The Big Bang

The observational evidence for the expansion of the Universe is quite conclusive. I suggest reading about Cepheid variable stars and Hubble's 1929 discovery that the Universe is expanding. It is incorrect that proving the expansion of the Universe requires a center. Space is curved, as outlined by General Relativity. Here is a two dimensional analogy on a curved plane: partially inflate a balloon and draw dots on the surface to represent galaxies. Now further inflate the balloon. The dots are farther apart. What is the center of the curved two dimensional plane? There is none. The same holds true for curved four dimensional spacetime. The geometry of four dimensional space-time is more complex than a spherical object with a center. General Relativity describes that space-time itself, and not just objects within space-time, is curved.

I disagree. Nothing you have posted as fact is proven fact. Whithout a center and and end, it cannot be stated as fact the universe is expanding as it cannot be observed.

Even "if" any-and-everything within Man's observation is expanding, it is evidence of that only.
 
I disagree. Nothing you have posted as fact is proven fact. Whithout a center and and end, it cannot be stated as fact the universe is expanding as it cannot be observed.

Even "if" any-and-everything within Man's observation is expanding, it is evidence of that only.

Of course the expanding universe is being observed. Scientists and astronomers measure the distance of light between places and note that galaxies are moving away from each other. They use scientific formula and information gained from the likes of the Hubble telescope.

As for the big bang, it is a theory, but one that has had many hours spent on it and many observations about how it came about tested.
 
I disagree. Nothing you have posted as fact is proven fact. Whithout a center and and end, it cannot be stated as fact the universe is expanding as it cannot be observed.

Even "if" any-and-everything within Man's observation is expanding, it is evidence of that only.
That spacetime is curved is an observational fact. Look at the below image of local curved spacetime.

heic0803b.jpg


The photo is of three galaxies in the line of sight from Earth. The rings around the nearest galaxy is light from the galaxies more distant following the shortest path to our region of space; a curved path determined by the gravitational fields of the intervening galaxies. Spacetime is curved like this as described by the theory of General Relativity. You seem to be thinking of the shape of spacetime as that of an expanding ball with a center. Spacetime is not a three dimensional object. The "shape" of expanding four dimensional spacetime precludes a "center" in the way you are thinking of that word. If in the above example (previous post) of the expanding curved two dimensional plane you can see that there is no "center," then you can also analogously grasp that expanding four dimensional spacetime has no center. Gunny, spacetime itself is curved and expanding, not the mere distance between two objects.
 
I disagree. Nothing you have posted as fact is proven fact. Whithout a center and and end, it cannot be stated as fact the universe is expanding as it cannot be observed.

Even "if" any-and-everything within Man's observation is expanding, it is evidence of that only.
The thing is that the big bang theory requires logic and reason to understand and observe it as a fact (expansion of the universe, carbon dating, etc) whereas faith in God requires that you throw reason out the window and just simply believe.

Now I happen to believe in God and live my life as closely to God as I can. I denounce the alleged divinity of Christ, but remain steadfast in my belief in God.

But I also believe in science and see that as the study of God's works. I don't think God appeared and said let the be light and so on. That is just plain silly. But I do believe that God is the big bang and existence emanates from his love.

There is a Hindu myth that all of existence is the supreme being Brahma's dream. It last 7 millennia (I think, or 70 or 700) and then he will awake and all of existence will end. Brahma will return to sleep and his dream will be a recreation of existence and will last another round of millennia before he wakes and this lifetime of the earth is not the first nor the last.

Extrapolate that to your Christian ideal of God as creator and it makes for an interesting contemplation.
 
Of course the expanding universe is being observed. Scientists and astronomers measure the distance of light between places and note that galaxies are moving away from each other. They use scientific formula and information gained from the likes of the Hubble telescope.

As for the big bang, it is a theory, but one that has had many hours spent on it and many observations about how it came about tested.


You mean the planets and stars within Man's ability to observe is being observed. Do tell ... how DOES one expand "infinite?"

Creation is a theory that has had many hours spent on it.

The Big Bang has no observations about how it came about or there would be actual evidence to support it.
 
