuming finite mass, the only other alternative is that the spacetime is not simply connected--this was the topic of Geoffrey Weeks talk in Berkeley last monday.  We think this is much less likely that the existence of a wave way out there.)  Our model shows that if this shock wave were close enough, it could conceivably have already come into view---that is, could be visible in the far field in the direction nearest the wave.  We expect that this would be a region in the sky of
lower temperature.  (Shock waves always propagate into regions of lower density and pressure, so the temperature would be lower on the far side of the shock----that radiation would reach us when the wave came into view----when the shock wave got within one Hubble length of us.)    One of the questions asked of Jeffry Weeks last Monday, was the question of whether there is a center to the universe, and he answered, based on the standard model---and his non-simply connected version of it--- there is no center.   In our model, it is much more mundane---there is a center---but within the bubble like region near the center before the wave has appeared, all points ``appear'' the
same observationally.

As far as we know, no one has ever looked for the shock wave at the edge of the expanding galaxies.  We are researchers coming from the mathematical theory of shock waves, and this work is very controversial, and not accepted by cosmologists---although we have given many international talks explaining this model, and have heard no physical observation that rules this model out.  To us, the FINITE explosion part makes a whole lot more physical sense than other alternatives.

You can download my radio interview on Quirks and Quarks and NPR, and some popular articles on this from my web page:  www.math.ucdavis.edu/~temple/articles

Good luck with your argument!

Blake Temple



-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 6:40 PM on April 22, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And then there is this as well from the talk.origins newsgroup:


The article by no stretch of the imagination supports Humphrey.
It's a purely theoretical exercise, simply showing that Einstein's
equations have a solution that fits inside a white hole and roughly
resembles the real universe when viewed from inside.  Their solution
is expanding from a "local Big Bang" in the middle of the hole, giving
a visible universe that is just as old as the standard one,
if a bit smaller.  Furthermore, their universe is embedded within
a larger and older space.

Empirical evidence isn't even discussed, it's pure mathematics.

But AIUI the whole point with Humphrey's exercise is to do away
with the expansion and the billions of years of history that we find
in the real universe, and instead place us at the center of the universe.

The universe of Smoller & Temple, unlike "vanilla" Big Bang, does
have a center, but there is no reason to believe that we are anywhere
near that center.  AFAICT from their calculations their universe will
appear homogeneous and isotropic for any observer more than a
Hubble length or so from the edge.  Our position is not privileged,
against the dreams of Humphreys.

Best regards,           HLK, Physics
Sverker Johansson       U of Jonkoping



-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 2:17 PM on April 23, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: Well, what do you know gup?  You're wrong again.

You wish.  As usual, lets look at the actual facts instead of your lies -

I said - their theory involves the universe having an edge, and therefore a center, in which goes against the current assumption of the 'big bang'.

They authors of the paper replied to your email:  In our paper, we explore the possibility that the explosion of the Big Bang that caused the outward motion of the galaxies, was an explosion of finite total mass, instead of the infinite mass explosion as touted by the standard model based on the Friedmann universe since the 1930'3.   In our model, the explosion of the Big Bang generated a shock wave that went out from the center of the explosion, (like the outward shock wave of a nuclear explosion), and the expanding galaxies correspond to the region inside the outgoing spherical wave.

Hrm... seem to be batting 1.000 there.  

Then I said that Humphrey's book has to do with why we can see stars that are millions of light years away.  That the Humphreys book deals with the same type of issues as the smoller/temple paper, however from the standpoint of how that information supports the creationist model and answers some quesitons.  

In fact, the 'big bang' theory has long held the belief (as I stated, and as Blake Temple's email confirms) that there is no center or edge in the universe.  Humphrey and this paper disagree with that.  Humphrey's cosmology and the Smoller/Temple paper have that in common.  

In fact, more has recently been disovered on that.  The Slaon Digital Sky Survey team has develped the best three-dimentional map of the universe to date, mapping over 200,000 galaxies up to two billion light years away.  You can see from the picture below from their website that there are clear concentric circles.  Our galaxy, of course, is in the Red section at the middle of the concentric circles where the density is greatest.  

This fits with the Smoller/Temple theory and Humphrey's cosmology, and shows a huge divergence from the long held beliefs of the 'big bang' in that it shows evidence of a center and an edge, as well as a different perspective on density.  The density distribution of galaxies WAS expected to increase with distance in a 'big bang' universe.  On the map, the galaxy density seems to oscillate with distance hence the circular structures.  




Your friend HLK, Physics Sverker Johansson  of  U of Jonkoping may wish to examine this before he continues stating:

The universe of Smoller & Temple, unlike "vanilla" Big Bang, does
have a center, but there is no reason to believe that we are anywhere
near that center.


The 'big bang' is quickly losing a lot of the archaic ideas that it's held for so many years.  


AiG article on Smoller/Temple paper


(Edited by Gup20 4/25/2004 at 3:23 PM).
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 3:20 PM on April 25, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Umm how are you so sure that picture shows the universe has a centre? I went to the link it was from and they didn't even mention it showed the universe had a centre. Very strange for something so revelational.

Couldn't it be that the 3D graph is centred on Earth because that is where the measurements were taken from?


 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 2:38 PM on April 26, 2004 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.