Reggie Jax, thanks for enlightening me...

...on evolution.

You have pretty much sold me on the idea that evolution has happened over the last ~15b years. After my discussions with you I developed an interest and looked further in to the theory.

Can you help me with understanding the theories presented regarding pre-planetary evolution? Namely the physical cosmology concerning particulate evolution, or the big bang.

More specifically, how did the big bang eventuate? I've come across the big bounce theory - the collapse and reformation of a previous universe, and more recently the black hole theory - where our universe originated from a black hole that lies within another universe.

Which is more widely accepted in the scientific community? How does the evidence suggest the beginnings of either of these theories? What created the original extremely hot and dense matter of the big bang? Or the original universe that collapsed and bounced? Or even the parallel universe that contains the black hole our universe originated from?

Thanks again.

Moving up for my friend, @reggie jax.

i'm glad i sparked an interest in evolution, but i'm afraid you're coming to the wrong person with questions about what happened before the big bang or how it originated. my knowledge of cosmology is pretty limited.

first i'd like to point out that what you're asking about isn't part of the theory of evolution. that theory refers specifically to the evolution of life by things like natural selection, mutation, etc. i'm pretty sure you're aware of this but since our previous conversation was on evolution i can't help but point this out for clarity's sake.

now your questions are particularly difficult for me to answer because you're basically asking about the origins of existence, more or less, which imo is probably science's hardest and most fundamental question, and is largely unsolved.

as to the evidence of the two theories you talked about, i think both of them are pretty much purely theoretical and speculative. in addition i beleive there's a fair amount of evidence that the universe is flat, which goes against the big bounce model which would require that the universe be gravitationally closed (at some point it would have to stop expanding and collapse back in on itself).

Flat Universe

as you pointed out, neither of those ideas (big crunch or black hole/white hole) really do much to solve the problem of ultimate causation. in the case of the black hole theory the question of causation is simply shifted from one universe to another. with the big bounce, assuming that it is an endless cycle we are essentially left with an uncaused existence, which isn't actually any different from the big bang itself being uncaused.

i'd add that the same basic problem seems to remain whether you invoke a multiverse or a god. either way you're moving the question of causality one step back and are nonetheless left with an uncaused foundation.

this vid gives a decent overview of the dilemma we're in.

[youtube]uabNtlLfYyU[/youtube]

i'm sure i left your questions basically unanswered - but that's only because i don't have the answers.

I don't like the whole flat universe thing, and I have a slightly different view of the big bounce, where, even if it was flat, it wouldn't matter... eventually all of everything in the universe will end up as supermassive blackholes, gravity will always remain after all the energy has burned out and stabilized, they smash together, reigniting and leaving more stable centers, over and over, eventually, there will be just 2, no matter how far apart, they will suck back together, the recombination of the two pieces of the "dead" universe will destabilize back into the expanding bondless subatomic froth, again
but like Reggie said, this still gives no cause for first bang, which I still contribute to "God" or something unexplainable, whether it made the multiverse or just this one, whatever, in the beginning, was the only thing God did for this physical world
Now the spiritual realm on the otherhand, that's where the fun begins

seems unlikely to me that all matter would end up in black holes, since expansion never stops but slows down in a flat universe, even without dark energy. the gravitational pull gets weaker with distance and the black holes would probably just eventually die off via hawking radiation.

invoking god really doesn't solve the problem any more than invoking a multiverse or a big bounce scenario. you're still left with an uncaused foundation, calling it god doesn't change that. there's no easy way out of this conundrum.

I don't believe in "expansion" as is described, either way tho, expansion.is driven by energy, which eventually wears out, gravity is the only constant force
Gravity is god

I'm aware of what you're saying. This may be due to my poor comprehension of the literature I've read since our last discussions, but I was of the opinion that biological evolution is just one link in the chain of evolution. From particulate through galactic, stellar, planetary, chemical and biological - each subsequent chain is not exclusive but dependant and interconnected with the preceding link.

Basically. Biological evolution is all but an absolute fact. And each preceding link in the chain of evolution is as plausible, if not more so. This leads us back to the Big Bang, where causation seems to be without answer.

