The laws of nature existed before space and time

[ding]

That does not guarantee your explanation of it is the correct one.

It does until better evidence comes along that says it's not.

 

[cnm]

It does until better evidence comes along that says it's not.

Or until we have a better explanation of the current evidence.

Too, 'least bad' seldom equals 'correct'.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

The CMB is the evidence that it did happen.

There are a LOT of unexplained fields in the universe, quasars for example, and that is their best proof as you point out...I believe the proof comes from something they hear in white noise?

 

[ding]

Or until we have a better explanation of the current evidence.

Too, 'least bad' seldom equals 'correct'.

Knock yourself out. You'll have to disprove e=mc^2, quantum mechanics and ignore all of those paired particles that pop into and out of existence in super collider experiments and figure out a new way to produce the CMB.

You like to pretend you follow the science, but you don't. You follow your religious dogma.

 

[ding]

Too, 'least bad' seldom equals 'correct'.

e=mc^2, quantum mechanics, paired particle production and the CMB don't fit the description of least bad. Learn some science.

The Early Universe

 

[alang1216]

That is a philosophical discussion which can only start with was the creation of space and time intentional or happenstance.

True. Unfortunately, I won't live to see it answered, if it ever is.

 

[ding]

True. Unfortunately, I won't live to see it answered, if it ever is.

I have and I have evidence for that too!!!

 

[cnm]

I have and I have evidence for that too!!!

The Gawd of Gaps, again?

 

[alang1216]

I have and I have evidence for that too!!!

Let's have it, I only have a few decades left.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

Shouldn't the red shift of the galaxies be increasing if they are moving away from us? Similar to a car that is driving away where the sound bends increasingly as the car travels away. and also what is the answer for the reason that the galaxies don't appear smaller as they move away from us?

Assistant
Poe


You bring up important points regarding redshift and the appearance of galaxies. Here’s a detailed explanation:

1. Increasing Redshift​

• Hubble's Law: As galaxies move away from us, their redshift increases, which is consistent with Hubble's Law. This law states that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it appears to be receding, leading to a greater redshift.
• Cosmological Redshift: Unlike the Doppler effect with sound, where the change is directly proportional to speed, cosmological redshift accounts for the expansion of space itself. As space expands, the wavelengths of light traveling through it stretch, leading to increased redshift over time.

2. Galaxies Appearing Smaller​

• Angular Size: While galaxies do recede from us, their apparent size is influenced by two main factors:
  • Distance: As galaxies move away, they become more distant, which generally causes them to appear smaller in the sky (due to the inverse square law for brightness and size).
  • Expansion of the Universe: The universe's expansion affects light and space, but it doesn’t cause galaxies to shrink in size. Instead, the physical size of galaxies remains constant; their light simply becomes redshifted.

3. Visual Perception​

• Brightness and Distance: As galaxies move away, they may also become dimmer, which can affect how we perceive their size and details. This is why distant galaxies appear both smaller and fainter.

Conclusion​

The redshift of galaxies does indeed increase with distance, reflecting their movement away from us. Galaxies may appear smaller due to their increasing distance, but their actual size remains unchanged. The concepts of redshift and angular size are crucial for understanding the dynamics of an expanding universe.

 

[ReinyDays]

The evidence is the same laws that describe the evolution for space and time also describe the creation of space and time. What evidence do you have that says they don't?

There's no evidence of any kind from the Big Bang ...

You're using the pseudo-science defense ... if it can't be falsified, then it ain't science ... it's just an "an interesting philosophical idea." ...

 

[ding]

The Gawd of Gaps, again?

You're the one always asking for evidence, right?

 

[trevorjohnson83]

There's no evidence of any kind from the Big Bang ...

of the big bang or from?

 

[ding]

There's no evidence of any kind from the Big Bang ...

You're using the pseudo-science defense ... if it can't be falsified, then it ain't science ... it's just an "an interesting philosophical idea." ...

Do you know what produced the CMB? There's your evidence.

 

[ding]

Let's have it, I only have a few decades left.

I'm pretty sure you already rejected it multiple times without any evidence to do so.

But if you want we can discuss it in the bull ring.

 

[ReinyDays]

Do you know what produced the CMB? There's your evidence.

The CMB radiation is from hydrogen converting from a plasma to a gas ... as the universe cooled ... any and all photons generated in the plasma was immediately absorbed ... hydrogen plasma is opaque to EM ... hydrogen gas is transparent at most wavelengths ... what we see, what our equipment measures is photons ...

The universe is already 300,000 years old ... CMB is only evidence of that point in the universe's history forward ... all information from before is lost, at least as far as EM ... once we go full scale with LIGO, the hope is the gravity waves will provide us with more information ... provide answers to all these lingering questions and generate more questions ...

There's a wall out there that we can't see past ... past which it's totally dark and void and without any light of any kind ... like a house cat's soul ...