• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Evolution or Creation?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
SparkyOSU;814141; said:
Much of understanding the Big Bang is extrapolating between knowledge of particle physics today, and projections from the mathematical model of an expanding universe in general relativity. The Einstein equations give us a mathematical model for describing how fast the Universe would expanding at what size and time, given the energy density of matter and radiation at that time. We base our guesses about the matter and radiation density of the early Universe based on the ancient light reaching us from the past in our night skies, and what we have learned about elementary particle physics, through theory and experiment. We know from duality relations between string theories that spacetime geometry is not fundamental, but emerges as we zoom out to distance scales larger than the Planck length. Physics at the Planck scale may be literally unknowable. But this is still work in progress. We'll keep you posted on later developments. Some time after the Planck era, cosmologists believe there was a period called the Inflation Era, between 10-12 and 10-10 seconds is where the Big Bang officially begins. In the Einstein equations of general relativity, the expansion of the Universe can be driven by energy density in the form of matter and radiation. During the first phase of the Big bang, the radiation part of the energy density is so much bigger than the matter part of the energy density that we can forget matter exists, at least for a while.
Click to expand...
the Einstein model is based in faulty assumptions, meaning that it is imminently flawed, hence the reason that theorists need to continually invent things such as 'dark matter,' and 'antimatter,' etc. in order to keep the equations balanced.
 
Upvote 0
lvbuckeye;814281; said:
the Einstein model is based in faulty assumptions, meaning that it is imminently flawed, hence the reason that theorists need to continually invent things such as 'dark matter,' and 'antimatter,' etc. in order to keep the equations balanced.
Click to expand...


I disagree that the points of show a "problem" with his theory.

1. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity applies only to the large scale, so yes, it does break down if it is used to govern physics at the early moments of the Big Bang, or the singularity.

2. Nothing needs "invented" by "flaws" in the theory. Rather, the correctness of the theory, among others, requires that certain things be "found." The gravity is eminating from somewhere, or the mass must exist, etc. It is not the theory that is flawed in this regard, but rather our ability to observe all aspects of the universe. We have, of course, been verifying that he was right, and have been filling in the blanks over time-- something that serves to support the theory, not bring it into disrepute.

3. His theory does not govern everything. It is not an explanation for the origins of the universe or for the activities that occur on small scales. I posted a summary of M-theory, which may push "beyond" the big bang, in the theology thread. . .
 
Upvote 0
One of the things that is most misunderstood about Applied Science (I capitalized intentionally) is that certain "simplifying assumptions" must be made to allow calculations to be performed to do stuff like design structurally sound buildings. Most of the "simplifying assumptions" are not, strictly, "true," but who cares? The important thing is that the building doesn't fall down.

One can poke a lot of holes into just about any scientific theory, but that doesn't reduce their usefulness, so long as you understand their limitations. I think Einstein would be aghast if he were aware of some of the uses people attempt to put his General Relativity theory to.
 
Upvote 0
Where did the discussion on the big bang come from? as in the religous thread, if matter can not be created nor destroyed, where did everything come from? The big bang is not the creation of matter, it's the dispersing of it.
 
Upvote 0
kinch;814901; said:
And now there are two of us on the board. Soon, our missionary work will take over the entirety of BP! Once we get that pirate ship. . .
Click to expand...

I made a pirate ship out of legos and a toothbrush. I'll trade you for a standard medeivel catapult and three drums of flaming oil...
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;815180; said:
Standard laden or unladen?
Click to expand...

I believe that that is a trebuchet, or counterweight trebuchet to be exact, and not a catapult.

Now here is nicely made catapult. I built it myself, actually:

300px-
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;815180; said:
Standard laden or unladen?
Click to expand...

kinch;815197; said:
I believe that that is a trebuchet, or counterweight trebuchet to be exact, and not a catapult.

Now here is nicely made catapult. I built it myself, actually:
Click to expand...

None of that sissy trebuchet Frenchy-French stuff for me.
With a kick-ass catapult, I could power my "dead-air" machine. I'll rule the world! Or something.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top