Big Bang or Big Dud? A study of Cosmology and Cosmogony - Origins

Discussion of the various aspects of Cosmology (the structure of the Universe) and Cosmogony (The history of the Universe) what does the evidence point to? While we still pretty much know next to nothing in the feild of the studies of the astrophysical realm in the universe, what does it point to? What are the theories on the Big Bang, is it valid and what is it missing, is it simply a 'Dud'? This is the study of the universal (Origins).------------------

"But bud you got the causal relationship round the wrong way. A causes B is a different statement to B causes A."
--I was simply making you aware that I know that there is a 'blue shift' as well as a red shift, as I get very ignorant criticism that somehow that ther is a blue shift is relevant. I was attempting to avoid a pointless argument as it would being about."Ah so is that where we are to look for scientific accounts of phenomena from a creationist standpoint? A religious tract?"
--This is not at all what I am doing, the science upholds the bible, the bible doesn't uphold the science, which is the problem with why people think that creation science isn't science because they think we assume the bible to be infallable. Though this is not so, we simply look at what the facts are, and in this case, the bible seems accurate in today's knowledge."You said that the Hubble red shift could be explained (to tie in with a special creation ex nihilo 4,500 years ago presumably) by a stretching of the heavens."
--I am awaiting a book starlight and time in which i'll have to see what some theories on it are."Since current cosmological models based on an expanding universe give an age of somewhat more than 4,500 years please explain where I can read about this stretching of the heavens as a scientific theory."
--I think there are two parts to this question, 'Since current cosmological models based on an expanding universe give an age of somewhat more than 4,500 years please explain' and 'where I can read about this stretching of the heavens as a scientific theory'.
--As for the first, The expanding universe's age uses the assumption that the way it is expanding today is how it has always been expanding, similar to the assumption thrown into radioisotope dating. You could assume that it was going much faster earlier and you could figure it fit with 4500 years. Though this would assume an age of 4,500 years, but really how else can you calculate it, without knowing its deceleration rate or even being there when it was going faster. Thus it is widely out of the realm of science. For the second part, where can you read about the 'stretching of the heavens as a scientific theory', I am not sure what you mean by 'as a scientific theory' as I have shown you what my reference was for 'the stretching of the heavens' to be throughout the bible.------------------

"you said Hubble shift caused a Doppler effect (take another look at your post if you don`t believe me) I corrected you saying that you had the relationship round the wrong way and the Doppler effect caused the Hubble shift. Blue or red it makes no difference to the fact that the Doppler effect causes Hubble shift not vice versa...."
--I see what you are commenting on now, and yes you are right, forgive my incorrect wording."Actually modern cosmological models do contain a rate of deceleration from an early faster than light expansion (allowed by General Relativity due to high gravitational potentials) its using these models that the age of 12-14 billion years was derived, quite different to 4,500 years.... A model that would allow an age of 4,500 years would not work mathmaticaly (added by edit (at least not if General Relativity holds)).So we don`t assume its constant..."
--Very interesting indeed, do you have a source? I have not encountered it as being anything than a calculation from its present rate, discluding any known deceleration."As a scientific theory" with evidence and potential falsifications (would be nice), presented as a mathematical model (essential).... what did you think?
--I seem to still be missing what you are asking, I wasn't revering to a scientific theory accept that we know it is evident that the universe is expanding, ie, everything seems to be moving away from us. I would like to give you evidence and potential falsifications, but for what? Emphesize?"Where in the bible? you didn`t give a chapter and verse and I`m not gonna trawl through it to find em..."
--I find biblegateway.com to be a very good source for quick chapter, verse, and word lookups, and in so looking up 'stretched the heavens' in the word search this is what you get, 7 seperate references throughout the bible: Gospel.Com Link[Shortened too-long link. --Admin]"Where else but in the bible?"
--With the exact or simmilar wording 'stretching of the heavens' I don't know, but this is consistant with an 'expanding universe'.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by Admin, 07-14-2002]

