Jump to content


Photo

The Horizon Problem


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
31 replies to this topic

#1 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 February 2009 - 09:26 PM

I just watched Distant Starlight by Jason Lisle.He talked about several solutions that may be figured out in the future.I was'nt aware that the Big Bang model has a similar problem of it's own called the horizon problem.

The horizon problem is a problem with the standard cosmological model of the Big Bang which was identified in the 1970s. It points out that different regions of the universe have not "contacted" each other due to the great distances between them, but nevertheless they have the same temperature and other physical properties. This should not be possible, given that the exchange of information (or energy, heat, etc.) can only take place at the speed of light. The horizon problem may have been answered by inflationary theory, and is one of the reasons for that theory's formation.


Here is their propossed solution.

Inflationary theory allows for a solution to the problem (along with several others such as the flatness problem) by positing a short 10 − 32 second period of exponential expansion (dubbed "inflation") within the first minute or so of the history of the universe. During inflation, the universe would have increased in size by an enormous factor.

If correct, inflation solves the horizon problem by suggesting that prior to the inflationary period the entire universe was causally connected, and it was during this period that the physical properties evened out. Inflation then expanded it rapidly, freezing in these properties all over the sky; at this point the universe would be forced to be almost perfectly homogeneous, as the information needed to change it from that state was no longer causally connected. In the modern era distant areas in the sky appear to be unconnected causally, but in fact were much closer together in the past.

One consequence of cosmic inflation is that the anisotropies in the Big Bang are reduced but not entirely eliminated. Differences in the temperature of the cosmic background are smoothed by cosmic inflation, but they still exist. The theory predicts a spectrum for the anisotropies in the microwave background which is mostly[1] consistent with observations from WMAP and COBE.


I don't know very much about these issues and I would like to hear everyones input.




Thanks.

#2 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2467 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 09 February 2009 - 09:31 PM

I just watched Distant Starlight by Jason Lisle.He talked about several solutions that may be figured out in the future.I was'nt aware that the Big Bang model has a similar problem of it's own called the horizon problem.
I don't know very much about these issues and I would like to hear everyones input.
Thanks.

View Post


Quite a few secular scientists have given their input, and they list the horizon problem as one of the reasons why the big bang is pseudo-science:

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Fred

#3 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 February 2009 - 09:40 PM

Thanks Fred,

I'm a rock and fossil guy so I don't know much about cosmology.

#4 Preachbill

Preachbill

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts
  • Interests:Preaching the Word, FlightSimming.
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 10 February 2009 - 02:02 AM

The Big Bang Model does not hold up with the science of Creation. In the beggining, God created the heaven and the earth:
1. Beginning=time=Past, Present,Future
2. Heaven=Space=Hight,Width and Depth.
3. Earth=Matter=Solid,Gas and Liquid.
Big Bang Theory is false due to the evolutionist/and Science cant explain where matter came from. They say that the universe was compressed down to a small dot and then exploded with tremendous energy and formed all that is in the universe. Well, you can't out of nothingness all of a sudden have somthing explode! IOW=Life was formed out of nothing. The only crux that Big Bang Evoulution Theorys have is Looonnng periords of TIME!! Thats it. But God created everything in 6 24hr days. Genesis Chapter 1.

#5 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 10 February 2009 - 12:31 PM

The  Big Bang Model does not hold up with the science of Creation. In the beggining, God created the heaven and the earth:
1. Beginning=time=Past, Present,Future
2. Heaven=Space=Hight,Width and Depth.
3. Earth=Matter=Solid,Gas and Liquid.
Big Bang Theory is false due to the evolutionist/and Science cant explain where matter came from. They say that the universe was compressed down to a small dot and then exploded with tremendous energy and formed all that is in the universe. Well, you can't out of nothingness all of a sudden have somthing explode! IOW=Life was formed out of nothing. The only crux that Big Bang Evoulution Theorys have is Looonnng periords of TIME!! Thats it. But God created everything in 6 24hr days. Genesis Chapter 1.

View Post



The way I see it,their are two models and both require a miracle.Their are two stories and only one historic account (The Bible).

When you consider those facts then Creation becomes the obvious and logical answer.




Thanks.

