Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 4/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where Did Big Bang Energy Come From?
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5250 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 61 of 84 (212761)
05-31-2005 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Philip
05-30-2005 12:05 PM


Re: Time and light constraints
Philip writes:
The classic relativity example: If you were stationed here with me and if I decided to take a walk up the street (peradventure walking at nearly light-speed) then return back to you, you would have aged a bit faster, from my perspective. I would appear less aged than you, from your perspective
Actually, no. In this case, the one who went for the walk would have aged more slowly, from both perspectives.
The fact that you turned around and came back means that you were not in an inertial frame over the journey, and so you can't just multiply by a dilation factor. The problem is still solvable, using special relativity (which can handle accelerated frames, contrary to popular belief!) or general relativity (which is overkill in this case, but it works). Either case gives the same answer, from all perspectives. The one who went to the shop aged less that the one who waited by the corner. The effect is measurable and has been confirmed with experiments (using aircraft; not walking pace!).
Now (any lurker help), hypothetically, the big bang energy had to be enormous enough to initially expand the universe at nearly the speed of light. Notwithstanding, all universe-objects approach nearly INFINITE MASS during a big-bang gamma-event. E=mCC
Not really. The notion of "relativistic mass" tends not to be used all that much these days. You can calculate an equivalent mass for a lot of energy, but it is a bit misleading as it does not have all the same properties as "rest mass", especially with respect to gravity. Modern texts and courses tend to reserve the word "mass" for "rest mass", and just use a total energy term for an object in motion, combining rest energy due to mass with kinetic energy due to motion.
It turns out to be really hard to give a sensible meaning to "total energy" for the universe or the big bang. Energy is a property of something in a particular inertial frame, and there is no inertial frame for the whole universe. Similarly, the universe is not a thing that moves, so it does not have a velocity in the usual sense of the word. The expansion "speed" is actually given not as a distance per unit time, but scale factor per unit time. Even at the current rate of expansion (a leisurely 72 km/sec/Mparsec), most of the universe is receding from us faster than light. Sounds confusing; but once you get your head around space-expansion as opposed to movement in space, it all fits together very neatly. Many of the galaxies we can see right now (with the Hubble telescope that is!) are receding faster than light. We've had some threads that explain why we can still see things even if they recede faster than light.
Bottom line: the expansion of the universe does not involve movement of things through space, and so you can't really speak of objects moving at high velocity or having a high relativistic mass. We rather say that the space between objects was expanding very rapidly; this does not have a well defined energy equivalent.
What kind of enormous and excellent (non-chaotic) energy existed to do that big bang? Atomic and sub-atomic energies are pathetically puny and chaotic, here!
This is a good question, and the short answer is that we don't know. But the early universe may have been extremely "chaotic"; and a major model (which cannot be easily confirmed or rejected with observations at present) is called chaotic inflation (proposed by Andrei Linde, at Standford Uni). One consequence of inflation is that the effects of chaos get smoothed out over large scales, giving the homogenous universe we see now. Also, one of the strange problems in modern physics is that the predicted scales of energy for the vacuum are enormous; around 10^120 times larger than what seems to be observed. That is a 1 followed by 120 zeros! Roughly speaking, there may be an enormous reservoir of energy bound up in space itself, which is continually cancelling itself out with enormous precision. But honestly, we just don't know. Particle physics is not yet able to unify all the relevant forces.
Why the distant light-trails of outlying stars presently manifest NO GRAVITATIONAL SPACE-TIME CURVATURE, telescopically (to the best of my knowledge). The universe appears infinite, thus.
Gravitational space-time curvature has been directly observed now in many contexts. The curvature around the Sun's gravitational field has a measurable effect on light; the time dilation of the Earth's puny gravitational field is measurable; and so on. Recently, there is been a lot of work with gravitational lenses, where curvature of space around distant galaxies can focus light and magnify objects further in the background. Additionally, one very curious consequence of the expansion of space is that extremely distant objects are seen as they were when the scale of the universe was much smaller, and so they take up proportionally more room. This means, in total conflict with normal expectation, that beyond a certain point (the point with redshift is about z = 1.2), things that are further away actually appear larger in the sky. This is hard to test, since we need to observe things with a known size to measure it accurately, and we can't easily tell absolute sizes at that range. But the effect is so dramatic that the consequences can be observed.
None of this is sufficient to tell whether the universe is finite or infinite. That depends on the curvature parameter. This is very very close to zero. If zero or positive, then the universe is infinite. If negative, then the universe is finite. (Assuming homogeneity continues to hold beyond the visible horizons.) But recent measurements are indicating a slight preference for negative curvature, and hence a finite universe.
Also, this universe cannot effectively survive more than a few billion years (e.g., 20 billion years? 30 billion years?). This, methinks, is because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the short lives of elements, or something.
The age of the universe seems to be pretty close to 13.7 billion years; but this is not a consequence of thermodynamics. Elements last far longer than this in principle, and thermodynamics is likewise consistent with much older ages. The real constraint is simply the expansion rate and how it develops over time.
Am I correct to conclude and theorize?:
1) The enormous nature of the big-bang energy seems supernatural, originating from a fully omnipotent power, that is, EX-NIHILO, from God?
2) The very excellent (non-chaotic) nature of the big-bang energy suggests that the big-bang energy originated (somehow) from an infinitely beneficent redeeming ID, that is, from God’s Christ?
My view is no, these are unrelated questions. God's goodness and redemption and creative power is consistent with His being able to develop a universe in any way He chooses. The various alternative models for physical cosmology don't stand as evidence for, or against, God; since God is capable of creating and sustaining the universe as He chooses.
There are definitely many unanswered questions in science; but God is not really a useful solution to those questions, since God is equally an answer to any question. Christians believe God is Lord of All, whether we understand how its physical workings or not. Scientists, both believers and unbelievers, will continue to explore the physical processes and history of the universe, and continue to find and agree upon the answers to scientific questions, even while they continue to disagree on theological matters.
The unanswered issues of cosmological parameters (inflation, curvature, dark energy, etc, etc) will not be found in a theological text; and as answers continue to be found those answers are not generally in conflict with a theological text... unless one has a theology already inconsistent with what we know right now.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Philip, posted 05-30-2005 12:05 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Philip, posted 05-31-2005 5:34 PM Sylas has replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4713 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 62 of 84 (212892)
05-31-2005 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Sylas
05-31-2005 12:39 AM


