Gravity and the Expanding Universe

[MNoBody]

"The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of extremely high density and high temperature, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and large-scale structure." Big Bang - Wikipedia

The forces of gravity and expansion must be in incredibly precise proportions. If gravity was too much greater than expansion, the universe would collapse back onto itself. If the force of expansion was too much greater than gravity, the universe would fly apart.

The precision of the balance between the forces is 10 to the 60 power. That's a chance of 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. To put it another way, it would be like aiming at and hitting a 1 inch target located at the opposite end of the universe!

I just read something about the gullibility of Christians for having faith in intelligent design. Of course it would have been written by someone who apparently has no problem in believing in such mind boggling and overwhelming odds in the "chance" appearance of our universe. It would also be by "chance" that an explosion would end up with sentient beings that could even ponder said explosion.

So who is taking what by blind faith?

maybe it is just pulsing and breathing..... in and out, up and down..... food for thought.

 

[rrobs]

I don't see any reason to think that is true. To put it in the kindest way, the stories are unsupported, and the morality is inadequate.

And that is written in the stars...where?

 

[halbhh]

"The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of extremely high density and high temperature, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and large-scale structure." Big Bang - Wikipedia

The forces of gravity and expansion must be in incredibly precise proportions. If gravity was too much greater than expansion, the universe would collapse back onto itself. If the force of expansion was too much greater than gravity, the universe would fly apart.

The precision of the balance between the forces is 10 to the 60 power. That's a chance of 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. To put it another way, it would be like aiming at and hitting a 1 inch target located at the opposite end of the universe!

I just read something about the gullibility of Christians for having faith in intelligent design. Of course it would have been written by someone who apparently has no problem in believing in such mind boggling and overwhelming odds in the "chance" appearance of our universe. It would also be by "chance" that an explosion would end up with sentient beings that could even ponder said explosion.

So who is taking what by blind faith?

I like your post, but just to tell you, from another Christian believer, who believes God created all that is by initiating this physics (the laws of nature of our universe, that cause all of it to unfold like a flower from a seed), that this problem of the impossibly lucky universe has been for quite a lot of years now gone around by theorists simply by seeking other ways to explain it.

Such as multiverses, for instance ~10^500 multiverses (string theory), in which the luck to get one like ours isn't so hard then (of course 60 powers of 10 is a lot less than 500, etc.).

Here's a useful background article, from a pretty good writer. Let me know if this is the right technical level though (I can give you either more and less technical articles).

https://www.quantamagazine.org/comp...nd-support-to-multiverse-hypothesis-20130524/
(note there is a follow up article also, ask if you'd like it)

 

[Subduction Zone]

The biggest limitation of science is that it only serves oneself for about 80 years. After that it's useless. If that's all one wants, then science works. But some want something more substantial, and that's where the scriptures come into play. The scriptures are good for everlasting time.

Hardly. Some ideas are useful forever. Take Newtonian physics. It is not 100% accurate, but for almost all uses it is accurate enough. One has to try to find areas where it fails.

And no, the scriptures are loaded with flaws, bad science, bad history and worse morals at times.

 

[halbhh]

This seems to be a serious misunderstanding of what happens in the Big Bang scenario.

For a simple question of continued expansion versus contraction, the tolerance is much, much larger than 1 part in 10^60. Roughly speaking, if the strength of gravity (as measured by the gravitational constant G) was increased by 10%, this would change the expansion rate by about 5%, which would not have much effect at all on the current state of the universe.

In other words, your source is wrong.

The only place where something like 10^60 comes up is in the attempts to explain dark energy in terms of quantum fluctuations. And we *know* we don't understand the relevant quantum gravity.

But that is separate from the standard Big Bang scenario.

So, in attempting to claim those who believe in the BB are gullible, you showed how confirmation bias makes those attempting to explain it away gullible.

Hey guy, how are you today?

Here's one of the articles I've read, which you should find interesting (there is a reason the writer has won physics and technical writing awards):
https://www.quantamagazine.org/comp...nd-support-to-multiverse-hypothesis-20130524/
e.g. --
The vast majority of universes that burst into being in this way are thick with vacuum energy; they either expand or collapse so quickly that life cannot arise in them. But some atypical universes, in which an improbable cancellation yields a tiny value for the cosmological constant, are much like ours.

If you find it useful/interesting, here's a follow up from 2016:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-no-new-particles-means-for-physics-20160809/

 

[ppp]

And that is written in the stars...where?

Who cares?

 

[ecco]

The biggest limitation of science is that it only serves oneself for about 80 years. After that it's useless.