#6 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 10 February 2009 - 01:04 PM

The way I see it,their are two models and both require a miracle.Their are two stories and only one historic account (The Bible).

When you consider those facts then Creation becomes the obvious and logical answer.
Thanks.

View Post


The difference between the two is that there is a significant amount of evidence pointing towards a denser hotter universe. There's no mention of this in the Christian creation story.

#7 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 10 February 2009 - 01:04 PM

This is where a good grasp of logic and the resulting philosophy is so important for the Christian who is cornered by someone who believes nature is all that is and this is the only reasonable assumption. Nature may be the only thing that can be examined directly by the scientific method but what the scientific method can't detect isn't immune from observation and deductive reasoning.

Posted Image

When you see the tap dancing involved in finding solutions, any crazy solution that doesn't respect the possibility of an intelligent causal agent, the problems and mental blocks created by philosophical naturalism become painfully obvious.

It's an interesting time we live in. There seems to be a growing number of scholars, scientists, and theorists who are tired of going through the mental contortions to deny God.

Thanks for the link, Fred.

#8 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 10 February 2009 - 01:19 PM

The difference between the two is that there is a significant amount of evidence pointing towards a denser hotter universe. There's no mention of this in the Christian creation story.


It does'nt mention parasites,diseases,genetic mutations,etc. either,but i'm sure it all fits in the phrase "thorns and thistles".




Thanks.

#9 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 10 February 2009 - 06:30 PM

Big Bang Theory is false due to the evolutionist . . . Big Bang Evoulution Theorys

The Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution have absolutely nothing to do with each other. They are not ony unrelated concepts, they are concepts that can never be related because they deal with completely different questions. You can say that both are unbiblical or anti-religious or anti-Christian, and though others may disagree with you, at least you can base your accusation in something that passes for reason or faith. What you cannot do is to relate two ideas that are, by their nature, totally independent of each other and must always remain so.

#10 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 10 February 2009 - 06:53 PM

:rolleyes:

#11 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 10 February 2009 - 07:07 PM

The Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution have absolutely nothing to do with each other.


They are different scientific theories based upon the same naturalistic assumptions.

at least you can base your accusation in something that passes for reason or faith. What you cannot do is to relate two ideas that are, by their nature, totally independent of each other and must always remain so.


They are so related that one is'nt possible without the other.

Biological evolution is dependant upon chemical evolution which is then dependant on cosmic evolution.

Science has catagorized them as different sciences,but they are all part of the same model.




Thanks.

#12 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 10 February 2009 - 07:24 PM

Quite a few secular scientists have given their input, and they list the horizon problem as one of the reasons why the big bang is pseudo-science:


In thinking about these questions it helps to keep in mind that scientists have the same human needs as anybody else--the need to advance in their careers, the need for job security, their need for prestige, and so on. Related fields of science compete with each other to some extent for the research funds that underpins all of these needs. So some of these internecine battles like the one in the letter (see link) can be interpreted in these terms. Oddly enough, Big Bang research is closely related to research in particle physics, which is enormously expensive because of the huge, complex machines it requires and the equally huge staffs that are required to run them. They take a lot of money away from other people's research, and that gets people angry.

I also can comment on some of the content of the letter:
"What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation."
This is utterly false. The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), which is a remnant of the Big Bang, was predicted and found. Not only was the CMB there, it's spectrum exactly matched the theoretical predictions of the Big Bang.
"The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters."
Well, yeah, that's true to a considerable extent, but that's the nature of cosmology. You observe something, and then you try to find an explanation for it by relating it to what's already known.
"Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end."
The second sentence alone is enough to discredit the entire letter because it is universally recognized among people who deal with these ideas that the steady-state model was disproved once and for all. In fact, it was the discovery of CMB that finally did in the steady-state model.

#13 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 10 February 2009 - 07:39 PM

They are different scientific theories based upon the same naturalistic assumptions.
They are so related that one is'nt possible without the other.

If you sit under a tetherball pole in a lightening storm, you're likely to get electrocuted. That's another naturalistic assumption, but what does it have to do with the Big Bang or the Theory of Evolution? Just because phenomena are natural doesn't mean that they are connected in any meanful way.

