Where did the Universe come from?

Part 1: Einstein's Big Blunder

Pretty good debut for a 26 year old scientist, huh?

His equations for relativity indicated that the universe

was expanding. This bothered him, because if it was
expanding, it must have had a beginning and a beginner.
Since neither of these appealed to him, Einstein introduced
a 'fudge factor' that ensured a 'steady state' universe,
one that had no beginning or end.

But in 1929, Edwin Hubble showed that the furthest

galaxies were fleeing away from each other, just as the
Big Bang model predicted. So in 1931, Einstein embraced
what would later be known as the Big Bang theory, saying,
"This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation
of creation to which I have ever listened." He referred
to the 'fudge factor' to achieve a steady-state universe
as the biggest blunder of his career.

As I'll explain during the next couple of days,

Einstein's theories have been thoroughly proved and
verified by experiments and measurements. But there's
an even more important implication of Einstein's discovery.
Not only does the universe have a beginning, but time
itself, our own dimension of cause and effect, began
with the Big Bang.

That's right -- time itself does not exist before

then. The very line of time begins with that creation
event. Matter, energy, time and space were created
in an instant by an intelligence outside of space
and time.

About this intelligence, Albert Einstein wrote

in his book "The World As I See It" that the harmony
of natural law "Reveals an intelligence of such
superiority that, compared with it, all the
systematic thinking and acting of human beings is
an utterly insignificant reflection."

He went on to write, "Everyone who is seriously

involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced
that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe--
a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in
the face of which we with our modest powers must feel
humble."

Pretty significant statement, wouldn't you say?

Stay tuned for tomorrow's installment: "Bird Droppings

on my Telescope."

of gravity.

A little too fast, and you get a meaningless

spray of fine dust. A little too slow, and the whole
universe collapses back into one big black hole.

The surprising thing is just how narrow the difference

is. To strike the perfect balance between too fast and
too slow, the force, something that physicists call
"the Dark Energy Term" had to be accurate to one part in
ten with 120 zeros.

If you wrote this as a decimal, the number would

look like this:

0.000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000001

In their paper "Disturbing Implications of

a Cosmological Constant" two atheist scientists
from Stanford University stated that the existence of
this dark energy term "Would have required a miracle...
An external agent, external to space and time, intervened
in cosmic history for reasons of its own."

Just for comparison, the best human engineering

example is the Gravity Wave Telescope, which was built with
a precision of 23 zeros. The Designer, the 'external
agent' that caused our universe must possess an intellect,
knowledge, creativity and power trillions and trillions
of times greater than we humans have.

Absolutely amazing.

Now a person who doesn't believe in God has to find

some way to explain this. One of the more common explanations
seems to be "There was an infinite number of universes, so it
was inevitable that things would have turned out right
in at least one of them."

The "infinite universes" theory is truly an amazing theory.

Just think about it, if there is an infinite number of
universes, then absolutely everything is not only possible...
It's actually happened!

It means that somewhere, in some dimension, there is

a universe where the Chicago Cubs won the World Series last
year. There's a universe where Jimmy Hoffa doesn't get
cement shoes; instead he marries Joan Rivers and becomes
President of the United States. There's even a
universe where Elvis kicks his drug habit and still
resides at Graceland and sings at concerts. Imagine
the possibilities!

I might sound like I'm joking, but actually I'm dead

serious. To believe an infinite number of universes
made life possible by random chance is to believe everything
else I just said, too.

Some people believe in God with a capital G.

And some folks believe in Chance with a Capital C.

Tomorrow's installment: "If you can read this email,

I can prove to you that God exists." Sound a little bold?
Tune in tomorrow - same time, same station.

Respectfully Submitted,

Perry Marshall
Where Did the Universe Come From?

Today I introduce to you one of the most powerful

science presentations I have ever heard.

I listened to Hugh Ross give this presentation on a

tape while I was driving down Interstate 88 in Chicago
one night. As I listened, light bulbs were firing off
in my head all over the place.

So what's the big deal about this? Here's what

you'll discover as you listen:

-The delicate balance of vast forces in the universe,

necessary for life to exist

-Why planet earth is so extremely special in its ability

to support life

-The very measurement of the entire universe in all its

magnificence, made possible only within the last 15 years

-A fascinating place where science and theology come

together in perfect agreement

Now there's one more thing I want to tell you about

this talk: It was recorded in 1994.

Now why would I give you something called "New Scientific

Evidence" if it's 11 years old?

Here's why: Because unlike most things 11 years old--

with only a couple of exceptions, the information Hugh Ross
shares here has been shown to be even *more* accurate today
than it was back then.

One of the hallmarks of a successful scientific model is

that it holds up for years and even decades, even while
scholars debate it. I've been following Dr. Ross and
his work, and virtually every fact he discusses here has been
further strengthened and validated by all the physics and
astronomy discoveries in the years since.

