Thread: The Expanding Universe and Intelligent Design

In the late 20's, Edwin Hubble measured the redshifts of a number of distant galaxies. He also measured their relative distances by measuring the apparent brightness of a class of variable stars in each galaxy. When he plotted redshift against relative distance, he found that the redshift of distant galaxies increased as a linear function of their distance: Basically, the further away they are, the more red they appear and as they travel further, the redder they got. The only explanation for this observation is that the universe was expanding, effectively affirming what German Astronomer,Heinrich Olbers, posited about a finite universe in the early 1800's with what would become the Big Bang theory. But note the Big Bang only discusses effects ... not causes.

Both before and after Olbers, first Newton and, then, Einstein insisted that the forces of gravity served to stabilize the universe so that it was NOT expanding but, rather, quite static. Einstein, in particular, developed his theory of gravity in with his Theory of Relativity, and at that time, his equations said that the universe should be either expanding or collapsing: He assumed that the universe was static becasue original solution contained a constant term, called the cosmological constant, which cancelled the effects of gravity on very large scales, and led to a static, instead of an expanding universe. In fact, Einstein's own original calculations showed that the universe was expanding, but he didn't like that conclusion so he built his Cosmological Constant into his calculations. In 1931, after listening to Hubble and considering other evidence, Einstein is known to have stated, "... “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.” He referred to the ‘cosmological constant" that he used to achieve a steady-state universe as the biggest blunder of his career.

So, if the universe is expanding ... what happens if you reverse it back through time: Stephen Hawking suggests that all space and time reverts back to a singularity: With zero spatial volume (though Hawking is quick to point out his objection to a creater as "unnecessary").

So, it is generally accepted that the universe is expanding and, therefore, finite and, but for the oscillating universe theory and the remaining vestiges of the steady state universe theory, it can be hypothesized that regressing the expansion back to its origin leads us to a finite point or a singularity with zero spatial volume.

Again, Creationism doesn't get into the "who" unless you invoke the Bible. Intelligent Design posits more of the "who" than does Creationism, but both are supported by what we know about the expanding universe.

Originally Posted by Good1

In the late 20's, Edwin Hubble measured the redshifts of a number of distant galaxies. He also measured their relative distances by measuring the apparent brightness of a class of variable stars in each galaxy. When he plotted redshift against relative distance, he found that the redshift of distant galaxies increased as a linear function of their distance: Basically, the further away they are, the more red they appear and as they travel further, the redder they got. The only explanation for this observation is that the universe was expanding, effectively affirming what German Astronomer,Heinrich Olbers, posited about a finite universe in the early 1800's with what would become the Big Bang theory. But note the Big Bang only discusses effects ... not causes.

Both before and after Olbers, first Newton and, then, Einstein insisted that the forces of gravity served to stabilize the universe so that it was NOT expanding but, rather, quite static. Einstein, in particular, developed his theory of gravity in with his Theory of Relativity, and at that time, his equations said that the universe should be either expanding or collapsing: He assumed that the universe was static becasue original solution contained a constant term, called the cosmological constant, which cancelled the effects of gravity on very large scales, and led to a static, instead of an expanding universe. In fact, Einstein's own original calculations showed that the universe was expanding, but he didn't like that conclusion so he built his Cosmological Constant into his calculations. In 1931, after listening to Hubble and considering other evidence, Einstein is known to have stated, "... “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.” He referred to the ‘cosmological constant" that he used to achieve a steady-state universe as the biggest blunder of his career.

So, if the universe is expanding ... what happens if you reverse it back through time: Stephen Hawking suggests that all space and time reverts back to a singularity: With zero spatial volume (though Hawking is quick to point out his objection to a creater as "unnecessary").

So, it is generally accepted that the universe is expanding and, therefore, finite and, but for the oscillating universe theory and the remaining vestiges of the steady state universe theory, it can be hypothesized that regressing the expansion back to its origin leads us to a finite point or a singularity with zero spatial volume.

Again, Creationism doesn't get into the "who" unless you invoke the Bible. Intelligent Design posits more of the "who" than does Creationism, but both are supported by what we know about the expanding universe.

Actually we're finding that we really know and understand very little. The more we know, or think we know, the more we find that we really don't know.

The entire "singularity" "big bang" idea isn't even something we know for sure.

......

