Einstein and the 'Big Bang'

[PoliticalChic]

1. While the Bible addresses the creation of the world, cosmology is the branch of science that attempts the same endeavor, using the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics.

It is interesting to consider how the two attempts differ, and, how they are similar.





2. Modern theoretical physics begin in 1905, with Einstein's groundbreaking declarations about time, distance, and speed, and, his special theory of relativity. From this, we learned that not only is time not constant, but that time and space 'bend,' contract or expand, around the universal constant, the speed of light.

a. The speed of light is a constant because nothing goes faster; if you could approach the speed of light, your mass would increase, and time slows down.

b. Einstein's famous equation, E equals mc(squared) explains how mass and energy are related.





3. The idea is put to use at the CERN labs, in Geneva, in the Large Hadron Collider, the world's largest and most powerful particle accelerator. The Large Hadron Collider | CERN

a. The idea behind it is that if a particle is highly accelerated, its mass becomes very large, and crashing such particles together generates huge amounts of energy....and this energy can change into new particles never seen before.

4. One such 'new particle' is theorized to be the famous 'God particle,' the Higgs boson.

According to the theory, this particle was present just after the Big Bang and accorded mass to itself and other particles. Only the photon remained massless.





5. OK....consider this: the value of the Large Hadron Collider is that it is supposed to provide a peek into what happened at the Big Bang.
If so, it has to create something out of nothing. Does it?

a. No. It doesn't.

The understanding of the Big Bang is that there was nothing before it....not even time!

To be significant, a comparable experiment must create something from nothing.
Look, alchemists said they could make gold out of something else....
...how laughable would it be if they 'invented'm a gold-making machine into which one needed to put gold first???




6. Take a closer look at the Large Hadron Collider.....

Energy is used to accelerate the protons, energy provided by strong electrical fields and intense magnetism....the process uses enough energy to power an entire city.

The theory of the creation of the universe, the Big Bang, does not include the previous existence of a similar reservoir of energy.
To put it another way, this is a magicians trick of pulling a rabbit from a hat.....after the magician first hid the rabbit in there!




7. In truth, the process demonstrates not the creation of the universe, but a basic principle of physics called the law of conservation of energy.

"Nothing here comes out of nothing."
Amir Aczel, "Why Science Does Not Disprove God," chapter five.



So, to believe the hype, one must rename "God" as 'science.'

Of course, by simply renaming the 'creator' of the universe, folks could have saved all the money spent on the collider.




The lesson here is that the real force behind so very may theories...is money.

....and gullibility.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. Back to Einstein...
....once he had acceptance of his general theory of relativity, he had to consider how to include gravity, Newton's presentation. ".... Einstein introduced his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905 and his General Theory of Relativity in 1915.



The first showed that Newton's Three Laws of Motion were only approximately correct, breaking down when velocities approached that of light. The second showed that Newton's Law of Gravitation was also only approximately correct, breaking down when gravitation becomes very strong.




Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is valid for systems that are not accelerating. Since from Newton's second law an acceleration implies a force, special relativity is valid only when no forces act. Thus, it cannot be used generally when there is a gravitational field present."
Gravitation and the General Theory of Relativity




All this time, Einstein's view was that the universe always was an always would be as is....'static and stable.'

He was having none of this 'Big Bang.'

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Your perception of science and its purpose is bizarre to me. It seems to me you think science is a thing that should be titled captial "S" Science as if it were an institution or organization or sect instead of lower case "s" science as though it were a tool like a telescope or microscope which is closer to what science really is. You seem to resent science because it costs money and as though its gains are either without real purpose or its focus is to undermine your belief system. I think this may skew how you understand what science means, what it does in principle and what it does in practical terms.

Science simply attempts to accurately translate a descrition of reality into language. That is its principle purpose.

Science can be "used" to make beneficial technologies, bring greater understanding of how things work, cure disease, entertain, or destroy the world in nuclear fire or some other disaster, etc.

