Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Big Bang theory

2009-08-28T05:18:58Z

Kopacetic: Undo revision 696569 by MarkGall (Talk) Let's be a little more egalitarian!

[[Image:Universe expansion.png|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the universe emerged from an extremely dense and hot state called the ''original singularity''.]]
[[Image:End of universe.jpg|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the 3 possible geometry of the universe depends on value of the ''[[cosmological constant]]''.]]

The '''Big Bang theory''' is the current dominant scientific theory explaining the acceleration of matter throughout the Universe. Big bang theories are actually a ''class'' of scientific models that describe the Universe as expanding from a very hot, dense state approximately 13.7 billion years ago<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101age.html WMAP Cosmology 101: Age of the Universe]</ref> (although this number has changed several times throughout recent history). It was first proposed by [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]] and evidence for the expansion was observed by [[Edwin Hubble]]<ref>Hubble, E. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173.</ref>. Later [[George Gamow]] predicted that the Big Bang would leave an observable microwave background radiation (or CMBR). This radiation was subsequently discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at [[Bell Labs]] and found to be close to that predicted by Gamow (Gamow predicted a background radiation level equivalent to a roughly 3 K black body object, and the observed level is that of a 2.725 K body). Pensiaz and Wilson were awarded a [[Nobel Prize]] in 1978 for their work.

The term "Big Bang" implies an explosion of matter into pre-existing space, but the theory actually indicates that space is dynamic and more space is constantly created in the interstices between particles as the density of the universe falls. In other words, the Big Bang describes the expansion of space and time. Big Bang theorists state that the Hubble [[redshift]] is a consequence of this stretching of the fabric of space.

It should be noted that the Big Bang theory has received criticism because it ignores the theory of an oscillating universe. Also, no first cause from the Big Bang has ever been successfully identified. Futhermore, critics of the Big Bang point out that not everything in the universe is actually moving apart from everything else as some galaxies have collided with other galaxies in the past, although this could be explained through understanding of classical mechanics.

Observations of distant supernovae indicate that the Universe is actually undergoing accelerated expansion<ref>Riess, A. G., et al. The Astronomical Journal, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp. 1009-1038.</ref><ref>Perlmutter, S., et al. The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 517, Issue 2, pp. 565-586.</ref> and galaxy surveys<ref>[http://www.sdss.org/dr5/ Sloan Digital Sky Survey]</ref><ref>Tegmark, M., et al. Physical Review D, vol. 74, Issue 12.</ref> and recent observations of the microwave background<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe]</ref><ref>See, for example, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603449</ref> have corroborated these claims. Conventional wisdom is that the acceleration is caused by some sort of [[dark energy]], which has not yet been directly observed.

Scientists refer to the exact moment the Big Bang began as t=0 ("t" standing for "time"). At this time, all of the matter in the universe - in fact, the universe itself - was contained within a single point (a single point in mathematics is infinitesimally small). A burst of energy known as the Big Bang issued forth, and the universe began. <ref>http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm</ref> 1.0×10-43 seconds later, the force of gravity separated from the other forces. <ref>http://www.ccsf.edu/Departments/History_of_Time_and_Life/content/BigBang.htm</ref>
In 2006, researchers used the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (launched by NASA in 2001) to measure variations in the cosmic microwave background (a "faint glow which permeates the universe"). According to these measurements, the universe is estimated to be about 13.7 billion years old, "give or take a few hundred-thousand years".
<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188142,00.html</ref>

