Big Bang Theory

Post Reply New Topic

I like that show, but the line "the autotrophs began to drool" still bugs me. What autotrophs on this planet drool? None of them even have mouths!

Physics doesn't come in buffet form - the various aspects all lean on each other. This is why it's necessary, when observing new data and propounding a new theory, to make sure the theory also explains what is already known.

If you reject conservation of mass/energy, you reject modern physics, and are free to postulate anything from spontaneous generation to phlogiston. Working within the framework is so much more fun - and challenging...

You think some kind of ill-defined solipsism is an adequate resolution to the problem of infinite regress? Where then does this "consciousness" come from? Such an approach solves no problems, and simply replaces the incomprehensible with the absurd.

And why does Gödel's theorem make the universe impossible? It just makes hyper-formalism in mathematics difficult.


Is there any remotely sensible reason to reject the conservation of energy?

What does the Goedel Incompleteness theorem have to do with physical reality? It is a metalogical theorem pertaining to a certain class of formal systems.


ruveyn

My guess would be it's alluding to them evolving on to another lifeform that does have the mouths with which they can drool, or that they gave off essential things for the rise of heterotrophs (i.e. they drooled O2, so not literal drooling).

@Orwell That line bugs the hell out of me too! You'd think a show about science nerds would consider that it might be watched by... educated and observant people

Yeah but... plants didn't evolve into animals. The animal line diverged from the plant line before the acquisition of chloroplasts. And the other autotrophs such as algae have never been hypothesized as evolutionary precursors to animals.

It starts with one ape discovering a red shift, then proclaiming that this proves a single point origen.

Another ape who thought is was simplistic babble, called it the Big Bang, in contempt. Everything coming from nothing is weak Physics, and sounds creationist.. The name stuck.

Red shift could be explained by the gravity of the systems affecting light. At the time light was considered unchanged since someone said, let there be light. It was later proved to bend when passing a mass, Red shift could have other causes. This was before Black Holes, where light may well be in orbit.

Now telescopes are seeing a galaxy formed just after the bang, and with better scopes, I expect to see galaxies from before the bang soon.

The force of the bang would have formed a beachball universe, a dense skin around a hollow center, now 30 billion light years across, Before us should be void, behind us used void, but any direction we look, there is stuff.

The bang should be black before us, some stray parts behind, and a super Milky Way when viewing along the skin directions. Observation shows stuff in all directions, and no endless void before us.

Any other view of red shift, or seeing something older than the bang, we need a new story.

Then there is the matter problem, everything except Hydrogen was produced in a star, that then exploded, this takes a while, and there is a lot of matter to explain.

By the bang story, Earth formed from some disk, that also formed the Sun. Earth is star barf from some time before, It has to be older than the Sun, produced in another star. The bang timeline does not leave enough time for the needed super novas.

Viewing the mass around, planets around other stars, minus what Black Holes have sucked up, calls for an age of Super Novas. They do not just spit out blobs, they are more like a grenade, all directions and very fast. The time for gravity to gather these bits into lumps is long.

What we can see, close space junk, did not just form, gathering the bits, it was part of something larger. the asteroids must have been a planet once.

This all points to a very old universe.

This is a good point. It is unlikely that the earth and the universe are almost the same age. The universe should be older by many orders of magnitude.

Recursion

I thought it comes from the electro-chemical processes in the brain and nervous system

ruveyn

We see in response to there being light, we do not create it. The universe is way ahead on electro-chemical. We respond to what is. We do build our electrical on chemical, eating other living creatures, but what of the vast free electrical?

A self aware universe? Could be, and awareness a spinoff to other forms, life included. Plants that never saw winter know when to flower, seed, and other animals have a range of awareness, like knowing a hunter from a nature hiker.

Since all energy seems to be running down, and there is a lot, even after at least billions of years, it formed somehow, and has continued forming,

What is this well head of energy? This charge that forms hydrogen, and causes all the rest?

It had to start, overcome the loss, and has lasted.

Looking at structure, Black Holes may be a galactic mind that forms a food chain around. if layered like a star, it would form simiconductor layers packed with electrons. New stuff coming in would drive the system, and awareness is a likely product. Every galaxy seems to have a black hole at the center.

They are moving, gathering, and and they do not burn out or blow up.

While nothing gets out, they are the gravity well we are in, and that force could transmit awareness.

Something is pumping more energy into this system, and they are the largest, oldest, longest lasting thing we have discovered.

What are these migrant galaxy farmers up to?

Ape thinking is a recent development, a work in progress, but our system has a center, that gathers, eats, and moves.

In a system where all energy runs down, something keeps it going, and life develops to more complex forms. Apes were once Fungi, and this is more fun.

We have a perception of awareness because it existed and we developed within it, just like light.

Ape brains are antennas, tune in and watch the show.

It is a great quote. Its by a chief science adviser to President Eisenhower ( dont know his name), or atleast thats who Discover magazine attributed it to.

QRFT
(Quoted repeatedly for truth)

From my understanding teh big bang happened everywhere, therefore it is incorrect to place it into some finite size. It isn't a field I know anything beyond the popular descriptions, but I do wonder if it is a natural process of some larger cycle that we yet to comprehend. I have a hard time fathoming where a hot, dense state could have spontaneously emerged and decayed into what we live in today. Then again I may have a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole concept.

Sluice, the existence of space is defined by something existing in it. Until there's something there, even if it's just a stray photon, there's no space - to borrow a phrase from Gertrude Stein, there's no "there" there.

The big bang (or, as I prefer, the Horrendous Space Kablooie!) erupted from a singularity - a single-dimensional pointsource from which sprang space/time. Until it happened, there was no space for it to happen in; in this sense, then, it did happen "everywhere at once" because the point of eruption was the only space that existed. However, if you're referring to the current universe of at least 14 billion lightyears' radius, then no, it didn't happen in all that space (because, as explained above, that space didn't exist yet).

Even more fun, though, is the idea that in those initial moments of expansion, when the universe was still too hot and dense for any laws of physics to settle out, it may have briefly expanded at greater than what would later become the speed of light - meaning that there could be even more universe that we'll never see telescopically from Earth, because it would take longer for the light to reach us than the time the universe has been in existence. This is called the Inflationary Theory, and is lots of fun to contemplate, although unless we find a way around Einsteinian limits on velocity, it will remain a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, and thus not (yet) truly scientific...