This is only part. There's a LOT more to the article:


March 2001 issue of Discover magazine

"Very dark energy. Why is the universe expanding faster and faster ?" By Karen Wright pgs. 70 - 76



Pg. 73

One set of studies sought to determine the shape of the universe by considering the density of matter in it. Einstein had shown that matter curves space in predictable ways, so that universes with different densities of matter will have different shapes. His theories allowed for three shapes: negative curvature, in which the universe looks like a saddle; positive curvature, in which the universe is spherical and flat, the most unlikely case, in which the overall density of matter doesn't warp space, and photons travel in straight lines. Flat space isn't two dimensional; it just isn't curved.

Each shape corresponds to a density of matter denoted by the symbol Omega. To create a flat universe, matter must reach so-called critical density, which means Omega equals one. In a saddle shaped universe Omega is less than one; in a spherical universe, it's more than one. Astronomers have sought to determine the value of Omega and distinguish among these geometries by measuring the way space bends beams of light. The light they like to measure isn't visible; it's microwave radiation left over from the big bang that glows at the farthest reaches of the universe.

Pg. 74

In the days before dark energy, astronomers believed that the end of the expanding universe would be dictated by the density of matter in it. Just as matter determined the curvature of space, it would also predict the way that space would expand and whether it would ever contract. Back when cosmic expansion was caused solely by the cataclysmic propulsion of the big bang, the gravity of matter was expected to eventually slow it down, maybe even stop it, maybe even reverse it. In short, density equalled destiny.

Based on that reasoning, astronomers proposed three models for the fate of the universe, each corresponding to a different geometry and density of matter. In each scenario, the gravitational attraction of all the matter in the universe tugs at the heels of the big bangs momentum like a tireless dog thats latched onto the leg of a running mailman.

If Omega is less than one, the universe keeps on expanding forever, but at an ever diminishing pace. That universe has the saddle shape and is called "open". If Omega is more than one, the universal expansion slows and eventually reverses, collapsing in a cosmic crunch. That universe is spherical and "closed". In a flat universe, where the density of matter is exactly one, the expansion eventually slows very nearly to a stop but never actually reverses.

But if the universe is made up mostly of repulsive, ubiquitous energy rather than matter, then its ultimate fate isn't inscribed in its shape after all.


Pg. 75

.. universe that expands forever and an open universe or a flat universe that collapses."

The only way to figure out the fate of the flat, empty, accelerating universe, says Turner, is to learn more about the dark energy thats impelling expansion. But even as they begin chasing down Einsteins notion of vacuum energy, physicists are having to grapple with problems that range from the numerical to the philosophical. For one thing, when they attempt to calculate the value of Lambda, the theorists come up with a figure that is 120 orders of magnitude too big. Fitting the known universe with a vacuum energy of that potency would be like filling up a water balloon with a fire hose. "It cannot possibly be correct," says Turner. "If it were correct you wouldn't be able to see beyond the end of your nose, the universe would be expanding so fast." The size of the error has emphasized how poorly physicists understand certain aspects of gravity. "That is the biggest embarrasement in theoretical physics," adds turner.



It gets even more embarrasing, because theorists can't explain why the densities of matter and energy are currently so close in value. Theoretically, either of those densities could be anything from zero to infinity, and their ratio could vary accordingly. The odds of their being within a order of magnitude of each other are very low. The precarious balance between matter and energy that exists today in our universe - one third matter to two thirds energy - seems as improbable as the static universe that Einstein struggled to describe. And some find that improbability especially suspicious, because a universe more dominated by dark energy would be inhospitable to life. The excess energy would prevent matter from clumping forming galaxies, stars and planets. Yet here we are.

The coincidence has driven even notorious skeptics like Weinerg to invoke, in exasperation, the anthropic principle. That much-maligned tautology states that human consciousness can question the terms required for its existence only in a world in which those terms have been met. If conditions were any different, no one would be here to ponder them.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

...In each scenario, the gravitational attraction of all the matter in the universe tugs at the heels of the big bangs momentum like a tireless dog thats latched onto the leg of a running mailman.

Hubble (et al) considered that in their calculations but with the momentum a little stronger than gravity since, if they are equal, "steady state" and if Gravity exceeds momentum, all matter regresses back to the singularity (or a single point). This latter part is considered in the Oscillating Universe theory which (stated very simply) suggests the universe expands and, then, contracts rather like an accordion: Sure it's expanding now and likely will for the next few billions years, but eventually, gravity will win out and it will contract.

Trouble with that is, gravity is dependent on mass and there is not enough mass in the universe to overcome the momentum... at least that's the theory.