That spacetime is curved is an observational fact. Look at the below image of local curved spacetime.

heic0803b.jpg


The photo is of three galaxies in the line of sight from Earth. The rings around the nearest galaxy is light from the galaxies more distant following the shortest path to our region of space; a curved path determined by the gravitational fields of the intervening galaxies. Spacetime is curved like this as described by the theory of General Relativity. You seem to be thinking of the shape of spacetime as that of an expanding ball with a center. Spacetime is not a three dimensional object. The "shape" of expanding four dimensional spacetime precludes a "center" in the way you are thinking of that word. If in the above example (previous post) of the expanding curved two dimensional plane you can see that there is no "center," then you can also analogously grasp that expanding four dimensional spacetime has no center. Gunny, spacetime itself is curved and expanding, not the mere distance between two objects.


It is NOT an observable fact because it is limited to Man's ability to observe. Here's a theory for ya ...

How about if the portion of the universe within Man's ability to observe is expanding within an overall universe that is actually contracting?

You do not know that is not true because you cannot project beyond Man's limited observation.
 
The thing is that the big bang theory requires logic and reason to understand and observe it as a fact (expansion of the universe, carbon dating, etc) whereas faith in God requires that you throw reason out the window and just simply believe.

Now I happen to believe in God and live my life as closely to God as I can. I denounce the alleged divinity of Christ, but remain steadfast in my belief in God.

But I also believe in science and see that as the study of God's works. I don't think God appeared and said let the be light and so on. That is just plain silly. But I do believe that God is the big bang and existence emanates from his love.

There is a Hindu myth that all of existence is the supreme being Brahma's dream. It last 7 millennia (I think, or 70 or 700) and then he will awake and all of existence will end. Brahma will return to sleep and his dream will be a recreation of existence and will last another round of millennia before he wakes and this lifetime of the earth is not the first nor the last.

Extrapolate that to your Christian ideal of God as creator and it makes for an interesting contemplation.

The Big Bang does NOT require any more logic nor reason to believe that Creationism. It requires a belief in the infalibility of scientific theory.

The Big Bang's BIGGEST flaw is completely illogical, and defies science itself -- that something was created from nothing. Completely illogical.
 
What makes you think the big bang and creationism may not be one in the same?

What I find most interesting is....

If the Big Bang actually accured as many scientists believe and much evidence supports...

The Creation would of accured exactly how it is decribed in the book of Genesis...

The order of events described in the book of Genesis is the same as the order described by scientists studying the Big bang... Exactly the same!!!!
 
The Big Bang does NOT require any more logic nor reason to believe that Creationism. It requires a belief in the infalibility of scientific theory.

The Big Bang's BIGGEST flaw is completely illogical, and defies science itself -- that something was created from nothing. Completely illogical.

The Big Bang Theory is based on the best scientific evidence available to us currently. That isn't faith. That isn't guesswork. No different from treatment for diseases changing as our knowledge grows.

Creationism requires nothing but faith in the bible. Faith is fine, but it isn't science.

What I will say is if you read A Brief History of Time, there's nothing in there that can't be viewed consistently with the bible. You know, religion and science aren't mutually exclusive. You just have to know which is which.
 
The Big Bang Theory is based on the best scientific evidence available to us currently. That isn't faith. That isn't guesswork. No different from treatment for diseases changing as our knowledge grows.

Creationism requires nothing but faith in the bible. Faith is fine, but it isn't science.

What I will say is if you read A Brief History of Time, there's nothing in there that can't be viewed consistently with the bible. You know, religion and science aren't mutually exclusive. You just have to know which is which.

Yes it is important to know what is science and what is not; but it still remains that without proof, to trust what we read and are told re science requires as much faith as does belief in God. Perhaps science requires even more because you have to trust the scant few who have done the research to be telling you the truth of what they have learned. Faith in God requires nothing more than experience of God and/or reasoned observation and it is not necessary for everybody to have the same experience.

Consider concepts of Creationism in Greek Philosophy via Plato and Aristotle, neither of whom had access to any Biblical manuscripts so far as we know. Some form of creation theology is manifest in all religions that precede the New Testament accounts or canonization of the Old Testament. In Romans 1.20, Paul discussed that the evidence of God is observed by nature for those who have eyes to see; thus there is no excuse for anyone to dismiss God because they can't see him. Even the non-theistic Buddhist faith embraces a concept of creation.

