Where Did Big Bang Energy Come From?

Dear 1.61803,Do you not miscalculate or oversimplify relativistic theory stating: "time did not exist prior to the event"Do you speculate (dogmatically) your universe is just a finite space-time continuum?Or, worse, that no other universe(s) could possibly exist beyond my puny universe?Why must science-fairies (AKA, devils) so tenaciously whisper to us "cursed ignoramuses" that our "visible" universe is so "flat-earth-like"?Could Columbus have repeatedly professed similar error when he discovered Hispanola, N. America, and finally, the United States of Texas?This message has been edited by Philip, 05-25-2005 12:43 PM

Welcome Vash.Cosmic Speculation(s).I know what your saying theoretically applies to a closed "universal" systems.Who says our universe is closed?

I (personally) don't know what time really is, too."I really don't know clouds at all", sang one 60's artist (female).In sum, my invalidities and your invalidities don't justify anything as "clear" up to this point.

Very well...I speculate somewhat the same (regarding this universe), non-dogmatically. The universe is a veritable expanse. Yesterday, I asked several younglings do you know what time is? One (girl) apologized and stated she didn’t have the time. The others stated they did not know what time is.A 14y/o youngling and I discussed time vs. clocks. Relativistic theories invoke time, gamma (speed of light), and gravity. Our puny clocks (e.g., diurnal and atomic clocks) do merely validate time’s behavior. And there are real time dilation-constrictions everywhere in the universe: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 perspectiveBare with me and this hypothesisNow (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=mCCWhat 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!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.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.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?

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=mCCand(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.

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.

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)

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)

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 natureThis 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).

Very well...