Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 9:18 PM
28 online now:
jar, kjsimons, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), subbie, Theodoric (5 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,096 Year: 9,132/19,786 Month: 1,554/2,119 Week: 314/576 Day: 117/98 Hour: 1/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
9Next
Author Topic:   An honest answer for a newbie, please.
JJboy
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 125 (16316)
08-31-2002 12:13 AM


I am wondering: Where did the gasses that caused the BB originated?
Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by John, posted 08-31-2002 2:02 AM JJboy has responded
 Message 14 by steppjr, posted 09-04-2002 12:29 PM JJboy has not yet responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 125 (16334)
08-31-2002 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JJboy
08-31-2002 12:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by JJboy:
I am wondering: Where did the gasses that caused the BB originated?

No BB theory I know of posits that gasses caused the BB.

I think what you are really asking is what caused the BB, and the honest answer is that nobody knows. The idea of causality doesn't even apply as space and time did not exist prior to the BB. No space, no time == no causality.

The physics we understand do not work at a singularity. At a singularity the equations get filled with zeros and infinity and things get very weird. Think of it as trying to do what your math teachers tell you not to do-- divide by zero.

The most intriguing idea for me at the moment is the observable phenomena of zero point energy. Basically, sub-atomic particles pop into and out-off existence and do so quite regularly. One such quantum fluctuation could have been our start.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JJboy, posted 08-31-2002 12:13 AM JJboy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by JJboy, posted 09-01-2002 2:23 AM John has responded
 Message 4 by JJboy, posted 09-01-2002 2:47 AM John has not yet responded

JJboy
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 125 (16359)
09-01-2002 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by John
08-31-2002 2:02 AM


Quote


I think what you are really asking is what caused the BB, and the honest answer is that nobody knows. The idea of causality doesn't even apply as space and time did not exist prior to the BB. No space, no time == no causality.

Question: (It's hard to ask without sounding snotty, excuse.) Who told you that? The BB obviously had to have a cause. If it did not, then we are forced to admit that all material is infinite, which then admits that an infinite being is possible. If I understand correctly, you are saying the BB had no cause? Please clarify.

I have always understood that supercompressed gasses were the supposed cause of the BB. I geuss I am wrong

------------------
Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
------------------------
I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.

-Albert Einstein (1879-1955)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by John, posted 08-31-2002 2:02 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by John, posted 09-01-2002 8:59 AM JJboy has responded
 Message 8 by compmage, posted 09-02-2002 3:14 AM JJboy has not yet responded

JJboy
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 125 (16362)
09-01-2002 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by John
08-31-2002 2:02 AM


Mr. Moose

That wasn't very nice to close my thread, 'The Big one' Please undo it. It was such a big post I thought it deserved a new section!

------------------
Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
------------------------
I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.

-Albert Einstein (1879-1955)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by John, posted 08-31-2002 2:02 AM John has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-01-2002 3:05 AM JJboy has not yet responded

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3724
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 5 of 125 (16364)
09-01-2002 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by JJboy
09-01-2002 2:47 AM


Note from Adminnemooseus:
This is a copy and paste, of the initial message of a new topic that JJboy recently started (and that I have closed). JJboy has started (I believe) at least 8 new topics in the last two days. At least three were in the "Big Bang" forum. I feel this is excessive, and contributes to a clutter of redundant topics. I may be wrong, but that's the way I see it.
----------

JJboy said:
This is one of the chapters in an essay I am writing. If you guys & gals could read it and give me your constructive and not so cunstructive critisicm, it would be appreciated