Re: Time and light constraints
Sylas, I much appreciate your extensive time, thought, and penetrating remarks, even your "curious" wisdom, and your excellent grammar. But many arbitrary questions arise, like:
Do you refute infinite mass for objects moving at C? The equation is E=mCC.
Do you or don’t you perceive the universe expanding from a central core?
You state: there is no inertial frame for the whole universe, yet the universe as finite.
Can anything really move faster than C, regardless of inertial relations?
DON’T ANSWER THE ABOVE (they are way off topic)!
It appears (to me), Sylas, that your last (conclusive) remarks must be adamantly refuted as dishonest. I did ask: Am I correct to conclude and theorize?
1) The enormous nature of the big-bang energy seems supernatural, originating from a fully omnipotent power, that is, EX-NIHILO, from God?
2) The very excellent (non-chaotic) nature of the big-bang energy suggests that the big-bang energy originated (somehow) from an infinitely beneficent redeeming ID, that is, from God’s Christ?
Your view is "no these are unrelated questions ". Thus, it seems to me you just hand-waved out solid scientific evidences of:
(1) Apparently omnipotent power being necessary to expand the universe at the speed of light with objects of infinite mass due to E=mCC
and
(2) "Non-chaotic" (redemptive) ID of that big-bang energy (whether pre-existent or evolving)
You provided powerful grammatical scientific jargon and anti-bigoted-yet-arbitrary theological opinions. Why evade the cosmic Excellencies anyway with such jargon? That’s cold and insulting logic, to me.
Sylas, how can you so proudly refute these evidences? Do you really even want to scientifically speculate that a non-chaotic big bang energy (pre-existent and/or evolving) is, somehow, non-beneficent or non-redemptive in nature?
I must dogmatically hypothesize (or theorize): Science clearly proves redemptive deity (Christ), here, based on the data (even your own excellent meandering data)
Please focus more on my last words ((1) and (2)) without professing wisdom, here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Sylas, posted 05-31-2005 12:39 AM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Sylas, posted 05-31-2005 9:42 PM Philip has replied
 Message 64 by Vash, posted 06-03-2005 11:10 AM Philip has replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5250 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 63 of 84 (212935)
05-31-2005 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Philip
05-31-2005 5:34 PM