The Hadron Collider is used to test theories, make discoveries (including new technologies that were developed in building it), and increase understanding of reality.

By the way, it is not "the understanding" that the Big Bang Theory means that everything came from nothing. That is your understanding of it, but that only demonstrates your lack of education in this field. The Big Bang Theory postulates that everything came from a singularity. Where that singularity came from no one knows.

Thread fail.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your perception of science and its purpose is bizarre to me. It seems to me you think science is a thing that should be titled captial "S" Science as if it were an institution or organization or sect instead of lower case "s" science as though it were a tool like a telescope or microscope which is closer to what science really is. You seem to resent science because it costs money and as though its gains are either without real purpose or its focus is to undermine your belief system. I think this may skew how you understand what science means, what it does in principle and what it does in practical terms.

Science simply attempts to accurately translate a descrition of reality into language. That is its principle purpose.

Science can be "used" to make beneficial technologies, bring greater understanding of how things work, cure disease, entertain, or destroy the world in nuclear fire or some other disaster, etc.

The Hadron Collider is used to test theories, make discoveries (including new technologies that were developed in building it), and increase understanding of reality.

By the way, it is not "the understanding" that the Big Bang Theory means that everything came from nothing. That is your understanding of it, but that only demonstrates your lack of education in this field. The Big Bang Theory postulates that everything came from a singularity. Where that singularity came from no one knows.

Thread fail.

1."Science simply attempts to accurately translate a descrition of reality into language. That is its principle purpose."
No it doesn't.

You'd have to be blind, deaf, and dumb not to catch on to the Global Warming scam, and the lies that it is based on.



a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

b. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/] and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007:

“…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.



 So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.


Wise up.




2."By the way, it is not "the understanding" that the Big Bang Theory means that everything came from nothing. That is your understanding of it, but that only demonstrates your lack of education in this field. The Big Bang Theory postulates that everything came from a singularity. Where that singularity came from no one knows."


You're a moron.
I mean that in the kindest way.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Know who Vilenkin is?


Turns out I guessed right: you are a moron.




"A universe with a beginning begs the vexing question: Just how did it begin? Vilenkin’s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be, but it’s still the best solution he’s heard so far: Maybe our fantastic, glorious universe spontaneously arose from nothing at all. This heretical statement clashes with common sense, which admittedly fails us when talking about the birth of the universe, an event thought to occur at unfathomably high energies. It also flies in the face of the Roman philosopher Lucretius, who argued more than 2,000 years ago that “nothing can be created from nothing.”

“Therefore, creating a closed universe out of nothing does not violate any conservation laws.”

Vilenkin’s calculations show that a universe created from nothing is likely to be tiny, indeed — far, far smaller than, say, a proton. Should this minute realm contain just a smattering of repulsive-gravity material, that’s enough to ensure it will ignite the unstoppable process of eternal inflation, leading to the universe we inhabit today. If the theory holds, we owe our existence to the humblest of origins: nothing itself."
What Came Before the Big Bang? | DiscoverMagazine.com

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Know who Vilenkin is?


Turns out I guessed right: you are a moron.




"A universe with a beginning begs the vexing question: Just how did it begin? Vilenkin’s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be, but it’s still the best solution he’s heard so far: Maybe our fantastic, glorious universe spontaneously arose from nothing at all. This heretical statement clashes with common sense, which admittedly fails us when talking about the birth of the universe, an event thought to occur at unfathomably high energies. It also flies in the face of the Roman philosopher Lucretius, who argued more than 2,000 years ago that “nothing can be created from nothing.”

“Therefore, creating a closed universe out of nothing does not violate any conservation laws.”