With all the wonders and majesty and marvels and unexplainable symmetry and beauty in our universe, one does not need to bring God into it all all to consider the possibility of some kind of intelligent design guiding some or all of the process.
 
It is NOT an observable fact because it is limited to Man's ability to observe. Here's a theory for ya ...

How about if the portion of the universe within Man's ability to observe is expanding within an overall universe that is actually contracting?

You do not know that is not true because you cannot project beyond Man's limited observation.
I am not sure there is not an alien Disneyland on the dark side of the Moon, but I do know there is no observational evidence for an airless theme park. And there is no evidence for your theory of our expanding Universe actually being a bubble in a contracting Universe. You have heard of "Occam's Razor?" It is the principle that when two or more possible explanations for observation are present, the simplest explanation tends to be correct. And more, the simplest explanation with the most supporting evidence. In our discussion, the simplest theory with the most supporting evidence that explains observation is that we live in a curved four dimensional spacetime that is expanding. Again, we are not talking about just distance between objects. In mathematical physics it is said that the metric of spacetime is expanding. Spacetime is not some absolute thing within which matter resides. Now take a moment with this: it is not that objects move apart in some static fabric of spacetime, rather it is the metric of spacetime itself that changes. It is incorrect to think of the Big Bang (it is a misleading term) as an "explosion." Rather, objects have spacetime expanding between them. There is a special kind of mathematics that describes this called Riemannian Geometry. We say that the expansion of spacetime associated with the Big Bang is intrinsic, whereas the expansion between objects in an explosion is extrinsic. With the expansion of the Universe, it is the metric that defines spacetime that is changing, rather than objects extrinsically moving in space. Consider the three dimensional "raisin bread analogy:" imagine raisins dispersed in unbaked dough. As the dough is heated, it expands and the raisins become farther apart. The expansion between raisins is intrinsic.
 
I am not sure there is not an alien Disneyland on the dark side of the Moon, but I do know there is no observational evidence for an airless theme park. And there is no evidence for your theory of our expanding Universe actually being a bubble in a contracting Universe. You have heard of "Occam's Razor?" It is the principle that when two or more possible explanations for observation are present, the simplest explanation tends to be correct. And more, the simplest explanation with the most supporting evidence. In our discussion, the simplest theory with the most supporting evidence that explains observation is that we live in a curved four dimensional spacetime that is expanding. Again, we are not talking about just distance between objects. In mathematical physics it is said that the metric of spacetime is expanding. Spacetime is not some absolute thing within which matter resides. Now take a moment with this: it is not that objects move apart in some static fabric of spacetime, rather it is the metric of spacetime itself that changes. It is incorrect to think of the Big Bang (it is a misleading term) as an "explosion." Rather, objects have spacetime expanding between them. There is a special kind of mathematics that describes this called Riemannian Geometry. We say that the expansion of spacetime associated with the Big Bang is intrinsic, whereas the expansion between objects in an explosion is extrinsic. With the expansion of the Universe, it is the metric that defines spacetime that is changing, rather than objects extrinsically moving in space. Consider the three dimensional "raisin bread analogy:" imagine raisins dispersed in unbaked dough. As the dough is heated, it expands and the raisins become farther apart. The expansion between raisins is intrinsic.

And we disagree that is the "simple" explanation. You have provided nothing that makes it simple.
 
And we disagree that is the "simple" explanation. You have provided nothing that makes it simple.
Who is we? What is your more simple theory that explains the observation that galaxies are moving apart with a velocity proportional to their distance? And what is the evidence for your more simple theory? Your Nobel Prize for Physics is waiting.
 
Who is we? What is your more simple theory that explains the observation that galaxies are moving apart with a velocity proportional to their distance? And what is the evidence for your more simple theory? Your Nobel Prize for Physics is waiting.

I do not need a theory. Again for the slow, since you have no known center and no known end or edge, you can not prove that the entire Universe is expanding. That is simple logic.

Lets try this another way. A bullet fired from a weapon speeds up as it leaves the weapon and then begins to slow down as it travels x distance. It also may, depending on the weapon rise initially while leaving the barrel and then arch down, or some weapons have a flat trajectory from leaving until gravity brings it down.

