|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Big Bang - Big Dud | |||||||||||||||||
pianoprincess* Inactive Member |
my issue wiht the big bang is where did the original matter come from???
I know I've asked that b4 but no one said anything...=)
|
|||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 384 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So far no one knows. And it's not even sure that the term Matter would really have any meaning under those conditions.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||
pianoprincess* Inactive Member |
so, nothing exploded into something?
That seem more farfetched that nothing becoming something because someone created it...=)
|
|||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 384 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
so, nothing exploded into something? No, that's not at all what happened. The Big Bang is not an explosion. Read some more here and you'll find folk that will try to work with you. Look to cavediver and son_goku and nosyNed and sylas if he drops in. They can help you.
That seem more farfetched that nothing becoming something because someone created it...=) Well there is absolute evidence that is what did happen. That much is not in doubt. Exactly what happened is still very much in question but the the reality of the Big Bang is not in doubt. You need to know that many if not most Christians have no trouble accepting either the Big Bang or Evolution. We see both as simply ways of learning how GOD actually did it. Like Evolution, ignoring the fact of the Big Bang and the age of the universe is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||
pianoprincess* Inactive Member |
I was undr the impression (I read this in Scientific American) that the big bang was a piece of dencly packed matter that expanded faster than light, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||
pianoprincess* Inactive Member |
jar said:
So far no one knows. And it's not even sure that the term Matter would really have any meaning under those conditions. But anything else would be supernatural. And Secular Humainism can't accept the supernatural into its philosophy.
|
|||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 384 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
That's a really, really simplistic description.
If you want to learn about the Big Bang (by the way, the term Big Bang was actually originally a derogatory term applied because so many thought what was found had far too much of a religious nature) a good place to start is here. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
When you are replying to a particular message, there is a "reply" button near the bottom right of that message.
If you could use that reply button (instead of the "Gen Reply"), then your message would automatically show who you are replying to. That makes it easier to follow threads. To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3634 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Hi Pianoprincess! I must be brief, but for now... despite what you have read and been told (even by Scientific American), the universe did not "begin" at the Big Bang. The universe is four dimensional (in our most simple models) and what we call past and future are all just different parts of the universe. Matter does not "come" from the past and travel into the "future". It just is. As is the universe. Matter (or the energy that would condense into matter) at the big bang is just there. There is no "past" at the big bang anyway, so the question makes even less sense The big bang is just one point in the universe, though quite an interesting point given the conditions there.
If God created the universe (and as a Christian, I think He did!) then creation was not the big bang but the bringing into existence of the whole universe (past and future). It is only us restricted humans who think that the "beginnings" must lie in the past. The act of creation is all around us. For the non-theist, the correct question is "why is there something rather than nothing?" not "what casued the big bang?"
|
|||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
But anything else would be supernatural. And Secular Humainism can't accept the supernatural into its philosophy.
What jar is saying is that the conditions at the Big Bang are so vastly different from present conditions that what we call matter might be incapable of existing. However the existent entities under those conditions would still be physical. Take for instance a proton, something which is a fundamental component of any atom. A proton is actually a low-energy/temperature phenomena and not a universal particle.Turn up the energy/temperature and it dissolves, not because it melts or anything, but because the physics required for it to exist only occurs at low temperatures/energies. At high energies a proton can't occur. Similarly, back at the Big Bang things might have been so hot/energetic that no particle that we know could occur as a phenomena.In addition to this fact even the word particle itself begins to lose meaning when space-time becomes very curved, such as near the Big Bang. These are very subtle issues and to be fair require a good deal of familiarity with the subject, as they involve two very difficult fields called "non-perturbative QFT" and "QFT in curved spacetimes" and ultimately a much more difficult subject called "Quantum Gravity". This message has been edited by Son Goku, 01-26-2006 12:44 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 602 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
It is not really an 'explosian'. it is an expansion. All the matter and all the energy flowed into what we known as 'space' and that 'space* expanded.
And, if you consider gravity to be negative energy, then if you addup all the known energy of the universe, and all up all the known gravity of the universe, you get zero.. which is essentially nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||
pianoprincess* Inactive Member |
Well there is absolute evidence that is what did happen. That much is not in doubt. Exactly what happened is still very much in question but the the reality of the Big Bang is not in doubt. could you list some to the absolute evidenes please? I'd really apreciate it! =) And also...my uncle is not a christian and he donesn't believe in the big bang...so some ppl seem to not agree with secular scientist interpretation of the evidence.
