h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I like this but... some of the stuff in here is unprovable at the present time other than that its great.

But it gets you thinking, doesn't it?

Is anything really provable? Is anything really true?

Even if you think of it that way, most things can be proven to an extent. The things im mentioning (the big bang and other theories) cannot be proven to a reasonable extent. And yes, it does get you thinking

Even if you think of it that way, most things can be proven to an extent. The things im mentioning (the big bang and other theories) cannot be proven to a reasonable extent. And yes, it does get you thinking

You don't seriously doubt the Big Bang, do you? It seems fairly obvious that if everything is rushing part, then it was closer together in the past. In the absence of any external "magic" forces, using only the stuff we know about at the moment, we can calculate the point at which all matter occupied the same point in space. That was the big bang.

HAHAHA! prove it! sorry that struck my funny bone. If everyhting is falling apart and drifting how come we have had the same constellations since the begining of history?

The constellations are local stars, which are not moving away from us. They are orbiting around the centre of the galaxy with us. But recorded history is not very long, only about 2500 years since the constellations were first described. That's not much time for things to change.

What appear to be moving away from us are other galaxies, of which we can see at least 1,000,000,000. Even there, the local ones, such as M31 are not moving away, but form part of the "local group" of galaxies. Outside of that, though, they are all moving away from us.

Well that doesnt strike me as really rushing apart... anywho since neither side is really proveable maybe the topic should be left alone for a while?

Err...you lost me. I'm not a native speaker, would you please tell slowly what you want to say?

There is evidence that the galaxies are rushing apart.
There is no evidence that the galaxies and the universe is standing still.
The evidence is not proof, because nothing whatsoever can be proved in science. We just collect enough evidence to make a theory seem reasonable.

Mookie seems to feel that since the expansion of the universe is not proved, we should accept the non-expansion of the universe as equally valid.

Just the anyhow<-->anywho thing confused me. I've understood you, Gnomon, perfectly. And of course you're right.

I see your point and my mistake, While i agree that the galaxies are rushing apart i dont agree that the only thing that could have accomplished this is a big bang.

Have you any suggestions?

Yes. A really hearty push.

errr...um well i personally havent ruled out the existence of a higher being or at least force. I personally find it easier to grasp that something made us rather than our random poping into existence and then forming from a random collection of molecules... just a little too much randomness in that one (if it requires deep thought i think its always good to let someone/thing thats higher than me deal with it). but like i said before neither of us can really Prove our stances so i guess well see...

see later that is

I can prove my theory to my satisfaction. You believe your theory, presumably to your own satisfaction. So we're both happy.

works for me!

Mookie and Gnomon,

Your views on the Big Bang seem to be at odds with each other. When I see a situation like this, I have to conclude that one view or the other is wrong or, most likely, both are wrong.

I would assert that the Big Bang theory is in big trouble due to the major assumptions have turned out to be wrong. Original Big Bang theory assumed that the initial explosion that created the universe has been slowing down due to the effects of gravity. This means that the rate of expansion of the universe would be greater in the past than it is now and can be verified by checking the degree of red shift in stellar objects in deep space. Instead, astronomers have found that the universe is expanding faster now than in the past. Astrophysicists now theorize that this is caused by an effect of dark matter/energy. They know dark matter/energy exists because of the motion of stars in galaxies and the motion of the galaxies in their associated clusters. Dark matter/energy is believed to make up 90 per cent of the mass and energy in the universe. Other than the apparent effect on the motions of stars and galaxies, scientists have been unable to find any other physical evidence for dark matter/energy. Examination of the Cosmic Microwave Backgound Radiation has turned up another surprising discovery in finding evidence for star formation occurring much earlier than previously thought. The Big Bang standard model now includes Inflationary theory to explain certain structures and distribution of matter in the universe and still clings to the idea that gravity caused an initial slowdown of expansion. As an analogy, these modifications to Big Bang theory remind me of the theory of epicycles that was used to explain the motions of the stars and planets in an earth centered view of the universe. Since we know almost nothing about 90 per cent of the matter and energy that makes up the universe, there will be more surprises in the future in regard to evidence supporting Big Bang theory.

Now as to Creationist theories, between the deists and scientists there appears to be a disconnection of logic regarding what science knows about the universe and the nature of matter and energy. There should be no disagreements between Religion and Science. Where conflicts exist, one or the other or both are wrong. There is no supernatural magic in creation of the universe and God's participation in its continuing existence. The following quote is from DNA's "The Salmon of Doubt" and is one of the central themes supporting his atheistic world view.

"I suspect that as we become more and more conversant with the role a computer plays and the way in which the computer models the process of enormously simple elements giving rise to enormously complex results, then the idea of life being an emergent phenomenon will become easier and easier to swallow. We may never know precisely what steps life took in the very early stages of this planet, but it's not a mystery."

My reaction to this quote was: If God exists, is it not probable that He knows that a bottom-up design is superior to and much simpler to implement than a top-down design? The nature of the essence of God is incomprehensible to human minds limited by the conditions of existence in a physical universe. However, we can postulate that at the bottom of the ladder of creation is the "simple" divine reality out of which emerges the various degrees and qualities of spiritual reality. Physical reality is in turn an emergent phenomenon out of various properties and characteristics of spiritual reality. Properties of physical reality such as space, time, and motion are transcended in the spiritual and divine levels of reality. Physical reality depends on spiritual reality for existence and in turn spiritual reality is dependent on the divine reality for existence.

So, lets turn Big Bang theory on its head and suppose that the cause of the expanding universe is the continuous creation of the simplest elements of physical reality. Emerging from the level of spiritual reality, these elements could be characterized as superstrings whose primary form attribute consists of space with an effective mass that equates to that of the hypothetical dark matter/energy. Space has to move out of the way to make room for new space. This process occurs all over the universe primarily centered around the vast voids (fountains of creation) that have been discovered between the structures known as superclusters of galaxies. This spontaneous creation process could also release photons in the microwave electromagnetic range. This would be the cosmic microwave foreground radiation. Each void can be considered to be analogous to an expanding bubble. At the borders between bubbles exists compression zones where baryonic matter is created when the energy of space/dark matter/dark energy is compressed into the equivalent volume required for baryonic particles. Then, in a process that occurs over billions of years, enough baryonic matter is created in the compression zones to start the formation stars and galaxies. Instead of all the energy and mass in the universe being created in a singular mega-catastrophic event, creation of the universe is a continuous eternal process.

Would you like some predictions based on this model?