== Big Bang Theory Dissent Letter ==
The Big Bang Theory has had many dissenters including the British astronomer Sir [[Fred Hoyle]], the Nobel Prize winner [[Hannes Alfven]], and astronomers [[Geoffrey Burbidge]] and [[Halton Arp]]. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref> It was Hoyle who sarcastically coined the term during a radio broadcast. A partial listing of the active astronomers who are proponents of the Big Bang Theory as a well-suited model to describe the Universe includes G. Aldering, R. Amanullah, Shin'ichiro Ando, K. Barbary, L. F. Barrientos, R. A. Bernstein, Dennis Bessada, H. Boehringer, Ian Bonnell, M. Brodwin, S. Cameron, H.-R. Chen, J. Stuart B. Wyithe,L. Christensen, J. G. Cohen, J. E. Colucci, N. Connolly, A. C. M. Correia, K.S. Dawson, R. Demarco, A. Dey, S. G. Djorgovski, M. Doi, M. Donahue, P. Eisenhardt, E. Ellingson, L. Faccioli, V. Fadeyev, H. K. Fakhouri, Xiaohui Fan, R. Fassbender, H. C. Ford, A. S. Fruchter, J. P. U. Fynbo, D. G. Gilbank, Carlo Giocoli, M. D. Gladders, Eilat Glikman, G. Goldhaber, A. H. Gonzalez, A. Goobar, A. Gude, T. Hattori, Joseph F. Hennawi, H. Hoekstra, X. Huang, Y. Ihara, Akio K. Inoue, B. T. Jannuzi, M. J. Jee, D. Johnston, K. Kashikawa, William H. Kinney, B. Koester, Z. Kolaczkowski, K. Konishi, M. Kowalski, J. Laskar, C. Ledoux, C. Lidman, E. V. Linder, S.-Y. Liu, Abraham Loeb, Steven Longmore, L. Lubin, Alec L. MacKinnon, Ashish Mahabal, Procheta C.V. Mallik, Crystal L. Martin, A. McWilliam, R.E. Mennickent, J. Meyers, T. Morokuma, C. Mullis, F. Munshi, Adam D. Myers, P. Noterdaeme, T. Oda, N. Panagia, Vasiliki Pavlidou, S. Perlmutter, P. Petitjean, M. Postman, T. Pritchard, J. Rhodes, Gordon T. Richards, P. Rosati, D. Rubin, D. J. Schlegel, Donald P. Schneider, Lior Shamir, Francesco Shankar, Yue Shen, Rowan J. Smith, A. Spadafora, S. A. Stanford, V. Stanishev, D. Stern, Dejan Stojkovic, Michael A. Strauss, V. Strazzullo, M. Strovink, Y.-N. Su, N. Suzuki, N. Takanashi, K. Tokita, M. Wagner, L. Wang, David H. Weinberg, N. Yasuda, and H. K. C. Yee.

In 2004, a ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ disputing the big bang theory was signed by 33 scientists (but was not signed by any of the 110 astronomers listed above) and has been published on the internet and in the science journal [[New Scientist]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0601skepticism.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18224482.900</ref>

The dissent letter has subsequently been signed by hundreds of individuals around the world. <ref>http://www.cosmologystatement.org/</ref> Professional cosmologists are actively creating models (some of which contradict the Big Bang scenario) and collecting data that probe the specific nature of the earliest observable aspects of the Universe.

== The Horizon Problem ==
The [[horizon problem]] is an argument against the Big Bang theory.
As [[Jason Lisle]] explains:
{{quoteBox|The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current [cosmic microwave background] CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other? This is a light-travel–time problem.<ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], ''Creation'' 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref>}}

Recognizing this difficulty, physicist [[Alan Guth]] put forth a possible solution he named [[cosmic inflation]].
According to this theory, during the universe's first 10-35 of a second, a period of extremely rapid, exponential inflation occurred, expanding the universe by a factor of at least 1026.
It would be the equivalent of taking a pea and expanding it to the size of our solar system in a time less than a millionth of a blink of an eye.
If this occurred, it would mathematically allow for the uniformity of the [[CMBR]] - the vast distances were in thermodynamical contact before the rapid inflation.<ref>Castelvecchi, Davide, [http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/cms/?pid=1000045 The Growth of Inflation] ''Symmetry'', 1(2), December 2004, p.12-17</ref><ref>Hinshaw, Gary, [http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/24768 WMAP data put cosmic inflation to the test], 3rd May, 2006 (PhysicsWorld.com).</ref>
The mechanism that would cause this sudden expansion is not known.

==Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views==
Young earth creationist scientists contest the Big Bang Theory stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>

Some Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists argue that the Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Bible. <ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first]</ref> Some Christian apologists who believe in an old earth, such as [[William Craig]] use the Big Bang as an apologetic, arguing that it proves that the universe had a beginning. <ref>Strobel, Lee. ''The Case for a Creator''. Zondervan, 2004. </ref>

He also talks further about the many theories that have been proposed to counter the Big Bang Theory due to it concluding there is a beginning or orgin of creation. These additional theories have been broken down to still revert to a beginning. This in essence tries to proves a divine power or creator which frustrates the many scientists that are trying to prove that God does not exist including well known physisict Steven Hawking. The current evidence points overwhelmingly towards this theory being correct, though the means this took place are still unknown.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Astronomy]]

User talk:MarkGall

2009-08-28T05:17:24Z

Kopacetic:

{{welcome|sig=[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:50, 10 June 2009 (EDT)}}

Hello there, Mark! I am truly glad to see that you are adding new pages for Obama's "Czars." So far, so good for a newcomer to Conservapedia!
-[[User:RKLuffy88|RKLuffy88]]

== Czars... ==

<big>Great work, Mark, but can we please consolidate these into one Obama Czar article?</big> --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:10, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

:As before, I'm happy to merge them -- I only created seperate pages since it was requested on the main page by DeanS to fill in red links he added to [[Obama Administration]]. What should the new article be titled, and how would you recommend laying it out? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 16:44, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

::One would have to find the articles, as they are not linked from the Obama Administration page. If you can do that, provide the links, I can move them onto the same page, entitled Obama Administration Czars. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:31, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

:::Here they are:
:::[[Alan Bersin]], [[Steven Rattner]], [[Gil Kerlikowske]], [[Paul A. Volcker]], [[Carol Browner]], [[Jeffrey Zients]], [[Cameron Davis]], [[Nancy-Ann DeParle]], [[John Brennan]], [[Dennis Blair]], [[Kenneth R. Feinberg]], [[Cass R. Sunstein]], [[Vivek Kundra]], [[Adolfo Carrion, Jr.]], [[Gary Samore]]
:::These are all linked at [[Obama Administration]] (the sixth section, "czars"), which ought to be updated accordingly. I can go through and clean up the redundant information once your merge is finished. Thanks! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 21:46, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

== String Theory ==

Thanks for adding the attributions to Givental, Lian, Liu, and Yau. Don't ask me why I left out such an important credit.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:36, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

*Lotrsw86? --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 05:13, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

::Who/what is Lotrsw86? If you suspect me of having another username, I assure you that's not the case. I hope it's clear from my contributions by now that I'm not a vandal. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:12, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

==Math articles==
If you please, try to place an example of a problem within the math articles that are posted. For instance, in your [[Fundamental group]] article there could be a problem within each subtopic, broken down in a step-by-step manner to lead the reader in understanding and solving it. Think this is possible? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

:I like your idea about problems in the math articles. The issue here is that it's difficult to come up with problems on the fundamental group that could really be answered at this level. An exposition at this level doesn't give the reader the knowledge to solve any real problems. I don't even prove what the fundamental group of the circle is -- a proof requires much more theory than is in the article, but the intuition is clear. I could ask for intuitive guesses about fundamental groups, but just about every space that a new reader knows about is given as an example already! I will try to think something up, I'm sure it can be done.
:In the article [[differential geometry]] which I did a bit of work on a couple weeks ago, I inserted "motivating questions" in a few places, to indicate why someone would care about it. I can certainly do this in the fundamental group article. Actually, I was thinking that on the front page [[mathematics]], it would be neat to put motivating questions under all the headers you created, to give a flavor of these areas of mathematics. What do you think of that idea? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 09:33, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

::I added two problems/solutions to [[fundamental group]]. What do you think? One is for conceptual understanding, while one tests ability to manipulate the definitions. I'll try to add more. What do you think? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 21:51, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

== big bang ==
You undid my edit; why? The list of astronomers I posted contained many people who are far more knowledgeable than either Arp or Burbidge, as evidenced by their continued research in the field of cosmology. While Arp and Geoff might be fine astronomers, they certainly do not understand the preponderance of data that contradicts their pet theories; if their's are notable names to be attached to an article in opposition to the Big Band Theory, why should the names of proponents not be included?