Vilenkin’s calculations show that a universe created from nothing is likely to be tiny, indeed — far, far smaller than, say, a proton. Should this minute realm contain just a smattering of repulsive-gravity material, that’s enough to ensure it will ignite the unstoppable process of eternal inflation, leading to the universe we inhabit today. If the theory holds, we owe our existence to the humblest of origins: nothing itself."
What Came Before the Big Bang? | DiscoverMagazine.com

Valenkin, oft quoted out of context by William Lane Craig, has done some speculative math about a universe from nothing but his speculations are not an accepted part of The Big Bang Theory which postulates a universe from a singularity. Nice try. Everything you typed above does nothing to support your position which is in error about this particular theory. As the article implies above: no one knows what came before the singularity.

You are not a moron, in fact, and I can see that you are intelligent. Its just that your defensive emotional response to scientific inquiries which may undermine your values blinds or skews how you perceive science.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Your perception of science and its purpose is bizarre to me. It seems to me you think science is a thing that should be titled captial "S" Science as if it were an institution or organization or sect instead of lower case "s" science as though it were a tool like a telescope or microscope which is closer to what science really is. You seem to resent science because it costs money and as though its gains are either without real purpose or its focus is to undermine your belief system. I think this may skew how you understand what science means, what it does in principle and what it does in practical terms.

Science simply attempts to accurately translate a descrition of reality into language. That is its principle purpose.

Science can be "used" to make beneficial technologies, bring greater understanding of how things work, cure disease, entertain, or destroy the world in nuclear fire or some other disaster, etc.

The Hadron Collider is used to test theories, make discoveries (including new technologies that were developed in building it), and increase understanding of reality.

By the way, it is not "the understanding" that the Big Bang Theory means that everything came from nothing. That is your understanding of it, but that only demonstrates your lack of education in this field. The Big Bang Theory postulates that everything came from a singularity. Where that singularity came from no one knows.

Thread fail.

1."Science simply attempts to accurately translate a descrition of reality into language. That is its principle purpose."
No it doesn't.

You'd have to be blind, deaf, and dumb not to catch on to the Global Warming scam, and the lies that it is based on.



a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

b. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), []Mike Hulme and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007:

“…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.



 So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.


Wise up.




2."By the way, it is not "the understanding" that the Big Bang Theory means that everything came from nothing. That is your understanding of it, but that only demonstrates your lack of education in this field. The Big Bang Theory postulates that everything came from a singularity. Where that singularity came from no one knows."


You're a moron.
I mean that in the kindest way.

Your global warming science conspiracy theory is just that: a conspiracy theory and not in the scientific meaning of the word theory.

What all that has to do with the principle purpose of science is irrelevant and, frankly, just goes to show that you have some sort negative feelings about science and its practitioners.

Science is a tool with which humans can attempt to translate a description of reality into language, either spoken or mathematical. That tool can be used for other "practical" purposes but that is not the "principle" purpose of science.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Know who Vilenkin is?


Turns out I guessed right: you are a moron.




"A universe with a beginning begs the vexing question: Just how did it begin? Vilenkin’s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be, but it’s still the best solution he’s heard so far: Maybe our fantastic, glorious universe spontaneously arose from nothing at all. This heretical statement clashes with common sense, which admittedly fails us when talking about the birth of the universe, an event thought to occur at unfathomably high energies. It also flies in the face of the Roman philosopher Lucretius, who argued more than 2,000 years ago that “nothing can be created from nothing.”

“Therefore, creating a closed universe out of nothing does not violate any conservation laws.”

Vilenkin’s calculations show that a universe created from nothing is likely to be tiny, indeed — far, far smaller than, say, a proton. Should this minute realm contain just a smattering of repulsive-gravity material, that’s enough to ensure it will ignite the unstoppable process of eternal inflation, leading to the universe we inhabit today. If the theory holds, we owe our existence to the humblest of origins: nothing itself."
What Came Before the Big Bang? | DiscoverMagazine.com

Valenkin, oft quoted out of context by William Lane Craig, has done some speculative math about a universe from nothing but his speculations are not an accepted part of The Big Bang Theory which postulates a universe from a singularity. Nice try. Everything you typed above does nothing to support your position which is in error about this particular theory. As the article implies above: no one knows what came before the singularity.

