It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ask me any questions you have about Cosmology

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Due to the great idea and great execution of the thread by Nosred, I thought I'd open up a thread for inquiries about Cosmology, a field some creationists often get confused with evolution.

So, anything people would like to know about Cosmology?




posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Actually, I do have a question off the cuff.

There is a theoretical bubble of matter expanding out...the universe as we know it.
Will try to ask the question without sounding completely stupid...but why would cosmology try to identify a shape considering our view cannot see past what we cannot see past due to the speed of light..

hmm

this is making little sense...

ok, I was shown that there are galaxys out to point X we can see...we cannot see past point X because of the sort of field of vision from our planet to the end of where we can possibly see is limited by light...they suggested in the documentry that there are probably alot more galaxys out there, but then they also assumed it would end in a sort of spherical bubble...I guess my question is, how do they know matter ends verses go on infinately.

This process of expansion may be a wave reaction verses a single big bang event..every like 50 billion years, another big bang may happen in the centerpoint and another ripple of galaxys may come out..the universe may look less like an explosion and more like ripples on a pond (each ripple being a "big bang" of sorts).



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Are anti-wrinkle mud masks best to go on in the morning or evening...and what blush goes best in winter while wearing lots of red...




(kidding, but my niece got confused by cosmology verses cosmetology once..I nearly cried with laughter at how it came out)


Oh I do not believe you SFX - I did the same. I was going to ask if dieting makes you really crave junk food..

Cosmo magazine.. lol




posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
I have a question, we are entering the age of Aquarius.I know its known as the precession of the equinoxes but that is just our movement/view of the cosmos correct? Any other meaning?

And why does it move opposite order of sun sign astrology? They are the same signs, but go in opposite order?

Just wondering, I may have more questions later.

BC



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Well - for starters. How about a little bit on what it is why it sometimes gets confused with evolution?



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frogs
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Well - for starters. How about a little bit on what it is why it sometimes gets confused with evolution?


For the same reason that a third if all Texans believe that The Flintstones was a documentary.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 





they suggested in the documentry that there are probably alot more galaxys out there, but then they also assumed it would end in a sort of spherical bubble...I guess my question is, how do they know matter ends verses go on infinately.


They dont know. The only thing that is known about the shape of the universe is that it is very flat as far as we can see. Infinite universe, but also spherical geometries with large radius, and other shapes satisfying this condition are still a possibility.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

What is the difference between the big bang theory and creationism?

In other words has cosmology become more of a religion on intelligent design than science? The big bang theory requires the absent of the known laws of physics and relativity in order to come about and to me this appears more like saying, "God did it".



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

What is the difference between the big bang theory and creationism?

In other words has cosmology become more of a religion on intelligent design than science? The big bang theory requires the absent of the known laws of physics and relativity in order to come about and to me this appears more like saying, "God did it".



There is a huge difference. An understanding of the big bang does exceed the grasp of our current understanding of physics. Than often happens in science. When that happens, there are two alternative courses of action to pursue. First, an attempt can be made to expand our knowledge through further investigation, like, for instance, the ALICE experiments at CERN. Or, the easy intellectually easy way out is to just give up, throw your hands in the air, and say "God must have done it.
An example from history involves Isaac Newton. He solved the orbital mechanics involved in a two body problem. But he was stymied by three-body mechanics. His new calculus couldn't quite handle it. So, he abandoned that problem, and gave up, saying that the problem was too difficult for mankind to solve and that God must cause these abberations in orbits. This was akin to the classical Greek theory that the movement of the stars and planets was caused by angels pushing them around. Euler, on the other hand, invented perturbational calculus and solved the problems. Euler recognized the right to be smarter tomorrow than you are today, while Newton just gave up. Newton gave up just one step to early. The new calculus still relied on Newton's inverse square law, but went the extra step of using the integrals and derivatives of trigonometrical functions and treating them as ratios, rather than linear expressions. An expanded treatment of this is contained in books.google.com... dxf-Uk&hl=en&ei=TA75TPKCHMSclgf1hsHiBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=perturbational%20calculus%20history&f=false



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Hmm..not sure, will do some research and get back to you. From what I know the 'shape' of the universe is a matter of speculation and hypothesis more than a definitive statement. Some even suggest that it is shaped like a donut (oddly enough, the Simpsons had a gag once in which Homer Simpson explained to Stephen Hawking that he thought the universe was shaped like a donut).

If I find anything else on it, I'll let you know.

reply to post by BrokenCar
 


This is not a question about cosmology. It actually doesn't relate to scientific inquiry.

reply to post by Frogs
 


Because of creationists thinking that evolution is somehow the sum of all natural explanations of the universe.

reply to post by Devino
 



Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

What is the difference between the big bang theory and creationism?


Easy. The Big Bang Theory is a scientific explanation for the observed expansion of the universe.
Creationism is the religious explanation of the existence of the universe, the galaxies, the solar system, the laws of physics, Earth, and all life upon it.



In other words has cosmology become more of a religion on intelligent design than science? The big bang theory requires the absent of the known laws of physics and relativity in order to come about and to me this appears more like saying, "God did it".


...where does it require the absence of the laws of physics? It might require a better explanation of them, but not a direct contradiction with what we know.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

The way I understand the nature of black holes, from a relativistic perspective, is that nothing can escape them, not even light. In the case of the supposed Universal singularity, the point just before the big bang, these same rules should apply. Nothing can escape, not even light, yet here we are. This is in violation to the theory of relativity as far as I am concerned.

The event horizon of such a huge black hole must be hundreds of light years across so how does stuff escape? The accepted explanation is that the four known Universal forces did not exist yet, i.e. nuclear forces (strong & weak) EM and gravity. This is in violation to the known laws of physics, especially thermodynamics. These forces are isotropic and homogeneous throughout the Universe and need to be for us, and everything else, to be here.

However, let's assume that this was the case somehow and for a brief moment these forces did not exist. In this case I then ask, what was the force that caused the big bang in the first place if these forces did not exist yet? The energy release from the big bang is said to be from these forces yet in the beginning these were supposedly not there at that time. This is simply a case of having your cake and eating it too which makes it a big non sequitur.

Violations upon violations of everything we think we know about our Universe and this is just the beginning of the problems that the big bang causes. In order to believe in the big bang one must have a lot of faith.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
I think you are confusing the BB theory with an explanation of the Origin of existence. BB doesn't even try to explain WHY the process happened or what was before, the BBT refers to processes we can actually "see" and mesure, like the cosmic microwave background.
And also, inflation and expansion are 2 different processes acting in diferent epochs in the universe's lifetime.
Expansion isn't meant as (ie) the expansion of particles inside a ballon. But, more like an expansion "of the space between everything" (I know it's vague and even incorrect but it's the "feeling" that's important
)



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by drakus
 

I was hoping for a better reply than this (assuming your replying to me), but oh well.

I think you are confusing the BB theory with an explanation of the Origin of existence.

OK if the big bang is not a theory of the origin of our Universe than what is it? Originally this was the theory of the origin of all matter and energy but has since digressed into incoherent garbage.

BB doesn't even try to explain WHY the process happened or what was before,

Want to guess why it doesn't even try to explain this? That is because it cannot. The whole theory is in direct contradiction to what we know about physics and relativity like I originally stated.

I am not against a theory of things exploding out into the Universe nor an expansion of matter or space between things. What I am against is the theory of a Universal singularity that at the beginning of time created everything, all light, matter and energy that ever was and ever will be, from a single explosion. This is what is called "the big bang theory", the origin of all matter and energy in the known Universe.

edit on 12/4/2010 by Devino because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join