Big Bang theory

2009-08-28T04:30:09Z

Kopacetic:

Talk:Democracy

2007-05-27T04:19:42Z

Kopacetic:

Nothing in the definition of democracy includes "liberal". Lets not get flustered just because democracy and democrat share the same linguistic root. Please feel free to expand the article if you would like to define "liberal democracy".[[User:PKBear|PKBear]] 00:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Liberal democracy has nothing to do with the Democrats or left-wing politics. I think you're confusing the many meanings of the word 'liberal'. Here, it means the protection of civil liberties, the rights of minorities, freedom of speech etc. I've tried to clear that up in the article. --[[User:Rafa|Rafa]] 09:04, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

The update I made was entirely consistent with other conservapedia pages, ''and'' I cited my references (indeed, I suprisingly had to add the reference tag to the article...). Why was the change reverted?

Democracy

2007-05-27T03:44:06Z

Kopacetic:

[[Image:Elekcja Wola.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The free election of Augustus II at Wola, outside Warsaw, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, in 1697, painted by Bernardo Bellotto.]]
In less than the past 30 years, '''Democracy''' has claimed over 30 million lives in the United States.<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm], CDC Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2003.</ref> This is approximately the same rate of death as the ''worldwide'' rate due to [[Communism]].

Democracy is a form of government. The origin of the term is [[Greek]], from the words ''demos'' (people) and ''kratos'' (strength). Although many forms of government fall under this broad classification, the defining characteristic of a democracy is that the citizenry of a nation decides upon their form of government (usually by voting upon the ratification of a [[constitution]] at long intervals), and at more regular intervals, upon the persons who will make up that government.

The United States of America is an example of a [[representative democracy]], in which the populace elects ''representatives'', who are charged with the protection of ''liberties'', such as the right to free assembly, free speech and equality before the law.

Although a number of societies have practiced some form of democracy, the concept as it is understood today was invented in ancient [[Athens]], where citizens (not women or slaves) were allowed to vote in the Assembly which made the laws of the city-state. But however certain [[tribe]]s and most [[band societies]] such as the [[bushmen]] organised themselves using different forms of participatory democracy or consensus democracy. [http://law.cua.edu/ComparativeLaw/Iroquois/]

== Debate over the merits of democracy ==

While a [[direct democracy]] in the manner of the Athenians is probably infeasible in a modern [[nation-state]] comprised of millions of [[citizens]], there continues to be debate among conservatives as to whether [[representative democracy]] is a desirable system. [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]], who could be considered the father of both modern democracy and [[totalitarianism]], believed that in a democracy the government should be guided only by what he called the [[General Will]]. Other thinkers of the [[French]] [[Enlightenment]] described a [[republic]] as a system in which the law applies equally to the government and the people, a concept abbreviated in the [[21st century]] by the phrase [[rule of law]]. Most contemporary thinkers would identify [[universal suffrage]] and the right of any citizen to argue for a change in existing law as desirable features of democracy; but there is some question as to whether the rule of law can be indefinitely sustained in a system with these features. [[Thomas Jefferson]] believed that it could so long as the people were educated, and thus devoted his post-presidency to founding the [[University of Virginia]]. Nonetheless, property continued to be a proxy for education throughout the [[antebellum period]] and Jefferson's home state of [[Virginia]] only abolished [[property qualifications for voting]] in 1851, years after any other state. Another famous American said that a republic could last until "the people find out they have the right to vote themselves funds from the public treasury," an explicit criticism of the [[welfare state]], which most conservatives feel is an abuse of the [[U. S. Constitution]]'s [[Necessary and Proper Clause]].