On this link you'll find both the audio recording and

the printed transcript. You can read it online, print it out,
listen on your computer, burn it to a CD, or download this
to your MP3 player. Go here now:

Four thousand years ago people discovered that the ratio of the
circumference of a
circle to its diameter was about 3. In nature people saw circles, great
and small, and
they realized that this ratio was an important tool.
This tool was used by the Babylonians and the Egyptians. Reference is
made to
the concept of _ in the Bible. The Chinese found a value of _ that stood
for one
thousand years. One man felt the accomplishment of taking _ to 35
places was the
most important achievement of his life, so much so, that he had it
inscribed on his
epitaph. With the help of _ computers has been taken to over 6 billion
places. People
have been fascinated by _ , an irrational number, throughout history.
little known verse of the Bible reads
”And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other:
it was round
all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did
compass it
about.” (I Kings 7, 23)
The same verse can be found in II Chronicles 4, 2. It occurs in a list of
specifications
for the great temple of Solomon, built around 950 BC and its interest
here is
that it gives p = 3. Not a very accurate value of course and not even
very accurate in
its day, for the Egyptian and Mesopotamian values of 25/8 = 3.125 and
p10 = 3.162
have been traced to much earlier dates: though in defence of
Solomon’s craftsmen it
should be noted that the item being described seems to have been a
very large brass
casting, where a high degree of geometrical precision is neither
possible nor necessary.
There are some interpretations of this which lead to a much better
value.
The fact that the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle
is constant
has been known for so long that it is quite untraceable. The earliest
values of p
including the ’Biblical’ value of 3, were almost certainly found by
measurement. In
the Egyptian Rhind Papyrus, which is dated about 1650 BC, there is
good evidence
for 4(8/9)2 = 3.16 as a value for p.
The first theoretical calculation seems to have been carried out by
Archimedes of
Syracuse (287-212 BC). He obtained the approximation . . .
223/71 < p < 22/7.
notice that very considerable sophistication involved in the use of
inequalities here.
Archimedes knew, what so many people to this day do not, that p does
not equal
22/7, and made no claim to have discovered the exact value. If we take
his best estimate
as the average of his two bounds we obtain 3.1418, an error of about
0.0002.p
The European Renaissance brought about in due course a whole new
mathematical
world. Among the first effects of this reawakening was the emergence
of mathematical
formulae for p. One of the earliest was that of Wallis (1616-1703)
2/p = (1.3.3.5.5.7. . . .)/(2.2.4.4.6.6. . . .)
and one of the best-known is . . .
p/4 =1−1/3+1/5−1/7+. . . .
Preface 3
This formula is sometimes attributed to Leibniz (1646-1716) but is
seems to have
been first discovered by James Gregory (1638- 1675).
These are both dramatic and astonishing formulae, for the expressions
on the right
are completely arithmetical in character, while p arises in the first
instance from geometry.
They show the surprising results that infinite processes can achieve
and point
the way to the wonderful richness of modern mathematics.
From the point of view of the calculation of p, however, neither is of
any use at
all. In Gregory’s series, for example, to get 4 decimal places correct we
require the
error to be less than 0.00005 = 1/20000, and so we need about 10000
terms of the
series. However, Gregory also showed the more general result
(3) . . . tan−1x = x − x3/3 + x5/5 − . . . (−1 _ x _ 1)
from which the first series results if we put x = 1. So using the fact that
tan−1(1/p3) =p/6 we get
p/6 = (1/p3)(1−1/(3.3)+1/(5.3.3)−1/(7.3.3.3)+ . . .
which converges much more quickly. The 10th term is 1/19 cross
39sqrt3, which
is less than 0.00005, and so we have at least 4 places correct after just
9 terms.
An even better idea is to take the formula
(4) . . .p/4= tan−1(1/2) + tan−1(1/3)
and then calculate the two series obtained by putting first 1/2 and the
1/3 into (3).
Clearly we shall get very rapid convergence indeed if we can find a
formula something
like
p/4 = tan−1(1/a) + tan−1(1/b)
Preface 4
with a and b large. In 1706 Machin found such a formula:
(5) . . . p/4= 4tan−1(1/5) − tan−1(1/239)
Actually this is not at all hard to prove, if you know how to prove (4)
then there is
no real extra difficulty about (5), except that the arithmetic is worse.
Thinking it up
in the first place is, of course, quite another matter.
We conclude with one further statistical curiosity about the calculation
of p,
namely Buffon’s needle experiment. If we have a uniform grid of
parallel lines, unit
distance apart and if we drop a needle of length k < 1 on the grid, the
probability
that the needle falls across a line is 2k/p. Various people have tried to
calculate p
by throwing needles. The most remarkable result was that of Lazzerini
(1901), who
made 34080 tosses and got
p =355/113= 3.1415929
which, incidentally, is the value found by Zu Chongzhi. This outcome is
suspiciously
good, and the game is given away by the strange number 34080 of
tosses.
Kendall and Moran comment that a good value can be obtained by
stopping the experiment
at an optimal moment. If you set in advance how many throws there
are to
be then this is a very inaccurate way of computing p. Kendall and
Moran comment
that you would do better to cut out a large circle of wood and use a
tape measure to
find its circumference and diameter.
Still on the theme of phoney experiments, Gridgeman, in a paper which
pours scorn
on Lazzerini and others, created some amusement by using a needle of
carefully chosen
length k = 0.7857, throwing it twice, and hitting a line once. His
estimate for p
was thus given by..
2_0.7857/ p=1/2
from which he got the highly creditable value of p = 3.1428. He was
not being serious!