Biological evolution is dependant upon chemical evolution which is then dependant on cosmic evolution.  Science has catagorized them as different sciences,but they are all part of the same model.

Yes, the same naturalistic model, but people who study evolution never use concepts of the Big Bang, and people who study the Big Bang never use the concepts of evolutionary biology. It's a real stretch to say there is any connection between them besides the fact that they can both be studied by scientific methods.

#14 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 11 February 2009 - 04:58 AM

In thinking about these questions it helps to keep in mind that scientists have the same human needs as anybody else--the need to advance in their careers, the need for job security, their need for prestige, and so on.  Related fields of science compete with each other to some extent for the research funds that underpins all of these needs.  So some of these internecine battles like the one in the letter (see link) can be interpreted in these terms.  Oddly enough, Big Bang research is closely related to research in particle physics, which is enormously expensive because of the huge, complex machines it requires and the equally huge staffs that are required to run them.  They take a lot of money away from other people's research, and that gets people angry.

They take a lot of money period. And spending money on falsehood is hard to justify from any perspective. Apparently those who despair to escape reality feel the comfort they derive is worth any amount.

I also can comment on some of the content of the letter: 
"What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation."
This is utterly false.  The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), which is a remnant of the Big Bang, was predicted and found.  Not only was the CMB there, it's spectrum exactly matched the theoretical predictions of the Big Bang.

The first sentence would be more accurately applied to that which it precedes than that which it follows. Antihistory has been produced, but it is weak and the truth of the matter can still be discovered.

Even a good number of those who claim the "prediction" exists admit they're talking about a retroactive "prediction".

"The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters."
Well, yeah, that's true to a considerable extent, but that's the nature of cosmology.  You observe something, and then you try to find an explanation for it by relating it to what's already known.
"Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end."
The second sentence alone is enough to discredit the entire letter because it is universally recognized among people who deal with these ideas that the steady-state model was disproved once and for all.  In fact, it was the discovery of CMB that finally did in the steady-state model.

View Post

I would have trouble accounting for the document if I accepted that last one. The existence of the document appears to be the more certain option than the asserted universal recognition.

#15 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 11 February 2009 - 08:16 AM

If you sit under a tetherball pole in a lightening storm, you're likely to get electrocuted.  That's another naturalistic assumption, but what does it have to do with the Big Bang or the Theory of Evolution?  Just because phenomena are natural doesn't mean that they are connected in any meanful way.

Yes, the same naturalistic model, but people who study evolution never use concepts of the Big Bang, and people who study the Big Bang never use the concepts of evolutionary biology.  It's a real stretch to say there is any connection between them besides the fact that they can both be studied by scientific methods.

View Post


Unfortunately you don't understand what is being said. We are not physically/ seriously saying the two (hypothesis- since they cannot be tested) are related in the way your saying. The way you are implying is that we are ignorant of the fact that both are two totally different theories.

What you fail to realize is that without GOD a naturalistic way of a beginning IS necessary. That is why atheist cling so dearly on to the Big Bang hypothesis, and the hypothesis of evolution. That is why they are connected. That is their ONLY connection. The connection that both do not require God.

Both can be studied by scientific methods on paper, but not in reality. The Big Bang has not been observed, which is a requirement. Evolution has not been observed, which also is a requirement. Therefore if you do not have both on hand to actually study, touch, feel, and test... then sorry but no no no, you don't have a theory, or law, or fact... you just have a hypothesis, or rather large amounts of faith.

Remember, the micro- evolution arguement is moot, because it's not really evolution because no NEW information was observed to have been created ever, but alas this is not the correct thread to discuss this.

#16 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 11 February 2009 - 11:58 AM

And spending money on falsehood is hard to justify from any perspective.

The Standard Model of particle physics has been constructed from data obtained by the use of these large, expensive machines. What part of the Standard Model do you believe is a falsehood?

Apparently those who despair to escape reality feel the comfort they derive is worth any amount.

And whose version of reality would that be?

The first sentence would be more accurately applied to that which it precedes than that which it follows. Antihistory has been produced, but it is weak and the truth of the matter can still be discovered.

I haven't a clue what this means.