== Evolution of Anglo-American democracy ==
In the United States, the current system of representative democracy evolved as a result of six major reforms:
1. The [[American Revolution]] which severed ties with the [[King]] of [[England]].
2. The [[U. S. Constitution]]'s creation of the [[House of Representatives]], a Federal government entity elected directly by the people, and retention of [[federalism]], the right of individual [[states]] to govern themselves and make their own laws.
3. The abolition of property qualifications for white male voters. This process, which was accomplished at the state level, took between 1820 and 1851 and is also known as [[Jacksonian Democracy]].
4. The [[Fifteenth Amendment]], which extended the [[franchise]] to former [[slaves]].
5. The [[Seventeenth Amendment]], which caused [[Senator|Senators]] to be elected directly by the people (they retained their six-year terms).
6. The [[Nineteenth Amendment]], which extended the franchise to [[women]].
Of the six, the one which inspires the most opposition today is probably the Seventeenth Amendment, as the [[Founders]] explicitly intended [[state]] [[legislatures]] to choose U. S. Senators. Historically, however, the Fifteenth Amendment inspired the most opposition. Indeed, every state of the former [[Confederacy]] circumvented the Fifteenth Amendment between the end of [[Reconstruction]] and the passage of the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]], considered the ultimate guarantee of that Amendment. One of the principal means whereby it was circumvented was the creation of [[educational qualifications for voting]], which the 1965 act outlawed, according to interpretations of the [[Supreme Court]]. The other principal means was the [[poll tax]], which was outlawed in 1964 by the [[Twenty-Fourth Amendment]].

In [[Great Britain]] during the same period of time, there were also six major reforms in the direction of democracy:
1. The [[1832 Reform Act]], which gave representation to the new [[industrial]] cities for the first time.
2. The [[1867 Reform Act]].
3. The [[1884 Reform Act]].
4. The [[1911 Parliament Act]], which ended the ability of the [[House of Lords]] to rein in spending by the [[Commons]].
5. The [[1918 Reform Act]], which made suffrage universal among males and extended it to women 30 years of age or older.
6. The [[1928 Reform Act]], which equalized voting ages for male and female at 21.
It is noteworthy that it took the British 84 years to complete the process of abolishing property qualifications for voting (the first three Acts lowered the threshhold incrementally) and that they only began to do so after Jacksonian Democracy emerged in the United States.
While none of these Acts has sustained a serious movement for repeal, historically the one which inspired the strongest opposition was the 1911 Parliament Act. Not surprisingly, this opposition came from the House of Lords, the last body of unelected people to retain any legislative power in the British system. Ultimately, the bill passed only after King [[George V]] promised to create an unlimited number of new [[peers]] in order to pass it.

The United States, Great Britain, and other [[common law countries]] mostly utilize a [[first past the post system]] for elections. This limits the number of [[political parties]] and helps to stabilize the system, in contrast to democracies which use [[proportional representation]] such as [[Italy]], [[Germany]], [[France]], and [[Israel]], which have at times had over 10 parties represented in their [[legislatures]]. The latter system tends to increase the power of the [[political left]], although the [[Labour Party]] in Britain was able to edge out the [[centrist]] [[Liberal Party]] as the chief opposition to the [[Conservative Party]] as a result of the first five of the reforms listed above, without discarding the traditional system of elections.

<references/>

[[Category:types of goverment]]

2007-05-25T05:16:14Z

Kopacetic:

Talk:Big Bang theory

2007-05-18T18:11:14Z

Kopacetic:

It looks like this page may have to be protected, since evolutionists are getting on here and posting nonsense such as YEC being "non-scientific". [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:39, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::The only nonsense involves the religious thinking there is "proof" of YEC. Really? An article on the big bang contains one scientific paragraph and a longer one about creationist views? How does one explain cosmic background radiation? Or Hubble's Law? Or Deuterium Observation? Or the fact that if you use the big imaging telescopes to look beyond 14 billion light years in any direction all you see is, well, big bang? Inasmuch proof as science allows (remember, science can't "prove" anything, it can only disprove the false in order to make a better hypothesis) the Big Bang is accepted fact. In what peer-reviewed journal did Matthew, Mark, Luke or John publish? [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:46 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Feel free to expand the article if you wish. I might even join you. But you can do that without removing the creationist material. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What I'm saying is, that material is fine--provided one acknowledges that the opinion of creationists, ESPECIALLY YEC's--is viewed in the scientific community as belonging to the lunatic fringe. One can be socially and politically conservative without making oneself look like idiot by espousing such nonsense as YEC. Science shouldn't be politicized--far too many things already are!! Scientific method should have nothing to with ideology; it should have everything to do with coming up with better hypotheses about the universe based on empirical observations. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:56 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::There, finally finished typing it in Word. This works so much better, although feel free to add to its information. Quite frankly, its absurd to believe in YEC--and I'm a committed social, political and economic conservative!! Please don't associate lunatics with conservatives, because it hurts our credibility. In the 1800s, the Comte de Buffon took composite lumps of molten rock of varying sizes and estimated (based on how long it took his samples to cool to room temperature) that a molten ball the size of Earth would've taken at least 35,000 years just to cool. YEC is idiotic, and those who believe it are blinded by their own ignorance of basic physics. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:42 PM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm confused, Scorpionman. Are you saying that YEC is scientific?
:Personally, I don't see why a discussion of Biblical literalism has any place in an article about the Big Bang. If you want to dispute the current prevailing theory behind the origin of the cosmos, then you should do it scientific evidence or at the very least an attempt at refuting evidence presented for the theory and not with the contents of one religious text. As it is, the article abruptly changes the subject and goes totally off-topic. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 13:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Please update the article to include peer-reviewed scientific criticisms of Big Bang-like theories. Right now the article looks ridiculous: a half of a dozen scientific references followed by a bunch of references dominated by the Apologetic Press. Clearly somebody misunderstands the modern scientific process.