Re: Time and light constraints
Do you refute infinite mass for objects moving at C? The equation is E=mCC
Yes. Objects with a non-zero rest mass cannot move at C. However, as their velocity approaches C, the energy increases without bound. I don't tend to use relativistic mass, but you can define a relativistic mass using E = mCC; and relativistic mass also increases without bound for a particle that approaches velocity C.
Massless particles like photons travel at C with no problem. A photon with wavelength L has energy hC/L, where h is Planck's constant, and this is the same energy as a particle at rest with mass h/LC. But we don't speak of a photon having mass.
Do you or don’t you perceive the universe expanding from a central core?
I do not. I use the conventional Big Bang cosmology, in which space is homogenous with no central core, but is expanding from a state of divergent energy density which in the limit is a singularity. This singularity is not a "center", and the expansion of space in the Big Bang model has no defined "center".
You state: there is no inertial frame for the whole universe, yet the universe as finite.
Yes. Empirical support for finiteness of the universe is so far not all that strong; so it's still an open question in science. I prefer it for meta-physical reasons, but that is just me; not science. On the other hand, there is definitely no inertial frame for the universe. This is a simple consequence of the definition of inertial frame in the theory of general relativity.
Can anything really move faster than C, regardless of inertial relations?
Depends what you mean by "thing". As far as we can tell, no particle travels faster than C. However, you can get a wave front moving faster than C in some cases.
Imagine moving a laser beam across the face of the moon in about a millisecond. The dot from the laser moves over the surface faster than C; but it is not really a travelling particle.
There are some materials with a negative refractive index, in which the wave front of a coherent electromagnetic wave moves faster than C; but when analysed as particles, the photons are lagging the wave front. It's a distinction between "group" velocity and "phase" velocity; and even in this case information (modulations of the wave) or particles (photons) move more slowly than C.
DON’T ANSWER THE ABOVE (they are way off topic)!
In my view, the above questions are more on-topic than what follows, because they relate to energy and to the Big Bang. The problem is that you don't yet understand the particular models used in mainstream cosmology and the Big Bang. That's not unusual; it is a subtle model that takes quite a while to grasp. Until those issues are resolved, the question of where Big Bang energy came from cannot even be meaningfully addressed.
There is no intent to be insulting with this; I'm simply trying to help answer honest questions about the cosmological model in question.
It is also not possible to explain all details of the model in a short post. Questions and answers like these are best used as a supplement to your own study. There are a number of good books published on cosmology which explain the models in varying levels of detail.
Sylas, how can you so proudly refute these evidences? Do you really even want to scientifically speculate that a non-chaotic big bang energy (pre-existent and/or evolving) is, somehow, non-beneficent or non-redemptive in nature?
I did not refute beneficence or redemption. My view is that these are independent of physical cosmology. That is, whether the universe is infinite or not, and where the energy came from, are questions which are not properly addressed in terms of beneficence or redemption.
  • There are cosmologists who believe in God, and who see in the singularity a moment of creation. One of the early developers of Big Bang cosmology, Georges LeMaitre, was a catholic priest who spoke in such terms. He was also an excellent mathematician and scientist, and early on he developed some of the solutions to the relativistic equations upon which Big Bang cosmology is based.
  • There are cosmologists who are Christians, and see the creation as an continuous engagement of God with the created world. A good example would be the scientist/theologian/priest John Polkinghorne, who accepts conventional Big Bang cosmology, but does not consider the singularity to have a special standing in his theology of creation.
  • There are cosmologists who are atheist/agnostic, and see no role whatsoever for a divine creator, whether beneficent or otherwise. Andrei Linde is an example.
  • There are cosmologists who are agnostic with respect to the Gods of conventional religion, but see in the development of the natural world some indication of a deeper meaning or design to the natural world. Paul Davies, for example.
All of these are scientists who have been directly involved in the development of modern cosmology. They all use the same fundamental physics to understand the physical details of the universe, and to address questions relating to energy or spacetime. They are all also intested in metaphysical questions as well, and have dramatically different theological perspectives.
I think you should cut me a bit of slack, and allow that I can express my perspective of the matter with having to put up with personal insults about being proud or cold or insulting or evasive. I don't mind if mind if you disagree with me, but the aggressive personal tone in your closing remarks was out of line.
Cheers -- Sylas
This message has been edited by Sylas, 06-01-2005 12:56 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Philip, posted 05-31-2005 5:34 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Philip, posted 06-06-2005 4:33 PM Sylas has replied

