Icelander said:

Then who are you to say they're right?

---

Icelander said:

IMO nobody will ever know what the universe is or when or how it happened. It's a fun distraction to think about it however and some of the math seems to have application in our little material world.

---

There is no direct evidence because nobody was around to witness the event, all we have is different peices to a puzzle. What is the MBR?

Well if you define "direct evidence" as "somebody was there to see it" then no, there isn't any evidence

However, science has come up with some amazing things called "telescopes". With them we can see rather far (about 13 billion light years). We can "see" in parts of the spectrum that our eyes can't detect (like radio waves, or microwaves).

The MBR, or Microwave Background Radiation, is the remnant of the "first light" that filled the universe a certain time after it formed. Before this time, the universe was opaque to light, because it was still too hot. At the very moment that the universe cooled sufficiently to allow light to pass through, there was a great flash of light.

That flash of light has been traveling throughout space for over 13 billion years, and due to this fact and the fact that the universe has been expanding for all this time, the initial flash of light has been shifted into the microwave part of the spectrum. Thus you have the MBR, and some pretty strong evidence for the big bang!

I don't see anything here that supports the notion that space must be expanding.

That's probably because you read the part of the document on sound

Try this (from the same page you posted):

Quote:

Astronomy

The Doppler effect for electromagnetic waves such as light is of great use in astronomy and results in either a so-called redshift or blue shift. It has been used to measure the speed at which stars and galaxies are approaching or receding from us, that is, the radial velocity. This is used to detect if an apparently single star is, in reality, a close binary and even to measure the rotational speed of stars and galaxies.

The use of the Doppler effect for light in astronomy depends on our knowledge that the spectra of stars are not continuous. They exhibit absorption lines at well defined frequencies that are correlated with the energies required to excite electrons in various elements from one level to another. The Doppler effect is recognizable in the fact that the absorption lines are not always at the frequencies that are obtained from the spectrum of a stationary light source. Since blue light has a higher frequency than red light, the spectral lines of an approaching astronomical light source exhibit a blue shift and those of a receding astronomical light source exhibit a redshift.

Among the nearby stars, the largest radial velocities with respect to the Sun are +308 km/s (BD-15°4041, also known as LHS 52, 81.7 light-years away) and -260 km/s (Woolley 9722, also known as Wolf 1106 and LHS 64, 78.2 light-years away). Positive radial velocity means the star is receding from the Sun, negative that it is approaching.

---

Qubit said:

Logic is not evidence.  Its an internal mechanism that is entirely based on your own assumed axioms (ie, intuition).

---

EdgeChaos said:

Premise: The Big-Bang Theory is false.

Evidence: Since absolute non-existence is merely an impossible hypothetical scenario, the Universe has always existed, and is also therefore infinite.

Conclusion: Since the universe is infinite, non-existence is merely an impossible hypothetical scenario, and the Big Bang Theory implies that the universe was non-existant at some point, it is false.

---

Quote:

I've heard it said that if one could travel in a straight line faster than the rate of the Universe's expansion, (in a scenario where they weren't ripped to shreds etc) one would end up right back where they started, given enough time.

---

Quote:

This is of course pure speculation

---

trendal said:

I don't see anything here that supports the notion that space must be expanding.

That's probably because you read the part of the document on sound

Try this (from the same page you posted):

Quote:

Astronomy

The Doppler effect for electromagnetic waves such as light is of great use in astronomy and results in either a so-called redshift or blue shift. It has been used to measure the speed at which stars and galaxies are approaching or receding from us, that is, the radial velocity. This is used to detect if an apparently single star is, in reality, a close binary and even to measure the rotational speed of stars and galaxies.

The use of the Doppler effect for light in astronomy depends on our knowledge that the spectra of stars are not continuous. They exhibit absorption lines at well defined frequencies that are correlated with the energies required to excite electrons in various elements from one level to another. The Doppler effect is recognizable in the fact that the absorption lines are not always at the frequencies that are obtained from the spectrum of a stationary light source. Since blue light has a higher frequency than red light, the spectral lines of an approaching astronomical light source exhibit a blue shift and those of a receding astronomical light source exhibit a redshift.

  Add Signature  Preview Reply  D4D0C8Among the nearby stars, the largest radial velocities with respect to the Sun are  308 km/s (BD-15?4041, also known as LHS 52, 81.7 light-years away) and -260 km/s (Woolley 9722, also known as Wolf 1106 and LHS 64, 78.2 light-years away). Positive radial velocity means the star is receding from the Sun, negative that it is approaching.

---

---

This still doesn't imply that space is expanding.

Qubit said:

There isn't hard evidence for the Big Bang theory, only supporting evidence.

What is the difference between hard evidence and supporting evidence?  Ive never heard of such a distinction in science - I think you are making it up.

From what I know about relativity, it makes perfect sense. What part of relativity doesn't make sense?

That light always travels at the same speed no matter what your reference frame.  You may glibly claim it makes sense, but millions of highly educated people resisted that idea voraciously merely because it doesnt make sense.

Again, you think that intuition led me to my hypothesis, even though I've clearly explained my assertions over and over. ...  My sole form of evidence is logic.

Logic is not evidence.  Its an internal mechanism that is entirely based on your own assumed axioms (ie, intuition).

---

The distinction between direct evidence and supporting evidence is applied everywhere, whether it be law, philosophy, or science.

Can you tell us the logic that these 'millions of highly educated people' use to conclude that this doesn't make sense?

Logic is used as evidence all the time, how can you say that? Scientists render hypotheses, conduct studies, then end up with a logical conclusion of their findings.

johnm214 said:

Qubit said:

Logic is not evidence.  Its an internal mechanism that is entirely based on your own assumed axioms (ie, intuition).

---

And this distinction is the problem with his whole argument.



He's argued using logic that relies on presumptions that have never been demonstrated.

---

Has it been demonstrated that non-existence is possible?

zouden said:

Quote:

I've heard it said that if one could travel in a straight line faster than the rate of the Universe's expansion, (in a scenario where they weren't ripped to shreds etc) one would end up right back where they started, given enough time.

---

Yes. This is because the universe is finite in size but has no boundary, in the same way that the earth's surface is finite but it has no edges. If you go far enough, you come back to the same spot. So it is with the universe, but in 3 dimensions.

---

Alright, if the universe is finite in size, then what exists beyond it? Something other than the universe?