"Regarding the expansion period of the universe. So far as I'm aware, the speed of light has remained the same relative to the universe, it's the universe that expanded, much, much faster than light. This is called inflation & happened very quickly in the first seconds of the universe."
--I am aware of this theory and have read up a little on its implications being according to theory a happening taken place in the first 10-35 to 10-33. 'However, whether inflation is correct or not, it cannot be the case that every initial configuration would hae led to a universe similar to the one we observe, Indeed, even if inflation solves the fine-tuning problem we are still left with the singularity problem, the frustration of not being able to describe the initial state of the universe.' God Time & Stephen Hawking - An exploration into origins, David Walkinson pages 97-98."There are no parts I can really quote, but it's interesting stuff."
--I find it interesting also, as it seems to emphesize quite a bit on the theological implications of the inflation theories.------------------

"The singularity problem is done away with. The vacuum fluctuations interact with a scalar field to produce inflation, or not. It depends where the vacuum fluctuation occurs, & the value of the scalar fields at that point."
--This is the singularity problem as depicted by David Walkinson.

quote:

---

First, at a singularity therer is infinite density and infinite curvature of space-time. General relativity is unable to cope with this infinity and predicts its downfall, that is, the theory breaks down at the singularity. Second, general relativity as a theory is inconsistent with quantum theory. General relativity, which is extremely successful in describing the large-scale structure of the universe, needs to specify mass and its position in order to then describe the geometery and rate of flow of time. At a singularity where the gravitational field is so strong, and the whole universe is so small that it is on the atomic scale of quantum theory, it is believed that quantum effects should be important. Quantum theory, however, says that you can never know both the mass and position without an intrinsic uncertainty. You cannot have both general relativity and quantum theory to describe a situation.

​

The singularity problem therefor is that general relativity is unable to give a description of the singularity, or in other words, the initial conditions of the expansion of the universe. To put it another way, present scientific theories are unable to predict what will come out of the singularity. They can describe the subsequent expantion but are unable to reach back beyond the age of 10 -43 seconds to zero.

---

--Former NASA astrophysicist Robert Jastrow captures the mood: 'For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; and as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.'"Check the date of the Hawking quote, I think you'll find this theory supercedes the last."
--Actually this book is sort of a 'response' to the theory of inflation along with many other aspcts of Big Bang Cosmology. The Book was published in 2001. I was unable to locate a date for the link you gave.------------------

I am aware of this postulate, I read a basic model out of David Walkinson's God Time & Stephen Hawking. This sertainly seems plausable, as if an equal amount of anti-matter and matter coming out of nothing, but I think the problem consists of the cause of such a thing happening.------------------

"Why?"
--Because this tells you how you could bring matter out of nothing, but what is going to cause this to happen? Did nothing all-of-a-sodden feel like it wanted some company and brought about some anti-matter and some matter?Added by edit:
--What causes this Quantum fluctuation of nothing, because would it not be logical to say that if it had no cause, that it could happen anywhere, and possibly happing all the time, with no vigilance in time.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-02-2002]

"are talking about the creation of space-time."
--The questions seemingly are more pertaining to the creation of matter, and energy Matter transforming fluctuations rather than the creation of space-time. The latter is an interesting question indeed.------------------

"There is a small portion of the discussion which concerns the expansion of space. That part has all but vanished in light of other elements of the debate. Still, I think the energymatter transformations are in some way related to the creation of space-time, though I am not yet sure how so I can't really debate it."
--Not really, energy <--> matter fluctuations have little to nothing to do with the initial question for BB explanation. This conversion happens either by radiation creating particles and anti-particles or particles and anti-particles annihilating, thusly creating radiation. Of course this still begs the question of where space-time came about. It has in my experience gone unanswered without playing heavily with semantics.------------------

"Which means that you don't know any more than I, so why are you correcting my admittedly speculative, and undemonstrated suspicion?"
--I just had the impression you had a very strong reason for being so anti-theistic, and what a better reason than an answer for the origin of the universe.------------------

"It isn't that I have a strong reason for being anti-theistic, it is that I have no reason for being theistic."
--Then you are in a perdicament there. I will not fail to remember in the future your rationalization in # 35. You will find by it that you and the majority of the evo's on this board that there is over-criticism.------------------