== Dominant theory ==

Would it ruffle too many feathers to mention that it is the dominant theory amongst scientists today. I suggest that such a statement is an uncontroversial fact. Thoughts? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 05:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:No, I agree, it is the dominant theory among scientists. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 05:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sweeping generalisation ==

The following sentence should be removed:

:In contrast to young earth creationists, Old Earth Creationists and Theistic evolutionists agree that the Big Bang occured.

Just because you are an OEC or you believe evolution to be correct does not mean that you MUST believe in the Big Bang Theory. Does anyone remember Fred Hoyle?

Are there any objections to the removal of the sentence? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I think this article looks good right now. Good edits guys. Hopefully expressing positive emotions is not violative of probation.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article split==

The intro confuses [[Big Bang]] with [[Expanding universe]]. I'd like to split the article up, with one short article treating each of these two distinct ideas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:In fairness, no, an expanding universe is part of the "big bang" (which refers to far more than the universes creation. It's confusing, so I would leave it to someone with a background in physics. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:39, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Have the bounds of [[outer space]] expanded? Or is it just that the galaxies have been getting farther apart within boundless space? What exactly does the theory state? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Apparently, the answer is "both", at least according to http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX --[[User:M|M]] 10:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's try to get this straight. Is [[outer space]] infinite or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:From what I understand most astrophysics believe that since the area that the universe is expanding into is void of matter and energy that yes currently, [[outer space]] is infinite.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Unknown. The spatial extent of the Universe could be finite or infinite. If you're picturing a lump of matter dispersing in a larger void, you're thinking of the wrong thing, though. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:Again, I'm pretty much an amateur when it comes to astrophysics...but I think that the confusion comes from the fact that we're currently uncertain as to the actual curvature of space. I think I remember hearing that space seems to be curved enough that it's actually finite (though boundless, like the three-dimensional equivalent of the surface of a sphere), but I can't provide citation of that at the moment.--[[User:M|M]] 07:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think a split is neccesary, however, on a related note, an article describing the Big Freeze, Big Rip, and Big Crunch theories for the end of the universe might be called for, as those also center on the way in which the universe is expanding (specifically, from measurements of type 1 supernovae in extremely distant galaxies, we have evidence that the universe's expansion is in fact, speeding up, giving support to the Big Freeze (everything expands until entropy is at a maximum), or possibly Big Rip (if Dark Energy is the cause of expansion, then if the universe keeps expanding, dark energy could start to rip apart galaxies, then solar systems, then stars and planets, and finally atoms). So yeah, an article on the possible ways the universe will 'end' (or if it is infinite) would probably help provide more information about the nature of the expanding universe, without having to create an article solely about the expansion of the universe. [[User:Warhawk|Warhawk]] 14:07, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== YEC Citations ==

Conservative, your citations don't appear to agree with each other...compare:
<blockquote>
A prediction had been made prior to the discovery, that if the Big Bang were true, there should be some sort of constant radiation in space, although the prediction was for a temperature several times higher. (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30)
</blockquote>

with

<blockquote>
All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature. Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is 2.73 K—nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation.
</blockquote>

Is it standard procedure to use citations which don't agree with each other on the particulars?