  
Vash
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 84 (213833)
06-03-2005 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Philip
05-31-2005 5:34 PM


Re: Time and light constraints
^What he said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Philip, posted 05-31-2005 5:34 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Philip, posted 06-06-2005 3:32 PM Vash has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4713 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 65 of 84 (214726)
06-06-2005 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Vash
06-03-2005 11:10 AM


Re: Time and light constraints
Welcome Vash,
What he said seemed (to me) like a lot of evasive academic minutiae. The man is extremely grammatical and knowledgeable as he subtly and incorrigibly refutes any redemptive energy existing before the big bang.
I’m not so brilliant and believe God would not make things so subtle for us to be able to deny redemptive phenomena existing so plainly, even before the big-bang.
That is, I believe there is no scientific excuse for denying redemptive phenomena everywhere,
...as if non-chaotic events were totally arbitrary or something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Vash, posted 06-03-2005 11:10 AM Vash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Karhul, posted 06-06-2005 4:17 PM Philip has replied

  
Karhul
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 84 (214743)
06-06-2005 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Philip
06-06-2005 3:32 PM


RE: Where Did Big Bang Energy Come From?
1 - The Big Bang theory is based on theoretical extremes. It may look good in math calculations, but it can?t actually happen. A tiny bit of nothing packed so tightly together that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe. Seriously now, this is a fairy tale. It is a bunch of armchair calculations, and nothing else. It is easy to theorize on paper. The Big Bang is a theoretical extreme, just as is a black hole. It is easy to theorize that something is true, when it has never been seen and there is no definitive evidence that it exists or ever happened. But let us not mistake Disneyland theories for science.
2 - Nothingness cannot pack together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile.
3 - A vacuum has no density. It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density.
4 - There would be no ignition to explode nothingness. No fire and no match. It could not be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed. It could not be a nuclear explosion, for there were no atoms!
5 - There is no way to expand it. How can you expand what isn?t there? Even if that magical vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then cause the pile of emptiness to push outward? The "gravity" which brought it together would keep it from expanding.
6 - Nothingness cannot produce heat. The intense heat caused by the exploding nothingness is said to have changed the nothingness into protons, neutrons, and electrons. First, an empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself. Second, an empty void cannot magically change itself into matter. Third, there can be no heat without an energy source.
7 ? The calculations are too exacting. Too perfect an explosion would be required. On many points, the theoretical mathematical calculations needed to turn a Big Bang into stars and our planet cannot be worked out; in others they are too exacting. Knowledgeable scientists call them "too perfect." Mathematical limitations would have to be met which would be next to impossible to achieve. The limits for success are simply too narrow.
Most aspects of the theory are impossible, and some require parameters that would require miracles to fulfill. One example of this is the expansion of the original fireball from the Big Bang, which they place precisely within the narrowest of limits. An evolutionist astronomer, *R.H. Dicke, says it well:
"If the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of expansion would have been 3 x 103 times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been 0.1 percent less, the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-6 of its present radius before collapsing. At this maximum radius the density of ordinary matter would have been 10-12 grm/m3, over 1016 times as great as the present mass density. No stars could have formed in such a Universe, for it would not have existed long enough to form stars."?*R.H. Dickey, Gravitation and the Universe (1969), p. 62.
8 - Such an equation would have produced not a universe but a hole. *Roger L. St. Peter in 1974 developed a complicated mathematical equation that showed that the theorized Big Bang could not have exploded outward into hydrogen and helium. In reality, St. Peter says the theoretical explosion (if one could possibly take place) would fall back on itself and make a theoretical black hole! This means that one imaginary object would swallow another one!
9 - There is not enough antimatter in the universe. This is a big problem for the theorists. The original Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of positive matter (matter) and negative matter (antimatter). But only small amounts of antimatter exist. There should be as much antimatter as matter?if the Big Bang was true.
"Since matter and antimatter are equivalent in all respects but that of electromagnetic charge oppositeness, any force [the Big Bang] that would create one should have to create the other, and the universe should be made of equal quantities of each. This is a dilemma. Theory tells us there should be antimatter out there, and observation refuses to back it up."?*Isaac Asimov, Asimov?s New Guide to Science, p. 343.
"We are pretty sure from our observations that the universe today contains matter, but very little if any antimatter."?*Victor Weisskopf, "The Origin of the Universe," American Scientist, 71, p. 479.
10 - The antimatter from the Big Bang would have destroyed all the regular matter. This fact is well-known to physicists. As soon as the two are produced in the laboratory, they instantly come together and annihilate one another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Philip, posted 06-06-2005 3:32 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Philip, posted 06-06-2005 4:38 PM Karhul has not replied
 Message 69 by NosyNed, posted 06-06-2005 5:00 PM Karhul has not replied
 Message 72 by Alasdair, posted 06-07-2005 3:06 PM Karhul has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4713 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 67 of 84 (214751)
06-06-2005 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Sylas
05-31-2005 9:42 PM