You are not a moron, in fact, and I can see that you are intelligent. Its just that your defensive emotional response to scientific inquiries which may undermine your values blinds or skews how you perceive science.

1."... your defensive emotional response to scientific inquiries..."

What nonsense.

I know far more science then you do, as I just proved re: "nothing" prior to the Big Bang.


2. You are mind-numbed enough not to catch on to the fact that certain words are used to hide facts such as the ones I've presented in this thread.
One such word is "singularity."

It means "I just don't know."


To review:

The current view of science is that something, the universe, came from nothing.

To support that, 'scientists' make up all sorts of pretenses that fools accept....

Raise your paw.



Do you accept that none of the laws of physics were in existence prior to that big bang?

Or that there are other universes where the exact opposite of said laws prevail?

Really....

...when will you think for yourself?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your perception of science and its purpose is bizarre to me. It seems to me you think science is a thing that should be titled captial "S" Science as if it were an institution or organization or sect instead of lower case "s" science as though it were a tool like a telescope or microscope which is closer to what science really is. You seem to resent science because it costs money and as though its gains are either without real purpose or its focus is to undermine your belief system. I think this may skew how you understand what science means, what it does in principle and what it does in practical terms.

Science simply attempts to accurately translate a descrition of reality into language. That is its principle purpose.

Science can be "used" to make beneficial technologies, bring greater understanding of how things work, cure disease, entertain, or destroy the world in nuclear fire or some other disaster, etc.

The Hadron Collider is used to test theories, make discoveries (including new technologies that were developed in building it), and increase understanding of reality.

By the way, it is not "the understanding" that the Big Bang Theory means that everything came from nothing. That is your understanding of it, but that only demonstrates your lack of education in this field. The Big Bang Theory postulates that everything came from a singularity. Where that singularity came from no one knows.

Thread fail.

1."Science simply attempts to accurately translate a descrition of reality into language. That is its principle purpose."
No it doesn't.

You'd have to be blind, deaf, and dumb not to catch on to the Global Warming scam, and the lies that it is based on.



a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

b. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), []Mike Hulme and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007:

“…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.



 So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.


Wise up.




2."By the way, it is not "the understanding" that the Big Bang Theory means that everything came from nothing. That is your understanding of it, but that only demonstrates your lack of education in this field. The Big Bang Theory postulates that everything came from a singularity. Where that singularity came from no one knows."


You're a moron.
I mean that in the kindest way.

Your global warming science conspiracy theory is just that: a conspiracy theory and not in the scientific meaning of the word theory.

What all that has to do with the principle purpose of science is irrelevant and, frankly, just goes to show that you have some sort negative feelings about science and its practitioners.

Science is a tool with which humans can attempt to translate a description of reality into language, either spoken or mathematical. That tool can be used for other "practical" purposes but that is not the "principle" purpose of science.

"Your global warming science conspiracy theory is just that: a conspiracy theory and not in the scientific meaning of the word theory."

You are truly blind.


I provided the testimony of a "global warming scientist"...syncretic as that terminology is.

He himself said that there is no truth to it.

And that no experimentation would prove it.


Have someone who speaks English read the article to you.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Ok, PoliticalChic, I thought we could discuss this but apparently not. You may know more than I do in many ways, including some fields of scientific study - even cosmogy, but you don't know more than I do about the Big Bang Theory. The singularity is something we don't really know anything about, you're right. But, that doesn't mean that the Big Bang Theory postulates a universe from nothing, it means that The Big Bang Theory postulates a theory about a universe from a singularity about which we know very little and befor le that...WE DON'T KNOW. No one does.

I don't accept anything about what came before the Big Bang because no one knows what came before the Big Bang. Perhaps it was a creator, perhaps it was nothing, and anything in between.