:::Is it standard procedure to give me two citations without giving me the specific cite to the second citation? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:25, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I found the second citation and it appears to use the following to support its contention: “The big bang made no quantitative prediction that the ‘background’ radiation would have a temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin (in fact its initial prediction [by George Gamow in 1946] was 30 degrees Kelvin); whereas Eddington in 1926 had already calculated that the ‘temperature of space’ produced by the radiation of starlight would be found to be 3 degrees Kelvin.” Tom Van Flandern, “Did the Universe Have a Beginning?” Meta Research Bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 3, 15 September 1994, p. 33. [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html][http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes55.html#wp1077943] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::It's a good thing Tom Van Flandern didn't publish in peer-reviewed journals. I'll believe your numbers, but current data indicates that BOTH were wrong. Redoing a computation of the ambient temperature of the Universe (given modern observations) will ''not'' yield Eddington's prediction; reworking Gamow's calculation ''will'' reproduce the CMB temperature very accurately. Additionally, the CMB data is more than just temperature data; the anisotropies in the CMB are also indicative of the premordial expansion. Just because you can dig up a citation doesn't mean it's correct.

Talk:Big Bang theory

2007-05-18T18:07:31Z

Kopacetic:

It looks like this page may have to be protected, since evolutionists are getting on here and posting nonsense such as YEC being "non-scientific". [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:39, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::The only nonsense involves the religious thinking there is "proof" of YEC. Really? An article on the big bang contains one scientific paragraph and a longer one about creationist views? How does one explain cosmic background radiation? Or Hubble's Law? Or Deuterium Observation? Or the fact that if you use the big imaging telescopes to look beyond 14 billion light years in any direction all you see is, well, big bang? Inasmuch proof as science allows (remember, science can't "prove" anything, it can only disprove the false in order to make a better hypothesis) the Big Bang is accepted fact. In what peer-reviewed journal did Matthew, Mark, Luke or John publish? [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:46 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Feel free to expand the article if you wish. I might even join you. But you can do that without removing the creationist material. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What I'm saying is, that material is fine--provided one acknowledges that the opinion of creationists, ESPECIALLY YEC's--is viewed in the scientific community as belonging to the lunatic fringe. One can be socially and politically conservative without making oneself look like idiot by espousing such nonsense as YEC. Science shouldn't be politicized--far too many things already are!! Scientific method should have nothing to with ideology; it should have everything to do with coming up with better hypotheses about the universe based on empirical observations. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:56 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::There, finally finished typing it in Word. This works so much better, although feel free to add to its information. Quite frankly, its absurd to believe in YEC--and I'm a committed social, political and economic conservative!! Please don't associate lunatics with conservatives, because it hurts our credibility. In the 1800s, the Comte de Buffon took composite lumps of molten rock of varying sizes and estimated (based on how long it took his samples to cool to room temperature) that a molten ball the size of Earth would've taken at least 35,000 years just to cool. YEC is idiotic, and those who believe it are blinded by their own ignorance of basic physics. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:42 PM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm confused, Scorpionman. Are you saying that YEC is scientific?
:Personally, I don't see why a discussion of Biblical literalism has any place in an article about the Big Bang. If you want to dispute the current prevailing theory behind the origin of the cosmos, then you should do it scientific evidence or at the very least an attempt at refuting evidence presented for the theory and not with the contents of one religious text. As it is, the article abruptly changes the subject and goes totally off-topic. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 13:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Dominant theory ==

Would it ruffle too many feathers to mention that it is the dominant theory amongst scientists today. I suggest that such a statement is an uncontroversial fact. Thoughts? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 05:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:No, I agree, it is the dominant theory among scientists. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 05:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sweeping generalisation ==

The following sentence should be removed:

:In contrast to young earth creationists, Old Earth Creationists and Theistic evolutionists agree that the Big Bang occured.

Just because you are an OEC or you believe evolution to be correct does not mean that you MUST believe in the Big Bang Theory. Does anyone remember Fred Hoyle?

