Gravity and the Expanding Universe

[ChristineM]

So just because something seems to be a misrepresentation, means it actually is a misrepresentation? Interesting twist on the scientific method.

Did i say seems or are you trying to cause an argument? For those not in the know the word "seems" is quite well define.

Oh and i added a sentence to my post after you responded

 

[firedragon]

Depends on what you mean by that question. We have NO observational evidence about what things were like prior to a few milliseconds into the current expansion phase of the universe.

On the other hand, every attempt to unify quantum mechanics and gravity has lead to some version of a multiverse theory. it seems to be inherent in the way gravity works in the presence of quantum mechanics. This, while theoretical, is a pointer to some version of a multiverse being likely to be the case.

Well. I agree. But do you think these universes exist parallel to the one we know of or prior to that? Quantum mechanics and Gravity are unique to this universe or are they uniform to every universe? Or are they not linked and different like in the Bubble theory? Why not also consider the repetition theory?

 

[rrobs]

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.

I didn't say the big bang was not the original cause of our universe. There is in fact much in the scriptures that would agree with the big bang. I was just pointing out the precise balance between the forces of gravity and expansion.

I thought dark energy was the force that causes an acceleration of the expansion. Assuming that is true, wouldn't it be intimately related to the expansion/gravity forces?

Could you give me your source for saying that a 10% change in the gravitational constant would not affect the stability of our universe? I'd be interested to read more about it. Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

Indeed. If scientists were still in hopeless and intransigent disagreement with each other about even the most basic facts of reality, science would be much less trustworthy, even useless. Thankfully that's not the case.

Great. But that does not mean science is false. Thats the whole argument.

My deepest knowledge is of the Bible, since that is part of my personal history and it's the text of the largest religion globally and in my corner of the world. But I've never come across an alleged scripture to which that description wouldn't apply. Do you know of one?

But if you dont have due knowledge in all the scripture, how could you as a scientific mind make that type of claim where you said ""unverifiable hearsay about God(s)"?

 

[Regiomontanus]

Where did you get that claim from?

LOL

 

[rrobs]

Your question is closely related to Fine Tuning argument / The best argument for the existence of God.
You may want to have a look and maybe want to support @leroy. He's in dire straits.

Why do you say leroy is in dire straits? I didn't see any logical refutations of the OP.

 

[ChristineM]

Why do you say leroy is in dire straits? I didn't see any logical refutations of the OP.

ROFLMAO

 

[rrobs]

Most have this has already been picked apart and the faults pointed out but can I just add one thing ...

If one accepts the Big Bang one can make predictions of how the universe has evolved (sorry it is an emotive word ) that is how theories work, they are useful.
The actually moment of the Big Bang is not fully understood or accepted - but nano seconds after it is understood and accepted.

First of all, I don't resent evolution at all. The fact is, evolution occurs within a genus and that is perfectly in agreement with the scriptures. Dogs have obviously evolved, but they've always been in the genus Canis.

Yes, we understand (?) everything nanoseconds after the big bang. What science doesn't understand is, as you said, what happened at the moment of the explosion, i.e. from whence came the singularity.

 

[rrobs]

Old and moldy non-scientific ID argument. There is a lot of good science has determined the ID argument is a religious argument for God based on an 'argument of ignorance.

Is there no science at all that would indicate ID? I know there is, so what is it that makes you accept some science that agrees with your ideas but reject that which goes against your ideas?

The phony mind boggling argument is not based on science. your 1 in so many zeros is a false argument.

Not saying you are wrong, but any references on the falsehood of 10^60 being non-scientific that I can look at? Thanks.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Why is it that you can accuse someone of idolatry and it's OK, but if someone makes a rather benign claim as Eyes to See's you call it slander?

I am slandering an activity not a person through my choice of words specifically so that I don't confuse any moderators and don't make anyone feel like they have to defend themselves. When I say that I think proving God's existence is an idolatrous activity I mean it. Its true I have put some heat on it, and I feel bad about making anyone uncomfortable. I feel bad but still feel like its necessary to say it and that I am in the situation of having to be 'It'. All attempts to demonstrate God's existence are I think idolatrous. I'm willing to argue that, too; because to me its a very, very bad thing to do. Its not as bad as some things, but I think its as bad as drug addiction or as bad as jumping off of 2 story buildings. I definitely 100% believe that a person must pursue God out of faithfulness to God's principles and not because God's existence is proven to them or not. I also believe some other things are bad and may say so without breaking any forum rules, though there is a cost to pointing out sin. There is a cost to saying what you think and what you think is wrong activity, and people don't always like it. They also don't listen, and for not listening I blame no one or try not to. Very often nobody listens because they can't rather than that they won't.

So if you don't believe that God created the universe, nor do you apparently believe in chance (such an idea is slander and unsupportable as per your reply to Eyes to See), what do you believe in?

I think God is perfect and only creates perfect things, and I think God is invisible by all means. Yes, I think our lives are subject to chance so that it is not a sin to believe things happen by chance nor is it idolatrous.

 

[rrobs]

You.

Science follows evidence.

Opinion.

 

[Left Coast]

Great. But that does not mean science is false. Thats the whole argument.

No, it would mean we wouldn't be justified to trust science. You're absolutely right science could still be a reliable method, but we wouldn't have the evidence to justify that belief. That's the whole argument. There may be a god out there, but we're not justified in believing that until we have the evidence. You see?

But if you dont have due knowledge in all the scripture, how could you as a scientific mind make that type of claim where you said ""unverifiable hearsay about God(s)"?

What I said, in response to a Christian citing his Scriptures, is, ""The scriptures," as far as I can tell, are unverifiable hearsay about God(s)."

Now you're right, there may be countless scriptures out there I haven't even heard of, much less studied. I can only draw conclusions based on the evidence I have.