What have you got against science and, as you put it above, "scientists"? Is it only real science when the scientists believe Jesus and the God of Abraham are the answers for all the questions?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Oh, forget this. What a waste of time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ok, PoliticalChic, I thought we could discuss this but apparently not. You may know more than I do in many ways, including some fields of scientific study - even cosmogy, but you don't know more than I do about the Big Bang Theory. The singularity is something we don't really know anything about, you're right. But, that doesn't mean that the Big Bang Theory postulates a universe from nothing, it means that The Big Bang Theory postulates a theory about a universe from a singularity about which we know very little and befor le that...WE DON'T KNOW. No one does.

I don't accept anything about what came before the Big Bang because no one knows what came before the Big Bang. Perhaps it was a creator, perhaps it was nothing, and anything in between.

What have you got against science and, as you put it above, "scientists"? Is it only real science when the scientists believe Jesus and the God of Abraham are the answers for all the questions?

"What have you got against science and, as you put it above, "scientists"?


I am for science.

I am opposed to fraud.....especially when it is used for a political purpose.
And that is exactly what is admitted in the post from East Anglia.



And....this statement of Reagan's applies to you:

"It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

Case in point: "...that doesn't mean that the Big Bang Theory postulates a universe from nothing,..."
That's exactly what it means.



If it didn't, you'd require another theory to postulate where the 'something' came from.

Your mind has been poisoned to such an extent that you don't even realize the obvious.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. Not done yet, Einstein wanted a model to explain the entire universe!
By 1917, he had devised a cosmological model based on what was known at the time by astronomers.

"[A cosmological constant was] the value of the energy density of the vacuum of space. It was originally introduced by Albert Einstein in 1917 as an addition to his theory of general relativity to "hold back gravity" and achieve a static universe, which was the accepted view at the time."
Cosmological constant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




At that time, Einstein had a view of a universe that was constant and static.

10. What changed is view?

The "red shift," and the idea of the Big Bang. Light is based on the electromagnetic field. It is due to the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits. Each atom has a unique spectral signature, a distinctive electromagnetic frequency. Therefore the light that comes to us from space reveals the composition of distant galaxies. It was found that the frequency of the hydrogen atoms of these galaxies was shifted to the red part of the spectrum.

In 1912, Vesto Slipher was the first to observe the shift of spectral lines of galaxies, making him the discoverer of galactic redshifts…. Edwin Hubble was generally incorrectly credited with discovering the redshift of galaxies.


a. Why?

For the same reason that the pitch of a police siren is changed as the police car disappears down the street: the Doppler Effect, the waves carrying the sound is stretched by the speeding car. That is why the red shift indicates that the galaxy in question is receding! The universe is expanding. Thus, the reasoning behind the Big Bang.
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion," ch.4



b. Get it? All the lines converge into…..the beginning! This presents a problem if one is tempted to believe in a universe with no beginning and no ending.
The Big Bang, therefore, suggests a universe that is finite in time. There was no time before the Big Bang.
Was there a time before the big bang? - Curiosity


Einstein got it.
"...when Einstein began to apply his theory to the structure of the universe, he was dismayed to find that it predicted either an expanding or contracting universe--something entirely incompatible with the prevailing notion of a static universe. In what he would later call "the greatest blunder of my life," ..."
Expanding Universe

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In particular, the Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe."

"While large particle accelerators can replicate such conditions, resulting in confirmation and refinement of the details of the Big Bang model, these accelerators can only probe so far into high energy regimes. Consequently, the state of the universe in the earliest instants of the Big Bang expansion is poorly understood and still an area of open investigation. The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the universe; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on."

"The framework for the Big Bang model relies on Albert Einstein's general relativity and on simplifying assumptions such as homogeneity and isotropy of space. The governing equations were first formulated by Alexander Friedmann and similar solutions were worked on by Willem de Sitter. In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to far away galaxies were strongly correlated with their redshifts. Hubble's observation was taken to indicate that all distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity, regardless of direction.[7] Assuming that we are not at the center of a giant explosion, the only remaining interpretation is that all observable regions of the universe are receding from each other."