Even a good number of those who claim the "prediction" exists admit they're talking about a retroactive "prediction".

By far the most important of these predictions was the prediction of the CMB. (Dicke at Princeton was one predictor who was searching for the CMB.) Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel Prize for its discovery. There was nothing retroactive about it. Likewise, many if not most of the subatomic particles now known to physics were predicted. There were "holes" in the Standard Model where particles should have been, and when physicists went looking for the missing particles, they found them. I'd be very interested to know where you learned your physics.

I would have trouble accounting for the document if I accepted that last one. The existence of the document appears to be the more certain option than the asserted universal recognition.

I said universal recognition among the people who deal with these matters. Which signers of the letter are particle physicists or cosmologists? And since when is the mere existence of a document considered proof of its validity?

#17 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 11 February 2009 - 12:14 PM

I said universal recognition among the people who deal with these matters. Which signers of the letter are particle physicists or cosmologists?

View Post

All one has to do is read the thing to see that a good number of those people deal with the matters involved. I'm not going to track down the personal history of each and every individual just to watch you equivocate, if that's what you're getting at.

#18 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 11 February 2009 - 12:23 PM

Unfortunately you don't understand what is being said.  We are not physically/ seriously saying the two (hypothesis- since they cannot be tested)  are related in the way your saying.  The way you are implying is that we are ignorant of the fact that both are two totally different theories.  What you fail to realize is that without GOD a naturalistic way of a beginning IS necessary.  That is why they are connected.  That is their ONLY connection.  The connection that both do not require God.

Thanks for the clarification. I understand your position a lot better now.

Both can be studied by scientific methods on paper, but not in reality.  The Big Bang has not been observed, which is a requirement.

Much of what we know about the world, and in fact the whole universe, is based on inference rather than direct observation. No one has ever seen the inside of an atomic bomb explode, but we know what goes on there because the principles are understood. No one has ever seen a soul ascend to heaven, but you believe it happens because you infer it from certain experiences and you believe you understand the principles from reading the Bible.

Evolution has not been observed, which also is a requirement.

The direct observation of macroevolution would be a conclusive refutation of neodarwinian theory. Nothing in the science of genetics (or any other science) could explain such an observation. The direct observation of macroevolution, might, in fact, have to be considered a miracle and therefore proof of the existence of God.

No NEW information was observed to have been created ever, but alas this is not the correct thread to discuss this.

In fact, our patron has forbidden us to discuss such things anywhere on this website because he has already decided for us what is "intellectually dishonest." Suppose that a belief in microevolution as a basis for macroevolution is intellectually dishonest. Do we really need a Big Brother to tell us that and tell us what we are allowed to discuss among ourselves? Are you incapable of making such decisions for yourself?

#19 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 11 February 2009 - 12:30 PM

The Standard Model of particle physics has been constructed from data obtained by the use of these large, expensive machines.  What part of the Standard Model do you believe is a falsehood?

Since I don't know what your idea of "the Standard Model" is, it's not practical for me to answer in detail. If you refer to any philosophy which says reality isn't real, or any such nonsense, we are discussing that junk right now.

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2000

And whose version of reality would that be?

Who said anything about a version. I said reality.

A 'version' is an imaginary construct which may or may not be accurate. Reality is reality. See the difference.

By far the most important of these predictions was the prediction of the CMB.  (Dicke at Princeton was one predictor who was searching for the CMB.)  Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel Prize for its discovery.  There was nothing retroactive about it.  Likewise, many if not most of the subatomic particles now known to physics were predicted.  There were "holes" in the Standard Model where particles should have been, and when physicists went looking for the missing particles, they found them.  I'd be very interested to know where you learned your physics.

View Post

We'll see. Not sure this bunk is worth my time. I see very little evidence of concern on either side. I don't recall seeing any threads devoted to the matter, and I have spent a little time reviewing the history of forums where I participate.

#20 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 11 February 2009 - 12:30 PM

All one has to do is read the thing to see that a good number of those people deal with the matters involved. I'm not going to track down the personal history of each and every individual just to watch you equivocate, if that's what you're getting at.

Alright! YOU pick out a few names, give them to me, and I'LL track down their personal histories and tell you what I find. Does that sound like an equivocation?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users