New information from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisoptropy Probe (WMAP)
show that the first stars emerged 400 million years after the big bang. That the universe is 13.7 billion years old, is flat and has very little "ordinary matter."
However, it does have much more "dark matter" and a lot of "dark energy". Data from WMAP indicate that the universe grew from the size of a marble to nearly its present size in less than a trillionth of a second. The WMAP satellite was launched in 2001. 
Bob

Cosmology

New information from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisoptropy Probe (WMAP)
show that the first stars emerged 400 million years after the big bang. That the universe is 13.7 billion years old, is flat and has very little “ordinary matter.”
However, it does have much more “dark matter” and a lot of “dark energy”. Data from WMAP indicate that the universe grew from the size of a marble to nearly its present size in less than a trillionth of a second. The WMAP satellite was launched in 2001. 
Bob

That is one theory that i don’t support.

[quote author=“theatheistheretic”]That is one theory that i don’t support.

:?:  :?:

Doug,
I noticed that.
Bob

The Big Bang.  Well I don’t think the universe started from it, and if the big bang did happen then it has happaned before and will happen again.

[quote author=“theatheistheretic”]The Big Bang.  Well I don’t think the universe started from it, and if the big bang did happen then it has happaned before and will happen again.

How do you have an informed opinion on this? There are some cosmologists who have models of a multiverse with many Big Bangs, but this is extremely deep mathematics and totally speculative. It’s questionable as to whether any amount of scientific evidence would clinch the case one way or the other.

But as for rejecting the Big Bang outright ... in that case you are literally going against 100% of the informed cosmological opinion.

Lonely position to start from. Do you do much astrophysics?

Of coarse not,  but am I against it 100%? No because I have insufficient knowledge on the matter.

But why are you “against it” at all? Do you have other evidence to provide?

Isn’t there a huge rift between those that believe the local universe had it’s origin from an atom and those that believe this same universe always was and always will be?
  The only thing that changes are the cosmic currents so that it appears as though constellations are moving apart from each other when in actuallity they are following the path of concentric circles. Some paths are clockwise and others are counterclockwise.

  And isn’t also possible that beyond what technology can see there exists something so huge and enoermous, the magnitude of which could quite possibly be considered all encompassing and all absolute, that it would be another dimension, another reality?
And when that reality and this reality collides a big bang occurs.

Afterall if we can think it, it could be possible.

Hi Doug

[quote author=“dougsmith”]I can also think that the moon is made of green cheese. It could be possible, but I wouldn’t lay bets on it.

Your speculations sound to me like a sort of theism. Offhand, the physics of such a godlike thing “colliding” and making a “big bang” makes no sense, but then the speculation itself is not based on evidence or reason, simply fantasy.

I suggest you’re better off spending time with a good recent book about cosmology ... there are lots of them. Many are quite speculative, but the honest among them make this clear. They at least have the virtue of being based on actual physics.

Thanks for this piece of advice Doug.

From experience I learnt a long time ago to dispute scientific theories with another scientific finding or refrain from putting my “emotional twopence” worth of comments into any theory.

Take for example quantum physics. I find it incredible that quantum physics could postulate alternate universes being created all the time. Yet I have to accept that such a concept is possible because the quntum physicist says so. If I intend to dispute this findings with a quantum physicist I need to take a course in university physics and then study the quantum physicist theory and then postulate why those theories are wrong are wrong based on hard factual scientific reasons.

Simply stating that such universes cannot exist because I find it “incredible” will make me look pretty stupid.

The same approach is normally taken by many theist. They claim to find it incredible that we could have evolved from the ape and expect that based on their emotions we should all accept their “feelings” as true.

So thanks Doug. Your summary is how we should approach science.

[quote author=“mfmahamed”]Thanks for this piece of advice Doug.

From experience I learnt a long time ago to dispute scientific theories with another scientific finding or refrain from putting my “emotional twopence” worth of comments into any theory.

Take for example quantum physics. I find it incredible that quantum physics could postulate alternate universes being created all the time. Yet I have to accept that such a concept is possible because the quntum physicist says so. If I intend to dispute this findings with a quantum physicist I need to take a course in university physics and then study the quantum physicist theory and then postulate why those theories are wrong are wrong based on hard factual scientific reasons.

Simply stating that such universes cannot exist because I find it “incredible” will make me look pretty stupid.

The same approach is normally taken by many theist. They claim to find it incredible that we could have evolved from the ape and expect that based on their emotions we should all accept their “feelings” as true.

So thanks Doug. Your summary is how we should approach science.

Hi Fayzal and thanks for the kind thoughts. The more one learns about science the more one finds its discoveries strange and not common-sensical. And after all, why should reality necessarily conform to our parochial sort of ‘common sense’?

As for the multiple-universe interpretation of quantum mechanics, it’s well over my head as well. However I have been told by people who understood it that it’s just one possible interpretation of the evidence, and not necessarily the correct one. Indeed, most practicing physicists reject it. So, basically it’s highly speculative.

[quote author=“dougsmith”]
The more one learns about science the more one finds its discoveries strange and not common-sensical. And after all, why should reality necessarily conform to our parochial sort of ‘common sense’?

As for the multiple-universe interpretation of quantum mechanics, it’s well over my head as well. However I have been told by people who understood it that it’s just one possible interpretation of the evidence, and not necessarily the correct one. Indeed, most practicing physicists reject it. So, basically it’s highly speculative.

——-

doug,
I wonder if you saw the article on cosmology in the latest issue of Natural History magazine? The title is “Beyond the Big Bang” by Alex Vilkin. It’s “a new cosmic worldview”. He claims there are multiple universes, duplicate Earths and cloned humans throughout the Cosmos. Do you happen to know anything about the author?
Bob

[quote author=“Bob”]I wonder if you saw the article on cosmology in the latest issue of Natural History magazine? The title is “Beyond the Big Bang” by Alex Vilkin. It’s “a new cosmic worldview”. He claims there are multiple universes, duplicate Earths and cloned humans throughout the Cosmos. Do you happen to know anything about the author?
Bob

I haven’t seen it yet. Will when I’m back in NY. I don’t want to come to any conclusions without reading it, but from your summary it sounds almost silly. Are you sure that’s what he claimed? I know the editor of Natural History is no dummy.

doug,
I’m sure that’s what he claimed.
Bob

I’d like to read it Bob, is there a link?
Jim