Assuming you do NOT know the above , if all you can observe is the projectile during the time it is speeding up, you would not be able to surmise that it will continue to speed up or begin to slow down, but your OBSERVED area would tell you that it is continueing to speed up during the ENTIRE observed period.

Now assuming you have no knowledge on how the medium it is passing through will effect that projectile you could easily surmise it will continue to speed up. In fact you would not be able to tell when it would slow down, if ever.

The "simple" test would tell you it will continue to speed up.

No knowledge of the means the projectile was caused to speed up, no knowledge of how the medium the projectile is passing through will effect the projectile, an observed entire period of the projectile speeding up from start to finish of observation.

Now complicate that with the fact you can not REALLY see the projectile at all, just the effect it's passing has on other objects and the space it is moving through. Again all you observe is something continueing to speed up for the entire observed period. You can not know what exactly the object is, what it is made of, whether it has any internal means to propel itself, how it got going to begin with..... get the idea?
 
I do not need a theory. Again for the slow, since you have no known center and no known end or edge, you can not prove that the entire Universe is expanding. That is simple logic.

Lets try this another way. A bullet fired from a weapon speeds up as it leaves the weapon and then begins to slow down as it travels x distance. It also may, depending on the weapon rise initially while leaving the barrel and then arch down, or some weapons have a flat trajectory from leaving until gravity brings it down.

Assuming you do NOT know the above , if all you can observe is the projectile during the time it is speeding up, you would not be able to surmise that it will continue to speed up or begin to slow down, but your OBSERVED area would tell you that it is continueing to speed up during the ENTIRE observed period.

Now assuming you have no knowledge on how the medium it is passing through will effect that projectile you could easily surmise it will continue to speed up. In fact you would not be able to tell when it would slow down, if ever.

The "simple" test would tell you it will continue to speed up.

No knowledge of the means the projectile was caused to speed up, no knowledge of how the medium the projectile is passing through will effect the projectile, an observed entire period of the projectile speeding up from start to finish of observation.

Now complicate that with the fact you can not REALLY see the projectile at all, just the effect it's passing has on other objects and the space it is moving through. Again all you observe is something continueing to speed up for the entire observed period. You can not know what exactly the object is, what it is made of, whether it has any internal means to propel itself, how it got going to begin with..... get the idea?
For the slow? Was there some reason for that other than your nasty personality? What does a three dimensional bullet discussion have to do with the curvature and expansion of spacetime? Did you not understand that even an expanding two dimensional plane, such as the surface of a balloon, has no center? The idea that the Universe must have a center is not simple logic; it is false. Stop thinking of the Universe as a thing with a three dimensional shape that resides within something else and therefore has an edge. Spacetime itself is expanding, it is not that galaxies are flying apart as the result of some explosion. Again, the Big Bang does not refer to an explosion where parts of an object kinetically fly away from each other. Spacetime between objects is expanding like the dough in raisin bread (though that is an imperfect analogy). And further, the rate of that expansion is increasing. You do not need a theory? I think we'll have to put your Nobel Prize earnings in escrow. No I do not "get the idea." Your remarks above make no sense in the context of the discussion of the expanding universe. This collection of phrases, by the way, is incomprehensible: "No knowledge of the means the projectile was caused to speed up, no knowledge of how the medium the projectile is passing through will effect the projectile, an observed entire period of the projectile speeding up from start to finish of observation." What does this have to do with the expansion of curved four dimensional spacetime? If you want to discuss Newtonian physics, then we can start a history of science thread.
 
Babble on. You have no evidence and play your little games. Must be nice.

Translation: My arse was whipped so I'll make some non-sequential post making out I am dismissing the previous post and people will fall for my babble.

WELL DONE RSG! Now run along with your tail between your legs while the adults play! Or, answer the post in the same manner or else we'll think you didn't understand it and therefore made the above statement with tongue planted firmly in cheek, in which case, all is forgiven! :cool: :cool: :cool:
 
The Big Bang does NOT require any more logic nor reason to believe that Creationism. It requires a belief in the infalibility of scientific theory.

The Big Bang's BIGGEST flaw is completely illogical, and defies science itself -- that something was created from nothing. Completely illogical.

To help you understand, try reading Steven Hawkings' books, he has a great way of breaking it down.
 

Forum List

Back
Top