Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashartus
I don't think that's an accurate description of current thinking on the "big bang" and most scientists don't really consider that name to be very accurate. I don't think I could do justice to describing the current state of the theory (while I am a scientist, I am not a physicist) but generally I think it involves a singularity, not a particle. Also, the estimated age of the universe is based on multiple lines of evidence including things like background radiation and I'm under the impression that physicists think they've got it down fairly accurately. I've read a couple of related books recently (Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss and the Grand Design by Stephen Hawkings), but even reading those I find it hard to really get my head around some of the current science on the origins of the universe.
|
I have read a little about cosmic background radiation myself and I may have missed it but I can't remember anyone tying it into the age of the universe except for calculating the radiation temperatures. This has gone up alot from the first measurement in the late 40's till now. whats to stop it from still going up?
I also have read Lawrence Krauss and tried to read Hawkings
but they still don't explain how they come up with the 13.7m old universe (it just is to them) How about the balloon theory? Krauss and Hawkings say it's true, in one breath they claim the expansion of the universe is moving everything apart from each other but in an other breath they claim galaxy's will collide (including ours in a few billion years)
I say take a balloon, draw dots on it,blow it up and show me a dot touching each other.
Sometimes I think these Scientists and physicists are just as dumb as I am when it comes to the cosmos.