So rather than poke holes in what I said, let's cut to the chase of what actually matters here: What scripture are you aware of that provides verifiable information about a god?

 

[rrobs]

<Sigh> So it's back to the Fine Tuning Argument then? Whereas 10 to the 60th power is a big number, then chances of getting a PERFECT deck of cards dealt to you (ace through king in spades, then hearts, then diamonds and then clubs) is 8.0658e67!!! That 52! or 8.0658 to the SIXTY SEVENTH power!!! An even larger number! Now here's the catch... We go, "WOW!!! That's a miracle" when things like that happen yet fail to recognize EVERY HAND OF 52 has the exact same probability!

The human brain is set to recognize patterns. Just because something seems exceedingly unlikely or a "miracle", hardly makes it one. Douglas Adams has the perfect analogy so I don't need to reinvent the wheel...

Not saying you are wrong, but I'm not sure where you're going with this. What is the relationship between a deck of cards and the universe? Also, what does miracles have to do with the OP?

 

[rrobs]

I can't recall any useful contribution that theology has made to cosmology. It was cosmology, not theology that found the problem, for example, and cosmology, not theology, who are actively working to find the answers.

On the cosmology side, I don't see where "blind faith" comes into it at all.

Instead I see ongoing reasoned enquiry around some unanswered questions about unexpected phenomena.

That is, "dark energy" is the name of a problem, a question, and not (at the present time) a thing or acknowledged explanation.

And as you know, "don't know" does NOT imply that God, or any purported sentient being, tinkered with the universe so as to make it as it is. The God of the Gaps has been in a retirement home for a long time now.

"Don't know" simply means that at this time we don't know the explanation for the particular phenomena we've observed.

However, since it's the cosomologists, not the theologians, who are working on it, the prospects of finding the best explanation aren't nearly as bad as they might be.

Given that all true science accords with the scriptures, I can't refute your assertion that one of these days the cosmologists may figure things out. Just gotta have faith brother! (Joke - don't take seriously).

 

[firedragon]

No, it would mean we wouldn't be justified to trust science. You're absolutely right science could still be a reliable method, but we wouldn't have the evidence to justify that belief. That's the whole argument. There may be a god out there, but we're not justified in believing that until we have the evidence. You see?

I perfectly agree with that logic. I was only responding to your statement that humans dont agree on scripture, which is not coherent to your normal arguments.

What I said, in response to a Christian citing his Scriptures, is, ""The scriptures," as far as I can tell, are unverifiable hearsay about God(s)."

Now you're right, there may be countless scriptures out there I haven't even heard of, much less studied. I can only draw conclusions based on the evidence I have.

So rather than poke holes in what I said, let's cut to the chase of what actually matters here: What scripture are you aware of that provides verifiable information about a god?

The problem of verifiable information maybe subjective, thus maybe you should define what you mean by your perspective of verifiable information. If you were on the quest to verify the existence of a God, how would you go about it? What would be your criteria?

It would be interesting to here it.

 

[Polymath257]

I didn't say the big bang was not the original cause of our universe. There is in fact much in the scriptures that would agree with the big bang. I was just pointing out the precise balance between the forces of gravity and expansion.

I thought dark energy was the force that causes an acceleration of the expansion. Assuming that is true, wouldn't it be intimately related to the expansion/gravity forces?

Could you give me your source for saying that a 10% change in the gravitational constant would not affect the stability of our universe? I'd be interested to read more about it. Thanks.

It's easy enough from the equation that links the strength of gravity, the density, and the rate of expansion. In essence, the rate of expansion goes as the inverse square root of the product of G and the density.

This is something that is taught in every graduate cosmology course and is basic to the understanding of the BB model.

Here is an introductory talk: https://uncw.edu/phy/documents/thefriedmannequations.pdf

 

[rrobs]

You are just scratching the surface here!

And not much of a scratch at that.

 

[rrobs]

YOU are YOU. YOU are unique. YOU are the product of one sperm in 100,000,000 from YOUr father impregnating your mother. If any other sperm had gotten there first, YOU wouldn't be YOU. You could be someone very similar to you or you could be a female version of you. But, YOU wouldn't be YOU.

YOUr father is the result 1 sperm in 100,000,000 sperm from YOUr grandfather impregnating YOUr grandmother. If any other sperm impregnated her, he would not be he and YOU would never have become YOU.

At this point YOU are the result of a 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000.

I'll let you do the math. How many zeros just back to Christ's time? How many to Noah?

To put it another way, YOU existing would be like aiming at and hitting a 1 inch target located at the opposite end of the universe!

Now, please tell us again the point you were trying to make?

What point are you trying to make? Just because two things have the same number they are somehow intricately related?

 

[rrobs]

It's easy enough from the equation that links the strength of gravity, the density, and the rate of expansion. In essence, the rate of expansion goes as the inverse square root of the product of G and the density.

This is something that is taught in every graduate cosmology course and is basic to the understanding of the BB model.

Here is an introductory talk: https://uncw.edu/phy/documents/thefriedmannequations.pdf

If your reference is meant to highlight my lack of higher math skill, you succeeded. I'm still at a loss as to how a 10% increase in gravity would not have much effect. Oh, well, yet another thing I don't understand.

 

[rrobs]

I don’t think that any of us need to take anything on blind faith. The most intellectually honest option is to accept the reality of our ignorance. Yes, we may have some very creative hypotheses, but what is the likelihood that we actually know what we’re talking about yet?

Events appear as “chance” because we cannot comprehend the complex chain of causality. Have you ever made a choice without a reason?

I suppose it is possible that science will figure it all out without having to accept ID. I'm not going to hold my breath though.

 

[rrobs]

These debates are silly and pointless.

Then don't debate.