Compacting universe before big bang?

[iplaw]

I always get a little freaked out about conversations like this.  I do have a scientific background but understand that I am in no position to discuss particle physics or GUT theory or cosmology because as much as I want to understand those fascinating topics I just don't have the background to sustain a decent debate.  The worst part is when they try and draw conclusions about things based upon what they read in books without understanding the foundational aspects that underly the discussion.

Widly varying topics like Lorentz-invariant theorems, basics like Stokes/Greens Theorems, Quantum Mechanics, Heisenberg uncertainty, Godelian Logic, Bayesian Logic, Hilbert spaces, Affine Connections, Gauge Fields and so on make it very hard for people without PHDs in their respective disciplines to discuss it.  It's hard enough for mathematicians with PHDs to discuss particle theory.

It is so complex that laypeople tend to interject more confusion than anything.  Not a knock against us laypeople, me included, but I think it's better just to read and appreciate rather than engage in debate about certain things, just like laetus said earlier.  What's worse is when conclusions are drawn, often in error.

[silviakjell]

Wow... I've only been gone for a day and this topic has hopped to 7 pages.

[McQ]

Wow... I've only been gone for a day and this topic has hopped to 7 pages.

The quick answer: Here is everything you need from Ted Bunn, who teaches physics and astrophysics at the University of Richmond. And he plays a heck of a game of chess too.

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html

http://www.richmond.edu/~ebunn/

Gotta run. Going to help someone move into their new house.

[Asmodean Prime]

An interest website for your perusal.  This is directed more towards the layperson, and not the highly scientifically minded among you.

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html

[Squid]

Leader U?  Oh man.  This is the same site that had an article by Paul Vitz about atheism being a "condition" of a broken home using outdated, no longer valid psychoanalytic views.

This doesn't really say much at all about the big bang but harps on the perceived fact that Hawking is a Christian.

From reading his work and his comments, Hawking believes in a god but not the same omnipotent, omnipresent god most Christians do.

And for whoever typed that article, it's Purdue, not Perdue.

Hugh Ross is has a Ph.D. in astronomy not astrophysics

[Asmodean Prime]

That's good, Squid.  You seem to know about this website already, from your answer. I've never heard of it before, but then, I've not been on the internet very long.

[silviakjell]

Thanks everyone!

[Squid]

That's good, Squid.  You seem to know about this website already, from your answer. I've never heard of it before, but then, I've not been on the internet very long.

Yeah, I've seen LeaderU more than a few times.

[iplaw]

LeaderU is an online theistic thinktank.  Some articles are very good and written by credible and highly credentialed scholars in their respective fields and others are written on a more personal basis and are less persuasive.  

Just like anything else on the internet, take it with a grain of salt.  Research the author before wasting your time reading what they write.  That being said, there are many good and competent authors on that website.

I find that this is a better site, even though the quality of the site is remedial.  http://www.starcourse.org/

[Asmodean Prime]

thanks, iplaw, i will check it out in a few minutes or so, since I have the kids to deal with just now.  I will get back to you, though.

[Squid]

LeaderU is an online theistic thinktank.  Some articles are very good and written by credible and highly credentialed scholars in their respective fields and others are written on a more personal basis and are less persuasive.  

Just like anything else on the internet, take it with a grain of salt.  Research the author before wasting your time reading what they write.  That being said, there are many good and competent authors on that website.

I'm skeptical if it comes from that website but I still read the articles to assess the author's arguments.

I find that this is a better site, even though the quality of the site is remedial.  http://www.starcourse.org/

They really need to invest in a professional created template or hire someone who has some design background.

[iplaw]

Yeah, just like I'm skeptical of anything on Infidels.org.  Seems to me that we all are automatically skeptical of anything that doesn't line up with what we see as truth, or when we discover an entity designed and crafted to directly challenge any strongly held belief.  BTW, the guy that runs the site is an old-timer (sorry no offense to old-timers) but he is in his late sixties I think.

[Aullios]

To be fair, I'm a bit skeptical of anything.

I'm skeptical of Starcourse simply because it looks like it was tossed together by a 3 year old.

I'm skeptical of Infidels because they take a theistic label and place it upon themselves in order to make fun of the theists.

[iplaw]

Never give much creedence to appearances in this world.  It's good to be skeptical but it's another thing to ignore something all together based upon snap judgements.  Even though I am skeptical about Infidels I read Infidels often even though I disagree with most of what is on there.

[Squid]

Yeah, just like I'm skeptical of anything on Infidels.org.  Seems to me that we all are automatically skeptical of anything that doesn't line up with what we see as truth, or when we discover an entity designed and crafted to directly challenge any strongly held belief.  BTW, the guy that runs the site is an old-timer (sorry no offense to old-timers) but he is in his late sixties I think.

I'm skeptical because of past experience with that site.  I have had people reference articles which contained technical errors and distortions.  That is why I am skeptical of the LeaderU site.

Never give much creedence to appearances in this world.  It's good to be skeptical but it's another thing to ignore something all together based upon snap judgements.  Even though I am skeptical about Infidels I read Infidels often even though I disagree with most of what is on there.

I'd have to agree.  World Science looks like it belongs to a kid but it's content is sound.  It was recommended by Carl Zimmer.  They could also use a good template or professional to redo the site.