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evolutionary scientists acknowledges with the Big Bang theory that a beginning is needed. Everything that is physical and tangible must have a start. The Big Bang theory, however, does not go far enough. Where did the gasses that caused the Big Bang originate? An evolutionary book starts with the Big Bang, but we never hear where the super compressed gasses originated. Think about this for a minute. Did the sceintists originated the Big Bang theory not think about that? Something does not come from nothing through scientifically measurable or understandable methods. Julie Andrews knows that. She sang a song that, 'Nothing comes from nothing; nothing ever could.' You can make the evolutionary time frame as long as you please. You can go back and make the world a kazillion years old. But still the problem looms: Where did it come from?
The Big Bang Theory is an effect without a cause, so to speak. The law of cause and effect is at the core of all science. It is a widely known and accepted fact that all effects are the result of a cause. If we see a building, we know that it has been 'caused', or built.
The building is the effect. But, Evolutionary science tries to show that we are all effects without a cause. The cycle of cause and effect had to begin at some point in time. This would infer, of course, that the original 'Cause' has always existed and not had a
beginning. Even if God had been created, which, I state emphatically, he has not been, that still leaves the question as to where his creator originated. Increasing the number of 'Causes' does not in the least bit address the question at hand. We know that the cycle started sometime. It is, however, scientifically impossible for this cycle to have started on it's own. No effect is ever quantitatively 'greater' or qualitatively 'superior' to its
cause. There had to be a supreme cause that was greater than all the effects and causes thereafter.

Now, what I am about to say may sound strange. It is only logical that logic and science can go only so far. We can rationally deduce that there are things that our minds cannot understand. Evolution attempts to explain everything through natural processes. On the flip
side of the coin, the Bible teaches that an infinitely wise and powerful God existent for eternity created the Universe and all that is contained therein in six days. Our small minds cannot comprehend an eternity. We cannot comprehend how something just is, or how something can be without having been created. But it is only logical that this is the case. Creation is not based on scientific theories and evidence. While the scientific evidence supports it, Biblical creationism, it does not rely solely on science. The Theory of Evolution is totally dependant on scientific evidence. It requires that all be rational and explainable. It cannot allow for the extra-logical or extra-scientific. I know both sides of the debate have their 'Famous questions'. 'How did pine trees in the northsouthern (or wherever!) coast of the USA survive a year under water?' or 'How did all the ' Flip the coin, 'Where did the first sexually reproducing organism find a mate?' etc... Obviously, the question of origins will not be solved solely by science. Creationism has a trump on the Theory of Evolution in that an evolutionary scientist can point out a scientifically impossible fact to a creationist scientist, such as light being created before a source of light, eg. sun and the stars. The creationist can merely say that Creation was not an act restricted by laws of science. If, however, the Creationist is to point out a scientifically impossible occurrence, such as the creation of gasses from nothing, the evolutionary scientist has no such argument. His theories require that all happen through scientifically explainable methods. Evolution supposedly occured while all scientific laws were under place. Therefore Evolution cannot have an explanation that is contrary to scientific laws. Creation can, and does. Science has been treated as the ultimate authority on everything. If it is not scientifically or
logically explained, our society rejects it. But we know that science has its limits. Therefore, an explanation of such an important matter as the origin of the universe based solely on scientific is bound to fail in fully explaining the answer. That is not to say that we discount the scientific evidence. If we did, we would be throwing out one of the most convincing arguments against evolution, and for authenticating the Genesis account. We must, however, remember that science is not the end-all explanation to all questions.

Now, supposing that the Big Bang did somehow manage to occur, despite the impossibility involved. Would it have produced the results we see today? It is highly unlikely. In fact, that is putting it lightly. It is also impossible. All that we know is energy. Everything is composed of energy. Yet is energy enough to create, to power life? Was the Big Bang's energy enough? The Big Bang was an outpouring of pure energy. Yet pure energy is not enough to create.
Take a car for example. In order for the car to operate, we need energy. So we fill the car with the highest-octane fuel, and step into the car. But unless we have an engine, a means with which to convert the energy into useful power, the energy in the fuel is useless. The Big Bang (that didn't happen) was pure energy without any means of harnessing the energy. An explosion that magnitude is chaos! To better exemplify this, think of atomic energy. Radioactive material, such as uranium, is the energy needed to create atomic bombs, electricity, etc... But unless the uranium (energy), is put into a useful (or not so useful!) system, it is worthless. Without a means of converting it, a mountain of uranium would do us very little good, unless maybe we used it for coffee whitener.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, if you believe all I have said, which I am sure you will not, this leads to an obvious question: Is the 'Divine being' etc..., the God described in the Bible who created the Universe and all contained therein in six days, or is he a god who has created through
evolutionary processes, making Genesis 1 an allegory? This question justifies a post as large as this one, so, at a later date I will make a post on that subject.
But for now, tell me what is wrong with my thinking concerning this post