That's where I wanted your input. The two theories I mentioned, and the Big Bang are essentially speculative and theoretical. Do you think them any more or less so?

Do you find this explanation suitable? Causality is one of the fundamental laws of science, whichever branch you prefer, the relationship of cause and effect is probably the most certain and universal principle of science. Especially physics, which is where this theory resides.

I'm facing this dilemma. I'm happy with each link of evolution right back to the Big Bang. This is where science fails me. I take comfort in accepting the scientific consensus, as it relies on it's own scientific principles and universal laws in developing and proving these theories.

But when it then elects to discount causality at the crucial point of origin because it now suits the answer, I find it much harder to accept than an architect or creator existing in this same realm of existence - outside of time and space.

How do you reconcile this position?

Off topic, but an interesting point regarding black holes.

Nothing travels faster than the speed of light.

Yet light cannot escape a black hole.

What's the variable?

Gravity man, I'm tellin' ya, its God... also, according to the exponential expansion theory the universe will be blowing up faster than light speed. Then there's quantum entanglement/spooky physics that act faster than light speed... its a problem with observations, we're using "light" to see, so nothing will appear faster than it. I think if to observation point were traveling 51% of light speed toward eachother, they would both view the other as 2% faster than light speed, but noooi science says not possible... I say bullshit

can you tell me exactly where you're reading this?

evolution is but one link in a chain of events since the big bang, but that doesn't mean that the two theories are interdependent. they're causally related, if they're both true, but they rely on completely different models and lines of evidence, so one could easily be true and the other false.

right but you also have to understand that the big bang theory is not strictly the theory of what caused the big bang. it's the theory that there was a big bang at the start of the universe (a rapìd expansion from a singularity), and it's based partly on observation (the hubble ratios and cosmic background radiation) and partly on theoretical physics.

so it's not purely speculative, where as the black hole theory or the big bounce theory more or less are.

yes, that's exactly the dilemma, but the problem is that causality is something that is assumed as it is always true within our universe. there's nothing to say that whatever happened prior to the creation of our universe follows the same pattern as phenomena within our universe under the influence of our universal constants.

i don't find any explanation i've heard satisfactory, but that might simply be a fact that won't change. humans might simply be boxing out of our league on this one.

i'm not sure why you or anyone else thinks that an architect or supreme creator gets you out of the causality issue. in order to postulate that you must first accept that there is an uncaused, eternal and intelligent agent at the foundation of your model.

Precisely Reggie, in all honesty, its a cop out I use, like you said, causality before our universal set of physics is something as humans we can't explain, not because we haven't, but because we are physically unable to, but from my past experiences I truly believe in some sort of spiritual existence, with an original, timeless "being" that split into our spirits at the same time it caused the universe, completely unfounded, but to me, it just feels right
Oh, and to me the black hole and big bounce speculation are one in the same, and seem far more logical than the few observations that absolutely defy physics with the eternal expansion theory

right, well you know i don't pretend to know much about physics, but where exactly are you getting your insights from? cause i have nasa saying one thing and you saying they're wrong... based on what?

A few different sources. I borrowed some books from the library and different web sources. When I get home I'll post them.

Not saying biological evolution is dependant on the big bang - the big bang is a theory on particulate evolution - but biological evolution is interdependent on chemical, planetary and cosmic evolution. Without the latter being the case, biological evolution as we know it would be a completely different paradigm.

Yep. I understand this. That's not to say the alternatives - black hole, big bounce, etc - don't fit the same observations.

They all are equally speculative, in my opinion. They are all subject to the same observations.

Yep. That's what I think. And something we'll never know.

I don't think it does, I hope I didn't indicate I thought that was the case. What I find easier to accept is that an eternal entity needs no causation. Every aspect of science does and always will. It remains a fundamental principle of science, so we can't discount it when we simply can't answer a question.