Thread fail.

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. In the Sixties, Hawking and Penrose joined in constructing ‘singularity theorems’. These seemed to show that everything now visible to us must have originated from a single point, or from something much like one: some ‘singularity’ where gravitationally induced curvature was indefinitely high, and at which particle histories had their first moments.
John Leslie reviews ?The Nature of Space and Time? by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose · LRB 1 August 1996



a. There is an 'uh, oh' here: Many scientists are atheists....and the Big Bang tends to be a little painful for atheists.

"The idea that the big bang theory allows us to infer that the universe began to exist about 15 billion years ago has attracted the attention of many theists. This theory seemed to confirm or at least lend support to the theological doctrine of creation ex nihilo." Atheism, Theism and Big Bang Cosmology

Ex nihilo is a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing."
Ex nihilo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




12. "Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation [steady state] or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory."
Isham, C. 1988. "Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process," in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology, A Common Quest for Understanding, eds. R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, and G. V. Coyne, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, p. 378. Christopher Isham is a theoretical physicist at Imperial College London.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Please post a scientific paper which claims that The Big Bang Theory postulates a universe from nothing.

Big Bang theory

"The Question

(Submitted November 08, 1997)
What is the big bang theory? What do you believe?

The Answer

The big bang theory is the theory that the universe started from a single point, and has been expanding ever since.
This has been well-established by observations, such as the apparent movement of galaxies away from us, and the cosmic microwave background radiation believed to be the leftover light from the big bang.

The evidence for a big bang having taken place about 15 to 20 billion years ago is overwhelming, so I naturally believe that it is the case.

However, if your real question is "why did the big bang happen in the first place?" then that ceases to be an astronomical question, but a religious one.

Some astronomers, who are religious, argue that the big bang theory confirms the existence of God and the basic elements of the creation story as told in the Bible. First came light, then the heavens, then the Earth ...

However, many other scientists do not. Scientists, like people in most any profession, have a vast diversity of religious beliefs. Some of us attend houses of worship, others do not. Some of us consider ourselves very religious, others consider ourselves staunch atheists. Just because we study astronomy does not mean we have any more agreement as to the ``why'' questions than anyone else.

On the other hand, it is safe to say that as scientists we can agree on an approach to learning about nature and the universe. This approach is one of using observations to test theories. And when a theory has been tested as much as the big bang theory, with each test reconfirming its validity, then we believe that it likely true -- at least more true than those theories which have failed the observational tests.

Good luck on your quest for the truth.

Jonathan Keohane
for Ask an Astrophysicist"

 

[PoliticalChic]

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In particular, the Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe."

"While large particle accelerators can replicate such conditions, resulting in confirmation and refinement of the details of the Big Bang model, these accelerators can only probe so far into high energy regimes. Consequently, the state of the universe in the earliest instants of the Big Bang expansion is poorly understood and still an area of open investigation. The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the universe; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on."

"The framework for the Big Bang model relies on Albert Einstein's general relativity and on simplifying assumptions such as homogeneity and isotropy of space. The governing equations were first formulated by Alexander Friedmann and similar solutions were worked on by Willem de Sitter. In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to far away galaxies were strongly correlated with their redshifts. Hubble's observation was taken to indicate that all distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity, regardless of direction.[7] Assuming that we are not at the center of a giant explosion, the only remaining interpretation is that all observable regions of the universe are receding from each other."

Thread fail.

Actually, you fail.


You haven't provided anything that runs counter to what I've posted.


You evince the kind of fear of the truth that one shows when they simply mouth word salads that they don't understand.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

The Steady State model was abandoned in the 1960s.