------------------
Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
------------------------
I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.

-Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

-----------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by JJboy, posted 09-01-2002 2:47 AM JJboy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by gene90, posted 09-01-2002 11:16 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 125 (16371)
09-01-2002 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by JJboy
09-01-2002 2:23 AM


quote:
Originally posted by JJboy:
Question: (It's hard to ask without sounding snotty, excuse.) Who told you that?

Stephen Hawking for one.

quote:
The BB obviously had to have a cause.

No it obviously didn't. You are looking at this from a perspective inside of space and time-- ie. the world we live in. Causality is tied to that space and time. Prior to the BB.... well, there was no prior because there was no space and no time. You cannot have a cause when there was no preceeding moment. Got it?

quote:
If it did not, then we are forced to admit that all material is infinite

I'm not sure how you derived this.

What we are forced to admit is a huge unknown. None of the math works. The physical laws that we know break down at a singularity. Nothing works.

quote:
If I understand correctly, you are saying the BB had no cause? Please clarify.

At least no cause in the way we understand cause and effect. It simply doesn't apply.

Science cannot reach that far back, even in theory.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by JJboy, posted 09-01-2002 2:23 AM JJboy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by JJboy, posted 09-03-2002 10:03 PM John has responded

gene90
Member (Idle past 1988 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 7 of 125 (16378)
09-01-2002 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Minnemooseus
09-01-2002 3:05 AM


[QUOTE][B]Evolutionary scientists acknowledges with the Big Bang theory that a beginning is needed. Everything that is physical and tangible must have a start.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Actually that isn't necessarily so. The late astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle (*ahem*) spent most of his career pushing a steady-state universe with no beginning and no end. The data was not on his side, of course, but to claim that the universe *had* to have a beginning is begging the question.

[QUOTE][B]The Big Bang (that didn't happen) was pure energy without any means of harnessing the energy.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Matter is energy, energy and matter are interchangeable. In fact virtual particles are spontaneously created out of energy in the vacuum every day. This is the Casimir Effect, you might look into it.

The BB leads directly to matter and that leads directly to hydrogen atoms which leads directly to stars and formation of heavy elements through fusion. A non-natural method of harnessing that energy isn't needed any more than we have to build machines to make a thunderstorm (converting the thermal energy of air and the latent heat of water vapor into rain, wind, and lightning) it can happen spontaneously in nature.

[QUOTE][B]To better exemplify this, think of atomic energy. Radioactive material, such as uranium, is the energy needed to create atomic bombs, electricity, etc... But unless the uranium (energy), is put into a useful (or not so useful!) system, it is worthless.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Nope, simple decay will heat the surroundings spontaneously. If radiation-tolerant microbes were around they could live off the heat.
In fact, this system on a global scale is what powers plate tectonics and volcanism, which is an essential element in keeping us alive even though those the phenomena all appear to be completely "natural".

The point is that thermodynamics does not account for any sort of "harnessing". The best our technology does is take something that could happen anyway and make it more efficient. The mountain of uranium in nature would just be warm for a long time. If we purified it and put it in a reactor we could generate a lot of heat in a small amount of time. Same amount of energy but different timescale and we can use the energy for our purposes. However, in nature, the energy would most likely be "used" for something else, if not just heating the hillsides.