Re: Redemptive ID and Insult
Sylas,
Again, I appreciate many of your (profound) statements and do (gratefully) learn somewhat from them. I also appreciate your cool politeness in this truly speculative arena: big-bang etiology.
But to hand-wave redemptive beneficence (at any cosmic expansion time-point) is subtle yet extremely potent insult to my conscience. Some serious Redemptive ID must tie in at some point and be adamantly PRAISED with my heart (AKA, psyche). Please accept my (personal and scientific) insult thus, Sylas.
Or, say you discover redemptive ID ties into cosmic reality. Shouldn’t your heart jealously burn and lust after it? Don’t you want to praise it?
Notwithstanding, I REALLY appreciate your brilliance and willingness to exercise your thoughts and labors with me.
Don’t you think Inflation Theory (big bang particles traveling faster than C) is really just a hypothesis?
Moreover, the subtle astrophysicist’s practice of twisting big-bang hypotheses into theories leaves me bewildered and insulted. When will science authority get real? Furthermore, I trust physicists more than biologists!
What should I tell my kids, patients, and students? Inflation theory is accepted and validated hypothesis/ theory? Since when did freaky speculations become a scientific facts (AKA, theory)?
Why, is inflation theory even worse grammar than the mega-ToE! Both are absurdly untenable hypotheses. General and special relativity I do accept as respectable and validated theory, however. (Note, I'm a podiatrist, not an astro-physicist)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Sylas, posted 05-31-2005 9:42 PM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Sylas, posted 06-07-2005 3:57 AM Philip has replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4713 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 68 of 84 (214755)
06-06-2005 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Karhul
06-06-2005 4:17 PM


RE: Where Did Big Bang Energy Come From?
Welcome Karhul,
I concur with much of your discourse. I hope you cited references (if applicable).
To summarize, the Big Bang Theory seems to be merely just a Big Bang Speculation (at best)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Karhul, posted 06-06-2005 4:17 PM Karhul has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 69 of 84 (214763)
06-06-2005 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Karhul
06-06-2005 4:17 PM


