Big Bang? Taking aim at a one square inch object twenty billion light years away and hitting it

[shockedcanadian]

This is a quote given by Ravi Zacharias, an Apologetic as he was told by his quantum physicist professor. Does this not seem to possess far more "faith" than Faith?

He explained "the first few microseconds of the creation of the universe would have looked like. He described in great detail the how contraction and expansion ratio had to be so precise and the margin of error so small. And he added that the exactness demanded of that moment was such that it would be the equivalent of taking aim at a one square inch object twenty billion light years away and hitting it bull’s eye."

Just something else to consider as we struggle with the Big Bang vs Creator theory.

 

[WinterBorn]

This is a quote given by Ravi Zacharias, an Apologetic as he was told by his quantum physicist professor. Does this not seem to possess far more "faith" than Faith?

He explained "the first few microseconds of the creation of the universe would have looked like. He described in great detail the how contraction and expansion ratio had to be so precise and the margin of error so small. And he added that the exactness demanded of that moment was such that it would be the equivalent of taking aim at a one square inch object twenty billion light years away and hitting it bull’s eye."

Just something else to consider as we struggle with the Big Bang vs Creator theory.

Not quite accurate.

First of all, the expansion and contraction happen in a gravitational pull. Which makes hitting that 1 square inch object relatively easy. Since everything with mass exerts gravitational pull, and since that 1 inch square object would be all alone in that space, it would exert a pull on things too far away to see.

And the closer to the center you get, the greater the pull. The greater the pull the more mass you pull in. The more mass you pull in the stronger the pull gets.

And did Zacharias have a physics professor? His degrees are honorary, not real.

 

[shockedcanadian]

This is a quote given by Ravi Zacharias, an Apologetic as he was told by his quantum physicist professor. Does this not seem to possess far more "faith" than Faith?

He explained "the first few microseconds of the creation of the universe would have looked like. He described in great detail the how contraction and expansion ratio had to be so precise and the margin of error so small. And he added that the exactness demanded of that moment was such that it would be the equivalent of taking aim at a one square inch object twenty billion light years away and hitting it bull’s eye."

Just something else to consider as we struggle with the Big Bang vs Creator theory.

Not quite accurate.

First of all, the expansion and contraction happen in a gravitational pull. Which makes hitting that 1 square inch object relatively easy. Since everything with mass exerts gravitational pull, and since that 1 inch square object would be all alone in that space, it would exert a pull on things too far away to see.

And the closer to the center you get, the greater the pull. The greater the pull the more mass you pull in. The more mass you pull in the stronger the pull gets.

And did Zacharias have a physics professor? His degrees are honorary, not real.

The question to ask is if you have a quantum physics PhD. He was retelling a story of his professor who did.

 

[ding]

This is a quote given by Ravi Zacharias, an Apologetic as he was told by his quantum physicist professor. Does this not seem to possess far more "faith" than Faith?

He explained "the first few microseconds of the creation of the universe would have looked like. He described in great detail the how contraction and expansion ratio had to be so precise and the margin of error so small. And he added that the exactness demanded of that moment was such that it would be the equivalent of taking aim at a one square inch object twenty billion light years away and hitting it bull’s eye."

Just something else to consider as we struggle with the Big Bang vs Creator theory.

Not quite accurate.

First of all, the expansion and contraction happen in a gravitational pull. Which makes hitting that 1 square inch object relatively easy. Since everything with mass exerts gravitational pull, and since that 1 inch square object would be all alone in that space, it would exert a pull on things too far away to see.

And the closer to the center you get, the greater the pull. The greater the pull the more mass you pull in. The more mass you pull in the stronger the pull gets.

And did Zacharias have a physics professor? His degrees are honorary, not real.

Gravity does not pull. Gravity warps the fabric of space-time. There were no things too far away to see as there was nothing outside it.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Just something else to consider as we struggle with the Big Bang vs Creator theory.

there is no contraction occurrence in the cycle.

 

[WinterBorn]

.

Just something else to consider as we struggle with the Big Bang vs Creator theory.

there is no contraction occurrence in the cycle.

There are theorists who speculate that there have been more than one Big Bang. The explosion sends matter out away from the singular point at the speed of light. At some point, the expansion stops and it begins to fall back on itself, like a collapsing star. When it reaches a critical mass, it explodes again.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Just something else to consider as we struggle with the Big Bang vs Creator theory.

there is no contraction occurrence in the cycle.

There are theorists who speculate that there have been more than one Big Bang. The explosion sends matter out away from the singular point at the speed of light. At some point, the expansion stops and it begins to fall back on itself, like a collapsing star. When it reaches a critical mass, it explodes again.

.
the matter never contracts, the composite sections are expanding at a finite angle and their trajectory reconverts at the same time to the original location.

 

[WinterBorn]

.

Just something else to consider as we struggle with the Big Bang vs Creator theory.

there is no contraction occurrence in the cycle.

There are theorists who speculate that there have been more than one Big Bang. The explosion sends matter out away from the singular point at the speed of light. At some point, the expansion stops and it begins to fall back on itself, like a collapsing star. When it reaches a critical mass, it explodes again.

.
the matter never contracts, the composite sections are expanding at a finite angle and their trajectory reconverts at the same time to the original location.

Oh, I misunderstood. No, the matter does not contract.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
the finite angle / trajectory offers a plausible explanation for the universe to be cyclical, beginning and ending at the moment of Singularity.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Who provided this energy and the laws in which gravity and other processes followed?

 

[Crick]

The laws are created by the intrinsic nature of the particular universe in which you're looking. The energy (or mass) is what created the universe and this is a necessary prerequisite. It has always existed. Multiverse answers the quandary of how and why the universe came into existence. But it doesn't answer the same question about itself. That, however, does not mandate the existence of a creator. That fails ol' William's test and only sets the conundrum back a step.

No matter what answer one attempts to provide for Creation (with a capital C), there will always be some conceivable prior state whose boundaries must have been crossed for some reason or another. This ends up as futile as attempting to figure out how big is infinity.

 

[ding]

The laws are created by the intrinsic nature of the particular universe in which you're looking. The energy (or mass) is what created the universe and this is a necessary prerequisite. It has always existed. Multiverse answers the quandary of how and why the universe came into existence. But it doesn't answer the same question about itself. That, however, does not mandate the existence of a creator. That fails ol' William's test and only sets the conundrum back a step.

No matter what answer one attempts to provide for Creation (with a capital C), there will always be some conceivable prior state whose boundaries must have been crossed for some reason or another. This ends up as futile as attempting to figure out how big is infinity.

How does multiverse answer the quandary of how and why the universe came into existence?