Sent from my HTC One XL using Tapatalk 2

, from what I've learned, the only thing that makes NASA say the universe is expanding is the red shift of recorded supernova, that's it... yet there are galaxies colliding, and matter still gravitating towards eachother, this tells me that we are not indefinitely expanding, if anything we are in an explosatory time, still at the earlier half of a bouncing universe, through logic Another thing I've been thinking about is the farthest things we're seeing are 15 billionish years old, so, by way ofmore logic, the universe is 30 billion years old, since the outer objects have had those 15 billion years to do whatever outside of our viewability... perhaps what we can't see way out there is already coming back at us, just at the edge of our view

alright.

sure, but once again it's completely a matter of causation. they aren't interdependent as theories. they derived from different sciences at different times and use different evidence to explain different phenomena.


i'm thinking the confusion probably comes from the fact that the word 'evolution' is a generic term that gets tossed around a lot to explain how systems form and change. that's not to suggest that all scientific theories or models which use that term are intrisically tied together, even if when put together they form a part of the standard scientific narrative of natural history. you could break one link in the chain and replace it with something else without the rest of the chain falling apart.

for instance, stellar evolution is said to provide the elements from the periodic table, which are obviously necessary for life (as we know it) to form, which is obviously necessary for biological evolution. but say it turns out the star theory was wrong. that doesn't mean anything for the theory of evolution, because the chemicals still exist.

i don't think they actually follow logically from the same observations, though. in both models the big bang is essentially still correct, because that's the theory that actually seems to explain the observations. what is added in those models is an explanation for maybe what came before that bang, as well as an attempt to tie up a few loose ends. that's the part which doesn't seem to follow directly from observation.

maybe, maybe not. i'll always take uncertainty over what appears to me to be a botched answer, though.

alright, but if you care so much about scientific integrity you might want to think twice about partitioning off which areas you'll apply the rigors of logic to based on whether or not an answer seems 'based in science' to you. if it's describing the real world then it's open to the same standards you're applying to science.

i had the same question about the galaxies colliding a while back and i looked it up. as was expected, the answer is sort of mundane.

If galaxies are all moving apart, how can they collide?: Scientific American

....what?

The point at which we're seeing the farthest points away are.15 or so billion light years away, so, it took that many years for light to get here, the objects emitted that light 15 billion years ago, therefore, during the time the light was traveling, the objects were/are doing 15 billion years of something, making the physical universe outside our view bubble far older, and if gravity is essentially acting faster than the speed of light, there could be a whole plethora.of shit happening out there, perhaps also explaining why there's so much gravity compared to how little visible matter we observe

And that cluster/locality thing I've heard, but still don't believe, theONLY data they have is from light spectrum shifts of supernova, until there is more data, perhaps of supernovae from both sides of the galaxies, but, a couple dozen observations deeming the relationship of countless interaction seems sorta like Christianity... unless there is new data, then, II dunno

i'm not following your logic here at all. if the star emitted the light 15 billion years ago, that doesn't mean it existed for 15 billion years prior to emitting the light. it means that the object we're looking at was around 15 billion years ago, and presumably doesn't even exist anymore.

btw after googling the most distant/oldest object observed seems to be somewhere around 13 billion years old, which fits perfectly with the standard age of the universe.

if the universe were older than 15 billion years, and bursts of light were happening longer than 15 billion years ago, why wouldn't we be seeing them?

Fresh evidence for expanding universe - Technology & Science - CBC News

the redshifts are proportional to the distance of the stars and are the same no matter what direction you look. i think that's fairly good evidence.

Neat new data, I'm starting to give this the go ahead in my cosmology, if, and only if, they do subsequent tests year after year toshow that the shift is growing greater, but still, this doesn't mean that dark energy is going to be forever expansive, I still believe we are just in the explosiony part, yet to be sucked back together...

What I mean about the older universe thing is more a matter of perception of time, I'm saying the universe is at least twice as the light year lengths we can see, the light we see from the farthest objects happened 15 billion years ago, so whatever its doing right now.would be observable to our point in space another length if that time. The object has existed, to itself for 30 billion years, but we've only perceived half of its life, the object's present is actually our distant future, you can't unexist something on the scale of time when it transcends our ability to perceive