You need to understand first
Unfortunately, almost everything you think you know about the big bang is wrong. You can not begin to critize and idea that you are utterly ignorant of.
I sugest you read this thread and Big Bang - Big Dud.
You might want to then start asking questions rather than making pronouncements. There is then a small chance of you learning something.
I strongly suggest you read everything Sylas posts. If explains things as clearly as it possible. Also understand that this is not easy and can produce headaches.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Karhul, posted 06-06-2005 4:17 PM Karhul has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5250 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 70 of 84 (214910)
06-07-2005 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Philip
06-06-2005 4:33 PM


Re: Redemptive ID and Insult
Don’t you think Inflation Theory (big bang particles traveling faster than C) is really just a hypothesis?
A short answer is that inflation is indeed a hypothesis; not a fully validated theory.
However, the aside you place in parentheses is not a description of inflation theory. If you don't really want more detail, skip over the following block, down to the horizontal line.
NosyNed is right. There are some fundamental matters of basic understanding that need to be grasped before a good answer to your question can be given. I'll try to explain a few concepts as simplified descriptions of a certain scientific model; not as assertions of fact about the universe.
The aside speaks of "big bang particles". It would be better to leave out the qualifying phrase "big bang" here, because the big bang does not involve special or different particles. The particles are all the same particles making up the universe today; electrons, photons, quarks, mesons, and many others.
The aside speaks of "particles travelling faster than C". But particles don't travel faster than C; not even during inflation. The speed of light is an absolute speed limit on all particles at all times, as far as we can tell.
The expansion of space does not move particles through space, and it does not correspond to particles travelling. In an expanding universe, the distance between two particles can increase as space expands, even when particles involved are at rest. (Being "at rest" in an expanding universe is a meaningful concept defined with respect to a universal background that can be measured with using microwave background radiation. Don't worry about this detail. The point is that expansion of space is not movement of particles.)
If space is expanding, then with enough space between two particles the distance between them will be increasing, even when particles moving towards each other! This has nothing to do with inflation. Even in the expansion of space right now there are galaxies that are receding faster than C, in the sense that there are more than 300,000 additional kilometers of space between us and them every second. This holds in the present epoch for galaxies that are 4300 or more MegaParsecs away. Light moves through space at just under 300,000 kilometers per second.
We can still see such galaxies, because photons travelling at C are moving through space, and this means "less space" between us and them over time. Eventually, photons have passed through enough space to "overtake" the rate of Hubble recession, and complete their long journey through expanding space. See also Motion in an expanding space; and for some diagrams of how separation to photons develops over time as they move towards us through expanding space, check out Ned Wright's cosmology tutorial.
So what about Inflation? Inflation is a particular kind of expansion which is thought to have dominated in the very early universe for a very short period of time. What inflation means is that the "scale" of the universe grows exponentially, rather than roughly linearly. It has nothing to do with velocities of particles, and it is not especially "faster than light". Expansion rates are measured in scale per unit time; not distance per unit time, so comparisons with the speed of light are not particularly meaningful
Note that Inflation is different from "Big Bang". The Big Bang is basically about expansion of space from conditions of extreme density to the present state in which the universe is, on average, very close to a vacuum. Inflation, however is simply one very particular kind of expansion proposed for one small stage Big Bang expansion.
The Big bang is very well supported indeed, to the point where there is no credible basis for doubt that space is expanding and the universe becoming less dense over time, from conditions of very high density some billions of years ago.
Inflation is not anywhere near so well supported. The evidence is strong, but indirect and still not conclusive. There is still plenty of scope for other ideas; perhaps even more strange. A full evaluation of the strength of evidential support for inflation or of the scope for alternative ideas would be a bit beyond the scope of this discussion.
On other matters...