Another interesting development was Gamow (et al) who predicted that if the so-called "big bang" was correct, there should be some radiation "signature" or background radiation throughout the universe: He and his peers believed it started out many thousands of degrees c (like 3000) but has since cooled and sits at around (he predicted) 2.7 degrees C. It wasn't until two guys in the 60's were working in NJ on measuring microwaves: They kept getting interference and set out to find why this interference was everywhere: Ruling out all other sources, they contacted a fellow named Dickie who had been searching for Gamow's background radiation. They measured their "interference" and found it to be 2.7 degrees C.... they got the Nobel in Physics for discovering Gamow's background radiation.

Simply put, Gamow's theory was "no radiation, no big bang ... Radiation, Big Bang"

BTW, a lot of this information is coming from the Sloan Digital Sky Server website.

You've pointed out something we're already intimately familiar with; science doesn't yet understand the mechanics of how the universe came to be.

Is there a further point beyond that that you have to make?

Originally Posted by Good1

Hubble (et al) considered that in their calculations but with the momentum a little stronger than gravity since, if they are equal, "steady state" and if Gravity exceeds momentum, all matter regresses back to the singularity (or a single point). This latter part is considered in the Oscillating Universe theory which (stated very simply) suggests the universe expands and, then, contracts rather like an accordion: Sure it's expanding now and likely will for the next few billions years, but eventually, gravity will win out and it will contract.

Trouble with that is, gravity is dependent on mass and there is not enough mass in the universe to overcome the momentum... at least that's the theory.

Another interesting development was Gamow (et al) who predicted that if the so-called "big bang" was correct, there should be some radiation "signature" or background radiation throughout the universe: He and his peers believed it started out many thousands of degrees c (like 3000) but has since cooled and sits at around (he predicted) 2.7 degrees C. It wasn't until two guys in the 60's were working in NJ on measuring microwaves: They kept getting interference and set out to find why this interference was everywhere: Ruling out all other sources, they contacted a fellow named Dickie who had been searching for Gamow's background radiation. They measured their "interference" and found it to be 2.7 degrees C.... they got the Nobel in Physics for discovering Gamow's background radiation.

Simply put, Gamow's theory was "no radiation, no big bang ... Radiation, Big Bang"

BTW, a lot of this information is coming from the Sloan Digital Sky Server website.

One thing you can be certain of though is that there will be found some new kind of data or information that will throw a "monkey wrench" into all of our theories about our universe.

Our ideas and theories are ever changing and never ending.

That's not to say we should stop studying and learning about our surroundings, but we should keep a sensible perspective.

Originally Posted by Hoplite

You've pointed out something we're already intimately familiar with; science doesn't yet understand the mechanics of how the universe came to be.

Is there a further point beyond that that you have to make?

I thought you'd given up arguing with me because you didn't want to respond to the points I raised...

<shrug> Oh well, since you've obviously changed your mind, I encourage you to read what I've posted and, then, refute what you can.

Your "post" clearly indicates you started my original post with your preconceptions firmly in place and, the moment you believed you "knew" what I was saying, you quit reading.

That makes you the one who isn't interested in reasoned discussion... eh?

Originally Posted by Good1

I thought you'd given up arguing with me because you didn't want to respond to the points I raised...

<shrug> Oh well, since you've obviously changed your mind, I encourage you to read what I've posted and, then, refute what you can.

Your "post" clearly indicates you started my original post with your preconceptions firmly in place and, the moment you believed you "knew" what I was saying, you quit reading.

That makes you the one who isn't interested in reasoned discussion... eh?

Again, what's your point?

Originally Posted by Hoplite

Again, what's your point?

If you find the thread pointless, why are you wasting your time in it ?

Not a good idea probably, it just makes you look like a troll with a vendetta

The last sentence in the opening post might ... well, maybe you missed it:

.....
Again, Creationism doesn't get into the "who" unless you invoke the Bible. Intelligent Design posits more of the "who" than does Creationism, but both are supported by what we know about the expanding universe.

Maybe that is something to comment on ?

Just hanging out asking what the point is, doesn't look all that good

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Again, Creationism doesn't get into the "who" unless you invoke the Bible. Intelligent Design posits more of the "who" than does Creationism, but both are supported by what we know about the expanding universe.

Maybe that is something to comment on ?

NOW we're getting somewhere.

Since Intelligent Design IS Creationism, I see no reason to differentiate between the two.

This is something that has already been determined in a court of law (Decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et al.) and basic common sense.

Originally Posted by Hoplite

NOW we're getting somewhere.

Since Intelligent Design IS Creationism, I see no reason to differentiate between the two.

This is something that has already been determined in a court of law (Decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et al.) and basic common sense.

Yes, and both sides want only their way taught in school.

What makes you wonder is that if they're not both beleifs of a religious nature, why battle about having ONLY one OR the other ? Why not offer both as theories/beliefs and let the chips fall where they may ?