1.2 What is pi:-

(1) Pi is the sixteenth letter of the Greek alphabet, but the lower case
symbol is used
to represent a special mathematical constant.
(2) the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle
(3) the 16th letter of the Greek alphabet
(4) Pi is the number of times the diameter divides into the
circumference of a circle.
It is approximately 3.14159 times.( 3.14)
(5)Each NERSC repository has a single Principal Investigator, or PI for
short. The
PI is the scientific head of the project supported by an allocation of
NERSC resources.
Although the PI may delegate some responsibilities to account
managers, he or she
is ultimately responsible for procuring and managing the repository
(6) Pi is a mathematical constant equal to approximately
3.1415926535897932.
(7) The ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter; a number
having a value
to eight decimal places of 3.14159265.

1.3 Why pi:-

”The story of pi reflects the most seminal, the most serious and
sometimes the silliest
aspects of mathematics. A surprising amount of the most important
mathematics
and a significant number of the most important mathematicians have
contributed to
its unfolding – directly or otherwise.
Pi is one of the few concepts in mathematics whose mention evokes a
response of
recognition and interest in those not concerned professionally with the
subject. It
has been a part of human culture and the educated imagination for
more than twenty
five hundred years.
The computation of Pi is virtually the only topic from the most ancient
stratum of
mathematics that is still of serious interest to modern mathematical
research. And
Preface 6
to pursue this topic as it developed throughout the millennia is to
follow a thread
through the history of mathematics that winds through geometry,
analysis and special
functions, numerical analysis, algebra and number theory. It offers a
subject which
provides mathematicians with examples of many current mathematical
techniques as
well as a palpable sense of their historical development.”
1.4 Precomputer history of pi :-

That the ratio of circumference to diameter is the same (and roughly

equal to 3) for
all circles has been accepted as ”fact” for centuries; at least 4000
years, as far as I
can determine. (But knowing why this is true, as well as knowing the
exact value of
this ratio, is another story.) The ”easy” history of _ concerns the
ongoing story of
our attempts to improve upon our estimates of _. This page offers a
brief survey of
a few of the more famous early approximations to .
The value of given in the Rhynd Papyrus (c. 2000 BC) is 16
9
2 = 3.160493827 . . .
Various Babylonian and Egyptian writings suggest that each of the
values
were used (in different circumstances, of course). The Bible (c. 950 BC,
1 Kings
7:23) and the Talmud both (implicitly) give the value simply as 3.
Archimedes of Syracuse (240 BC), using a 96-sided polygon and his
method of
exhaustion, showed that
and so his error was no more than 1
17 = 0.01408450704 . . .
The important feature of Archimedes’ accomplishment is not that he
was able to give
such an accurate estimate, but rather that his methods could be used
to obtain any
number of digits of . In fact, Archimedes’ method of exhaustion would
prove to be
the basis for nearly all such calculations for over 1800 years.
Over 700 years later, Tsu Chung-Chih (c. 480) improved upon
Archimedes’ estiPreface
7
mate by giving the familiar value
355
113= 3.1415929203 . . .
which agrees with the actual value of_ to 6 places.
Many years later, Ludolph van Ceulen (c. 1610) gave an estimate that
was accurate
to 34 decimal places using Archimedes’ method (based on a262 -sided
polygon).
The digits were later used to adorn his tombstone.
The next era in the history of the extended calculation of _ was
ushered in by James
Gregory (c. 1671), who provided us with the series
Using Gregory’s series in conjunction with the identity
John Machin (c. 1706) calculated 100 decimal digits of _ . Methods
similar to
Machin’s would remain in vogue for over 200 years.
William Shanks (c. 1807) churned out the first 707 digits of _ . This feat
took
Shanks over 15 years – in other words, he averaged only about one
decimal digit per
week! Sadly, only 527 of Shanks’ digits were correct. In fact, Shanks
published his
calculations 3 times, each time correcting errors in the previously
published digits,
and each time new errors crept in. As it happened, his first set of
values proved to
be the most accurate.
In 1844, Johann Dase (a.k.a., Zacharias Dahse), a calculating prodigy
(or ”idiot
savant”) hired by the Hamburg Academy of Sciences on Gauss’s
recommendation,
computed _ to 200 decimal places in less than two months.
In the era of the desktop calculator (and the early calculators truly
required an entire
desktop!), D. F. Ferguson (c. 1947) raised the total to 808 (accurate)
decimal digits.
In fact, it was Ferguson who discovered the errors in Shanks’
calculations.