Philip's suggestion in Message 67 that I "deny redemptive phenomena" is stupid, and flatly in contradiction to what I have actually been saying in the thread. I've been correcting some fundamental misunderstandings on the specifics of physical cosmology; and on redemption I have been expressing the view that physical cosmology DOES NOT conflict with redemption at all.
Philip's insults and his gratitude are equally ill-founded. I'm very unimpressed. While he continues to make ridiculous misrepresentations of my position, his compliments are meaningless, and his behaviour disreputable. Stick to questions, Philip; or to straight expressions of your own view.
Philip's comments on the Big Bang and on Inflation show almost no understanding of the subject; which is perfectly normal and no cause for embarrassment or shame. But if he is going to get all huffy about details been clarified or corrected, he'd be better not to make statements about the physical details of scientific models.
My mother often speaks with affection of one of her lecturers from when she studied theology at Melbourne Uni, for a BD. He said: "They can split the atom, and split the atom, but they won't find God." Quite so. This wise old theologian was not rejecting the notions of science or atomic structure; but pointing out that whether atoms are made of waves, or particles, or quarks, or baryons, or whatever else, is not telling is anything much about God Himself. Quarks, or inflation, or spacetime curvature, are neither proofs nor disproofs of God's existence or goodness.
A Christian celebrates all things as made by God and gives thanks accordingly. But the Christian who sees basic details of scientific models for physical phenomena as some kind of denial ends up denying God's own creation, rather than sharing in the wonders of discovery of the world they believe He made.
That is what you should tell your children, in my opinion. Give them the freedom to grow and explore and learn about the world with confidence; because they will surely go on to explore details that neither you nor I have yet been able to plumb.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Philip, posted 06-06-2005 4:33 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by jar, posted 06-07-2005 1:58 PM Sylas has not replied
 Message 73 by Philip, posted 06-08-2005 6:55 PM Sylas has replied
 Message 84 by cavediver, posted 06-18-2005 12:21 PM Sylas has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 71 of 84 (215018)
06-07-2005 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Sylas
06-07-2005 3:57 AM


Re: Redemptive ID and Insult
Thank you sir.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Sylas, posted 06-07-2005 3:57 AM Sylas has not replied

  
Alasdair
Member (Idle past 5740 days)
Posts: 143
Joined: 05-13-2005


Message 72 of 84 (215061)
06-07-2005 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Karhul
06-06-2005 4:17 PM


RE: Where Did Big Bang Energy Come From?
Oooh oooh oooh, let the newbie try his hand!
quote:
1 - The Big Bang theory is based on theoretical extremes. It may look good in math calculations, but it can?t actually happen. A tiny bit of nothing packed so tightly together that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe. Seriously now, this is a fairy tale. It is a bunch of armchair calculations, and nothing else. It is easy to theorize on paper. The Big Bang is a theoretical extreme, just as is a black hole. It is easy to theorize that something is true, when it has never been seen and there is no definitive evidence that it exists or ever happened. But let us not mistake Disneyland theories for science.
You don't provide any real evidence or arguments to refute the calculations, you just say "How can you believe in this! HA HA HA!"
I can do the same thing. "1+1=2? JUST ARMCHAIR CALCULATIONS AND FAIRYTALE THEORIES! HA HA HA!"
quote:
2 - Nothingness cannot pack together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile.
It wasn't "nothingness", read up on the theory.
quote:
3 - A vacuum has no density. It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density.
See #2.
quote:
4 - There would be no ignition to explode nothingness. No fire and no match. It could not be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed. It could not be a nuclear explosion, for there were no atoms!
It wasn't an explosion, just a very rapid expansion.
quote:
5 - There is no way to expand it. How can you expand what isn?t there? Even if that magical vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then cause the pile of emptiness to push outward? The "gravity" which brought it together would keep it from expanding.
A phrase transition caused it to inflate.
quote:
6 - Nothingness cannot produce heat. The intense heat caused by the exploding nothingness is said to have changed the nothingness into protons, neutrons, and electrons. First, an empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself. Second, an empty void cannot magically change itself into matter. Third, there can be no heat without an energy source.
See #2.
quote:
7 ? The calculations are too exacting. Too perfect an explosion would be required. On many points, the theoretical mathematical calculations needed to turn a Big Bang into stars and our planet cannot be worked out; in others they are too exacting. Knowledgeable scientists call them "too perfect." Mathematical limitations would have to be met which would be next to impossible to achieve. The limits for success are simply too narrow.
Well, if it had happened any differently, we wouldn't be here to observe it, now would we?
quote:
8 - Such an equation would have produced not a universe but a hole. *Roger L. St. Peter in 1974 developed a complicated mathematical equation that showed that the theorized Big Bang could not have exploded outward into hydrogen and helium. In reality, St. Peter says the theoretical explosion (if one could possibly take place) would fall back on itself and make a theoretical black hole! This means that one imaginary object would swallow another one!
See #5.
quote:
9 - There is not enough antimatter in the universe. This is a big problem for the theorists. The original Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of positive matter (matter) and negative matter (antimatter). But only small amounts of antimatter exist. There should be as much antimatter as matter?if the Big Bang was true.
I don't know enough about this one, or number ten.
Heh heh, that was a pretty horrible attempt of mine, but I'm learning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Karhul, posted 06-06-2005 4:17 PM Karhul has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4713 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 73 of 84 (215444)
06-08-2005 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Sylas
06-07-2005 3:57 AM