You need to know that many if not most Christians have no trouble accepting either the Big Bang or Evolution. We see both as simply ways of learning how GOD actually did it. ummm thats not really true....=) I, being one, don't believe that God created the univers by the big bang. And no christians I know do either.=) no one in my church doess etc. I think you've been incorrectly informed there. =) and secondly, Why would God use the big bang when he says that he spoke it into exsitence in Genesis?
|
|||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 384 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
could you list some to the absolute evidenes please? Okay, as I said before, here is a good place to start.
And also...my uncle is not a christian and he donesn't believe in the big bang...so some ppl seem to not agree with secular scientist interpretation of the evidence. That's fine. No one has to believe, the Big Bang is a fact, even if no one believes in it. As to Christians agreeing that the Big Bang is the best current explanation, it's also fine that you believe many if not most Christians support it. Again, belief does not trump reality. The biggest supporters of current cosmological research are religious groups, mainly Christians. I'm a Christian, and I see the evidence as absolutely overwhelming. Reason's to believe a Christian website, supports the BB. Robert J. Schneider from Berea College explains why. Faith & Reason is another Christian organization that supports the BB. The BB is accepted by the Episcopal Church, Roman Catholic Church, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran and just about every major Christian sects. It is probably one of the most completely supported theories in existence today. If you are being taught otherwise, you are simply being cheated and misinformed. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||
Fish-in-a-bowler-hat Inactive Member |
Im new here and this is my first post, so good evening all.
Didnt Edwin Hubble discover that one universal feature of galaxies all over the sky were that the light coming to us from them was redder than it should be, and did he then not conclude that this red shift was due to the universe literally flying apart at enormous velocities, tying it in with Alexander Friedman and George Lemaitres models of an expanding universe.So if we reverse time and pull it all back together would it not be reasonable assumption that it did begin somewhere. George Gamow said that if the big bang really happend then the background temperature of the universe should be just a few degrees above absolute zero and that this was a relic of a very early stage of the universe, and sure enough in 1965 it was discovered that the background radiation of the universe was around 3.7 degrees above absolute zero, which there is no explanation for.Aswell as the origin of light elements such as helium etc. they could onhly be forge in a furnace of impressive heat, so its pretty conclusive that the universe had a beginning and bang is a good a name as any to describe it. I am in total agreement with that, however a question I would like to raise is this, If out of absolute nothing came a universe that is brilliantly fine tune with the laws of physics and mathematics and all the rest of the fancy scientific wonderousies, then for what purpose,Is the law of causiality not also a fact? I mean we dont worry about going home one day to find an elephant in our living room, and had just randomly managed to make itself, and I mean build up itself from absolutley nothing, make its bones, blood, skin, organs, blahblahblah, that just would never ever happen, You cant just pull a rabbit out a hat from nothing, there is at least the magician and the hat there first. So why do so many "scientists" (and interestingly enough the word science means knowledge) find it hard to "acknowledge" that if there is a singularity, then maybe it had a cause to be there, and since the law of causialty is factual, then maybe, just maybe, "In the beginning God said; Let there be light..." Im not down grading anyone here because if I beleive that God created the universe then I have to also accept that all the laws that hold it together he also created, and so I accept things that are purely factual, and with no agenda other than the fact that they are what is the truth. But even if some say that the big bang came from a vacum of fluctuating energies, then it really just brings it right back to the topic of how did they get there because you cant get something out of absolute nothingness. FACT! I think that everyone is in the same boat,no one on either side of the fence can disprove or ridicule the other. Science in my point of view proves God to me in an even more marvellous light,He made such delicate and beautiful laws, crafted them and made a universe teaming with beauty and life, and he done it with a BANG The laws are to definite to be random chaos, they are more like a masterpeice of Grand-artistry, and since no one can disprove that Im gonna go to ma bed, Goodnight all
|
|||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
So why do so many "scientists" (and interestingly enough the word science means knowledge) find it hard to "acknowledge" that if there is a singularity, then maybe it had a cause to be there, and since the law of causialty is factual, then maybe, just maybe, "In the beginning God said; Let there be light..."
The rest of your post contains elements of appreciation of God's work as you see it in science. Which is fine as it is personal opinion.However, as for the section quoted above, the main reason no scientist would say this is because it would be a massive cop-out when it comes to explaining the mechanisms of the singularity. Here we have an entity where General Relativity gives over to some other physical domain and our job is to find out the rules of this new domain. Adopting a "God did it" attitude, in a process sense, won't get us anywhere. N.B. As has been said before on this thread, you shouldn't view the universe as being created at any particular point on its own surface such as the Big Bang.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024