Where did you get that ridiculous notion?

It's been a lot more than 80 years since man knew the earth was a sphere.

Its been more than 500 years since the Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan circumnavigated the Earth from 1519 to 1522.

The scriptures are good for everlasting time.

Do you mean that the wood in a hitching post still does affect a goat's spots? Wow. Got some modern-day experiments to back up that claim?

 

[shunyadragon]

Hey guy, how are you today?

Here's one of the articles I've read, which you should find interesting (there is a reason the writer has won physics and technical writing awards):
https://www.quantamagazine.org/comp...nd-support-to-multiverse-hypothesis-20130524/
e.g. --
The vast majority of universes that burst into being in this way are thick with vacuum energy; they either expand or collapse so quickly that life cannot arise in them. But some atypical universes, in which an improbable cancellation yields a tiny value for the cosmological constant, are much like ours.

If you find it useful/interesting, here's a follow up from 2016:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-no-new-particles-means-for-physics-20160809/

Interesting hypothetical articles based on speculation of the unknown. How is this relevant to any argument you are presenting?

 

[shunyadragon]

Hey guy, how are you today?

Here's one of the articles I've read, which you should find interesting (there is a reason the writer has won physics and technical writing awards):
https://www.quantamagazine.org/comp...nd-support-to-multiverse-hypothesis-20130524/
e.g. --
The vast majority of universes that burst into being in this way are thick with vacuum energy; they either expand or collapse so quickly that life cannot arise in them. But some atypical universes, in which an improbable cancellation yields a tiny value for the cosmological constant, are much like ours.

If you find it useful/interesting, here's a follow up from 2016:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-no-new-particles-means-for-physics-20160809/

Interesting hypothetical articles based on speculation of the unknown. How is this relevant to any argument you are presenting?

'Arguing from ignorance' of hypothetical unknown has strong philosophical over tones, but in and of themselves do not contribute to the advancement of science.

 

[rrobs]

Hardly. Some ideas are useful forever.

You or I won't be around to confirm this.

 

[shunyadragon]

The biggest limitation of science is that it only serves oneself for about 80 years. After that it's useless. If that's all one wants, then science works. But some want something more substantial, and that's where the scriptures come into play. The scriptures are good for everlasting time.

Science serves and benefits humanity for generations and generations. You have only presented and anti-science view of the nature of our physical existence up till now

You need to provide objective evidence for something substantial beyond our physical existence, and you have failed to do that.

 

[rrobs]

Who cares?

I guess I don't really care, but you made a broad statement about reality and I thought you might care what you use as your source of truth.

 

[shunyadragon]

You or I won't be around to confirm this.

Science adequately confirms the knowledge of our physical existence now.

 

[shunyadragon]

I guess I don't really care, but you made a broad statement about reality and I thought you might care what you use as your source of truth.

Fortunately science does not claim to be the source of truth. It is the source of the knowledge of the nature of our physical existence.

 

[rrobs]

Where did you get that ridiculous notion?

It's ridiculous to think science will do you no good in the grave? OK, I'll bite; what good will it do you personally in the 22nd century?

 

[shunyadragon]

It's ridiculous to think science will do you no good in the grave? OK, I'll bite; what good will it do you personally in the 22nd century?

The benefit of future generations.

 

[ppp]

I guess I don't really care, but you made a broad statement about reality and I thought you might care what you use as your source of truth.

You think that "written in the stars" is a source of truth? Astrology is silly.

 

[rrobs]

Science serves and benefits humanity for generations and generations. You have only presented and anti-science view of the nature of our physical existence up till now

You need to provide objective evidence for something substantial beyond our physical existence, and you have failed to do that.

For the record, I do have faith in science. It helps me fly airplanes, eat food, heat our house, and much, much more. However, as I said, should I die before Jesus appears, science will not raise me from among the dead to join him in the air. That's really my end goal, and the scriptures tell me how to do that, not science.

You like science? Good. It will serve you well for the rest of your life.

 

[rrobs]

You think that "written in the stars" is a source of truth? Astrology is silly.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but what I was asking is where you get the idea that, "the stories are unsupported, and the morality is inadequate." I thought maybe you think it is written in the stars. I think when we say something is written in the stars it is a figure of speech and not meant to be taken literally. I know you really don't thing it is written in the stars, but surely you must have some source for the ideas you have concerning life. I was just wondering what it was. Like you said, astrology is not something to base one's life on.

 

[rrobs]

The benefit of future generations.

Assuming global warming won't get 'em!