Big Bang. Maybe Julie Loader was on to something. Seems like a lot of shoehorning to make the slipper fit.
Thank you ☺
When I first heard this theory in science class, I was waiting for the teacher to say " Nah, only joking!"
We're usually told stuff like this because it's their best guess, until something else is found. Expansion theory is the latest, I think?
You do understand what "Theory" means in a scientific context? Expansion, or properly, Cosmic Inflation doesn't do away with the Big Bang at all, in fact, it's an observation on observable phenomena related to the Big Bang.
Yes I do understand, thanks mate....
A theory that I think is B.S.
Just to put it out there, the Big Bang theory is popular only partially because an expanding universe suggests that maybe it all started out close together (as a singularity). But the real troublesome observation that the Big Bang theory deals with is that the universe right now is amazingly exactly the same temperature in all directions. It's difficult to explain how it could've gotten so precisely the same temperature when far away places never had enough time to physically touch each other without having the original singularity, the Big Bang, and then rapid inflation.
Inflation must've stretched some strings (from string theory) to maybe even a couple kilometers long. We're looking for those now.
Big Bang. Maybe Julie Loader was on to something. Seems like a lot of shoehorning to make the slipper fit.
Thank you ☺
When I first heard this theory in science class, I was waiting for the teacher to say " Nah, only joking!"
We're usually told stuff like this because it's their best guess, until something else is found. Expansion theory is the latest, I think?
You do understand what "Theory" means in a scientific context? Expansion, or properly, Cosmic Inflation doesn't do away with the Big Bang at all, in fact, it's an observation on observable phenomena related to the Big Bang.
Yes I do understand, thanks mate....
A theory that I think is B.S.
wtf?
Just to put it out there, the Big Bang theory is popular only partially because an expanding universe suggests that maybe it all started out close together (as a singularity). But the real troublesome observation that the Big Bang theory deals with is that the universe right now is amazingly exactly the same temperature in all directions. It's difficult to explain how it could've gotten so precisely the same temperature when far away places never had enough time to physically touch each other without having the original singularity, the Big Bang, and then rapid inflation.
Inflation must've stretched some strings (from string theory) to maybe even a couple kilometers long. We're looking for those now.
I've heard Professor Brian Cox saying how he believes that everything in the universe is moving away from everything else.....
Q1 How is that possible?
Q2 If it is possible, why does he (and others) also talk about how our neighbouring galaxy is one day going to collide with us?
P.S.
My disbelief in the big bang theory is my own feeling on the subject. It doesn't sit well with me. But I don't say (and haven't said it ) as fact.
Sorry, I got confused as to what was a quote and what wasn't, from whom, etc. What I should have said was nothing. I think I have it sorted now, in the sober light of day. Apologies if my last comment landed wrong with anyone.
Just to put it out there, the Big Bang theory is popular only partially because an expanding universe suggests that maybe it all started out close together (as a singularity). But the real troublesome observation that the Big Bang theory deals with is that the universe right now is amazingly exactly the same temperature in all directions. It's difficult to explain how it could've gotten so precisely the same temperature when far away places never had enough time to physically touch each other without having the original singularity, the Big Bang, and then rapid inflation.
Inflation must've stretched some strings (from string theory) to maybe even a couple kilometers long. We're looking for those now.
In what sense is it the same temperature? The "empty" space is? I'm not familiar with this bit, I'm afraid.
Well, for Spinoza, Nature is the Everything. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough about that. Still, it is interesting to think about Spinozism in the context of our modern world, with all of this technology and so on, as opposed to when he was writing several hundred years ago.
Never heard of Spinoza, I will have to read up on that. Thanks. ?
Are you talking about blacking out/losing time? Sure, there is that. Weirder to me is when I have a dream so realistic that I wake up unsure as to whether it was a dream or memory. Usually I can sort that out, but sometimes I have had to ask someone.
There's some medical websites on sleep drunkenness. It's not blacking out. It's waking up without your memories (possibly maybe waking up to quickly for your brain to process that you're no longer asleep, and therefore, there seems to be some sort of disconnection between your memories and wakefulness...) - for the most part, I have felt very scared and confused (because trying to recall anything and releasing there is literally NOTHING to recall...etc.)
I mean, those memories do exist, but for whatever reason, your brain doesn't connect to them and therefore they literally do not exist (or at least, briefly).
Kind of interesting article, but too facile. The problem of personal identity is fascinating, and the author here does more or less get to the crux of it - is there something about me that underlies all of the changes and remains constant? This would be the soul, I take it; some kind of substantial reality of the self beneath the surface level differing. You can approach that in terms of essences, but oh shit now we have to think about whether things have essences... You can point to someone with brain damage or what have you, and say they seem like the same person, but what about when they don't? An ex of mine's grandmother had a stroke some years back, and all of the sudden this woman who had been incredibly sharp could hardly complete a thought. You want to say, "she's still in there" or something like that, but to what degree is that just our horror at the contrary?
If there is no soul, then the coherence of the self would rely on memory, sure, but perhaps even more fundamentally on habit. You can take that all the way into the biology - the heart in the habit of beating, the brain in the habit of making such and such moves and so on.
But I do think Twin Peaks is probably better approached with a notion of the soul, to get at the doppelgangers and tulpas, etc. Also, if we are thinking about a self that cuts across multiple realities, potentially, that would lead in the direction of the soul. I find that interesting to think about. If there are Many Worlds, then there would be a least a bunch of them where there would be a different version of Caemeron Crain. Does it make sense to put it that way? Would there be some connection between me and the Caemerons in other realities? Could there perhaps be an experience of that connection that occurs through dreams?
Yes, exactly. More than likely why I shared that article. You put it better than me!
In what sense is it the same temperature? The "empty" space is? I'm not familiar with this bit, I'm afraid.
Just in the last couple years we got a more-accurate-than-ever scan of the background radiation of the universe, and no matter what direction and distance we examine we get a remarkably similar reading.
What this is, so the thinking goes, is that the Big Bang went ker-blooie and the small early universe was so white hot that it would be opaque (photons got bounced around among proton plasma, if you're curious). After a few hundred thousand years it grew and cooled and grew and cooled and eventually cooled enough to become transparent. Because the universe was inflating so quickly, this visible light also stretched out, that stretching is called red shift. That early light now appears to us as microwaves (visible light has a nanometer size wavelength, microwave is at centimeter size.)
That radiation energy can be thought of as temperature. Energy per square light-year for example. So how is the universe so precisely uniform without having started out from one small spot?
There are tiny variations in temperature of course, but these variances are exactly what quantum fluctuations would explain if in fact the early universe started out perfectly uniform. The Big Bang theory is the best explanation of this uniformity so far. That's why it's commonly accepted.
Penzias and Wilson got the Nobel for finding the background radiation. They thought it must be pigeon poop on their radio telescope though.
Ah, yes, now I am recalling my limited knowledge of this. It seems to me that the only alternative would be to suggest it has always been like this (?)
But, I am generally down with the Big Bang. I just don't think it was the beginning in a robust sense.
Fire walk with