Re: Redemptive ID and Insult
Very well Sylas,
I stand corrected. I also thank you for your rebuke(s). You don't deny redemptive phenomena in the cosmos and are really thankful for it. Some of what you stated to me in earlier posts seemed perhaps too deep and subtle (to me). It seemed perhaps as if you were (unconsciously, perhaps) trying to evade and becloud my 2 dogmatic speculations.
My own conscience thrives on these same 2 speculations (more so now):
1) Practically omnipotent energy existed at and/or prior to the BB.
2) The BB energy was (and/or is) non-chaotic, thus, is redemptive in nature
This easily proves to me (1) a God and (2) a Christ. Thus, I’ll meditate more now with more conviction for my sins (i.e., my own lack of thanks) and Christ’s ability to redeem of my sins.
As for NosyNed’s replies being right, however, I dare to differ. He always seems to be subtly evading the issue of redemption (I may be wrong). Ask him where he stands on theism and redemption. See if he’ll give praise to a redeemer in this or any thread.
Sylas, it might be better if you refute me directly without invoking the lurkers, anyway. (Albeit, I appreciate NosyNed; I don’t think he is deeply insulted by me)
Being a stumbling block to the consciences of children and students is also a side-issue here (another thread perhaps).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Sylas, posted 06-07-2005 3:57 AM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Sylas, posted 06-08-2005 8:27 PM Philip has not replied
 Message 75 by NosyNed, posted 06-08-2005 8:36 PM Philip has replied
 Message 83 by Vash, posted 06-18-2005 11:11 AM Philip has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5250 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 74 of 84 (215477)
06-08-2005 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Philip
06-08-2005 6:55 PM


Re: Redemptive ID and Insult
Philip writes:
I stand corrected. I also thank you for your rebuke(s).
We are not yet at a point of good communication; but I am impressed and humbled by this response. I am busy at present, and will say something more substantive in time. But I want to acknowledge this in good time.
I am not a believer; so it goes too far to say that I am thankful for redemptive phenomena in the universe. My point has been simply that modern models for physical cosmology are not a denial of redemptive phenomena. People using and developing the models used in cosmology can have all kinds of diverse phislophical and religious perspectives, just as chemists can have diverse perspectives while they all use the same periodic table.
My next post will be more on topic for the thread. Apologies to lurking admins for this diversion.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Philip, posted 06-08-2005 6:55 PM Philip has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 75 of 84 (215481)
06-08-2005 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Philip
06-08-2005 6:55 PM


Cosmology and Redemption
As for NosyNed’s replies being right, however, I dare to differ. He always seems to be subtly evading the issue of redemption (I may be wrong). Ask him where he stands on theism and redemption. See if he’ll give praise to a redeemer in this or any thread.
As Sylas has pointed out cosomology has nothing to do with redemption (either for or against). Just like all others, my opinion on redemption has nothing to do with my views on science. Any given cosmolgist may be a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, A Hindu or none of the above.
I have no personal interest in a redeemer so I tend to avoid commenting on it in the threads where it is appropriate and, of course, only make comments like the above to note where it is not appropriate to discuss.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Philip, posted 06-08-2005 6:55 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Philip, posted 06-09-2005 10:01 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024