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"While the scientific community was once divided between supporters of two different expanding universe theories—the Big Bang and the Steady State theory,[8] observational confirmation of the Big Bang scenario came with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and later when its spectrum (i.e., the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength) was found to match that of thermal radiation from a black body. Since then, astrophysicists have incorporated observational and theoretical additions into the Big Bang model, and its parametrization as the Lambda-CDM model serves as the framework for current investigations of theoretical cosmology."

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In particular, the Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe."

"While large particle accelerators can replicate such conditions, resulting in confirmation and refinement of the details of the Big Bang model, these accelerators can only probe so far into high energy regimes. Consequently, the state of the universe in the earliest instants of the Big Bang expansion is poorly understood and still an area of open investigation. The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the universe; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on."

"The framework for the Big Bang model relies on Albert Einstein's general relativity and on simplifying assumptions such as homogeneity and isotropy of space. The governing equations were first formulated by Alexander Friedmann and similar solutions were worked on by Willem de Sitter. In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to far away galaxies were strongly correlated with their redshifts. Hubble's observation was taken to indicate that all distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity, regardless of direction.[7] Assuming that we are not at the center of a giant explosion, the only remaining interpretation is that all observable regions of the universe are receding from each other."

Thread fail.

Actually, you fail.


You haven't provided anything that runs counter to what I've posted.


You evince the kind of fear of the truth that one shows when they simply mouth word salads that they don't understand.

I have posted that The Big Bang Theory postulates a universe from a singularity. You have posted that The Big Bang Theory postulates a universe created from nothing. My posts support my position. Your posts do not support yours.

Therefore, thread fail. Thanks for the unnecessary insults. Your anger is only hurting you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In particular, the Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe."

"While large particle accelerators can replicate such conditions, resulting in confirmation and refinement of the details of the Big Bang model, these accelerators can only probe so far into high energy regimes. Consequently, the state of the universe in the earliest instants of the Big Bang expansion is poorly understood and still an area of open investigation. The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the universe; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on."

"The framework for the Big Bang model relies on Albert Einstein's general relativity and on simplifying assumptions such as homogeneity and isotropy of space. The governing equations were first formulated by Alexander Friedmann and similar solutions were worked on by Willem de Sitter. In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to far away galaxies were strongly correlated with their redshifts. Hubble's observation was taken to indicate that all distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity, regardless of direction.[7] Assuming that we are not at the center of a giant explosion, the only remaining interpretation is that all observable regions of the universe are receding from each other."

Thread fail.

Actually, you fail.


You haven't provided anything that runs counter to what I've posted.


You evince the kind of fear of the truth that one shows when they simply mouth word salads that they don't understand.

I have posted that The Big Bang Theory postulates a universe from a singularity. You have posted that The Big Bang Theory postulates a universe created from nothing. My posts support my position. Your posts do not support yours.

Therefore, thread fail. Your anger is only hurting you.

1. "Your anger is only hurting you."
Stupidity does make me angry.



2. "I have posted that The Big Bang Theory postulates a universe from a singularity. You have posted that The Big Bang Theory postulates a universe created from nothing."

Let's see who you are disputing:

Alexander Vilenkin (Russian: Алекса́ндр Виле́нкин; 13 May 1949, Kharkiv,[1] Ukraine, Soviet Union) is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from a quantum vacuum.
Alexander Vilenkin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you read earlier.....Vilenkin said the the Big Bang posits something....the universe....from nothing.


a. "CREATION OF UNIVERSES FROM NOTHING
Alexander VILENKIN
Physics Department, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155, USA
http://mukto-mona.net/science/physics/a_vilinkin/universe_from_nothing.pdf

So....you fail.


b. If there was 'something' from which the occurred.....where did it come from?

Seems you failed logic, as well.





3. "I have posted that The Big Bang Theory postulates a universe from a singularity."
You pretend to understand the term 'singularity.'

You don't.

It means a peculiarity....something we haven't seen before....in this case, something from nothing.



4. "Thanks for the unnecessary insults."
Nothing there was unearned.