Are there any objections to the removal of the sentence? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I think this article looks good right now. Good edits guys. Hopefully expressing positive emotions is not violative of probation.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article split==

The intro confuses [[Big Bang]] with [[Expanding universe]]. I'd like to split the article up, with one short article treating each of these two distinct ideas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:In fairness, no, an expanding universe is part of the "big bang" (which refers to far more than the universes creation. It's confusing, so I would leave it to someone with a background in physics. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:39, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Have the bounds of [[outer space]] expanded? Or is it just that the galaxies have been getting farther apart within boundless space? What exactly does the theory state? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Apparently, the answer is "both", at least according to http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX --[[User:M|M]] 10:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's try to get this straight. Is [[outer space]] infinite or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:From what I understand most astrophysics believe that since the area that the universe is expanding into is void of matter and energy that yes currently, [[outer space]] is infinite.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Unknown. The spatial extent of the Universe could be finite or infinite. If you're picturing a lump of matter dispersing in a larger void, you're thinking of the wrong thing, though. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:Again, I'm pretty much an amateur when it comes to astrophysics...but I think that the confusion comes from the fact that we're currently uncertain as to the actual curvature of space. I think I remember hearing that space seems to be curved enough that it's actually finite (though boundless, like the three-dimensional equivalent of the surface of a sphere), but I can't provide citation of that at the moment.--[[User:M|M]] 07:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think a split is neccesary, however, on a related note, an article describing the Big Freeze, Big Rip, and Big Crunch theories for the end of the universe might be called for, as those also center on the way in which the universe is expanding (specifically, from measurements of type 1 supernovae in extremely distant galaxies, we have evidence that the universe's expansion is in fact, speeding up, giving support to the Big Freeze (everything expands until entropy is at a maximum), or possibly Big Rip (if Dark Energy is the cause of expansion, then if the universe keeps expanding, dark energy could start to rip apart galaxies, then solar systems, then stars and planets, and finally atoms). So yeah, an article on the possible ways the universe will 'end' (or if it is infinite) would probably help provide more information about the nature of the expanding universe, without having to create an article solely about the expansion of the universe. [[User:Warhawk|Warhawk]] 14:07, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== YEC Citations ==

Conservative, your citations don't appear to agree with each other...compare:
<blockquote>
A prediction had been made prior to the discovery, that if the Big Bang were true, there should be some sort of constant radiation in space, although the prediction was for a temperature several times higher. (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30)
</blockquote>

with

<blockquote>
All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature. Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is 2.73 K—nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation.
</blockquote>

Is it standard procedure to use citations which don't agree with each other on the particulars?

:::Is it standard procedure to give me two citations without giving me the specific cite to the second citation? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:25, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I found the second citation and it appears to use the following to support its contention: “The big bang made no quantitative prediction that the ‘background’ radiation would have a temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin (in fact its initial prediction [by George Gamow in 1946] was 30 degrees Kelvin); whereas Eddington in 1926 had already calculated that the ‘temperature of space’ produced by the radiation of starlight would be found to be 3 degrees Kelvin.” Tom Van Flandern, “Did the Universe Have a Beginning?” Meta Research Bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 3, 15 September 1994, p. 33. [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html][http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes55.html#wp1077943] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::It's a good thing Tom Van Flandern didn't publish in peer-reviewed journals. I'll believe your numbers, but current data indicates that BOTH were wrong. Redoing a computation of the ambient temperature of the Universe (given modern observations) will ''not'' yield Eddington's prediction; reworking Gamow's calculation ''will'' reproduce the CMB temperature very accurately. Additionally, the CMB data is more than just temperature data; the anisotropies in the CMB are also indicative of the premordial expansion. Just because you can dig up a citation doesn't mean it's correct.

Big Bang theory

2007-05-18T17:41:09Z

Kopacetic:

2007-03-11T06:05:00Z

Kopacetic:

The redshift of a given object is a measure of the amount that the wavelength of its emitted or reflected electromagnetic radiation has increased. This increase in wavelength is due to the relative motion of a source with respect to an observer; a light emitting source moving away from an observer will have its spectrum shifted toward longer (in optical light, redder) wavelengths. In practice this is analogous to the Doppler shifting of sound waves emitted from a moving source. Light emitted from a source moving towards an observe will experience a blueshift.