By the way, stars are an example of a natural fusion reactor. No design is necessary, you just need a cloud of hydrogen. That's pretty useful, don't you think? Where does most of the energy in our foodchain originate?

[QUOTE][B]Without a means of converting it, a mountain of uranium would do us very little good[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Unless, again, it were used in nature by driving plate tectonics. The fact is that energy is "converted" into "useful" (subjective term) forms in nature as well as in human design.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-01-2002 3:05 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

compmage
Member (Idle past 3318 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 8 of 125 (16392)
09-02-2002 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by JJboy
09-01-2002 2:23 AM


quote:
Originally posted by JJboy:

The BB obviously had to have a cause.


I think a quote will explain this better than I could:

“Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist. All actions presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Causality presupposes existence, existence does not presuppose causality. Existence-not "God"-is the First Cause.”
- Dr. Nathaniel Branden (www.positiveatheism.com)

------------------
compmage


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by JJboy, posted 09-01-2002 2:23 AM JJboy has not yet responded

  
JJboy
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 125 (16521)
09-03-2002 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by John
09-01-2002 8:59 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
quote:

Stephen Hawking for one.

And how does he know? Was he there before the BB? He can only guess, same as you or me.

quote:

Prior to the BB.... well, there was no prior because there was no space and no time. You cannot have a cause when there was no preceeding moment. Got it?

Got it. But I do not agree. So the Big Bang just happened? But I will call a truce on this, because neither you nor I can prove our point. I can not prove that the Big Bang didn't happen to you, and you can't explain that it did happen, based on these arguments.

quote:

Science cannot reach that far back, even in theory.

But why not? It is as hard to go back 15 billion years as it is to go back 15 million years ago. It is impossible! But scientists seem to have no trouble explaining 15 million years ago. Why not 15 billion years ago?

[/B][/QUOTE]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by John, posted 09-01-2002 8:59 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by gene90, posted 09-03-2002 11:32 PM JJboy has responded
 Message 13 by John, posted 09-04-2002 1:39 AM JJboy has not yet responded

gene90
Member (Idle past 1988 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 10 of 125 (16525)
09-03-2002 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by JJboy
09-03-2002 10:03 PM


[QUOTE][B]He can only guess, same as you or me.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

I wouldn't challenge him in mathematics. That's one misconception you have, that cosmology is a bunch of brains sitting around "guessing". It isn't, it is a bunch of brains sitting around doing very hard math problems.

[QUOTE][B]But why not? It is as hard to go back 15 billion years as it is to go back 15 million years ago.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

We have tons of evidence for what was happening 15 million years ago, and there is no evidence that the very laws of physics were any different then.

When we go back 15 billion years our evidence gets very tenuous and then ceases. We can extrapolate expansion back to a very compact region of space but it ends there. We can also simulate conditions shortly after the BB in our highest energy facilities. We can make mathematical models. But direct evidence (and our understanding of physics) ceases entirely at the singularity.

[QUOTE][B]It is impossible![/QUOTE]

[/B]

It is not impossible. Geologists have been doing so for years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by JJboy, posted 09-03-2002 10:03 PM JJboy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by JJboy, posted 09-04-2002 12:15 AM gene90 has responded

JJboy
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 125 (16527)
09-04-2002 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by gene90
09-03-2002 11:32 PM


You guys keep talking about this ample evidence. Please explain to me what this is.

Also, how do you know the BB even happened? What sort of evidence is there to support that theory? If the 'evidence' get's so tenuous at the end (or beginning, how are we to be sure the BB ever happened?

quote:

We can extrapolate expansion back to a very compact region of space but it ends there.

So where exactly did this 'Very compact region of space' come from. make it as small as you like. contain it all in a microscopic pinhead, but we must still ask 'Where did that come from?'


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by gene90, posted 09-03-2002 11:32 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by gene90, posted 09-04-2002 1:00 AM JJboy has not yet responded

gene90
Member (Idle past 1988 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 12 of 125 (16530)
09-04-2002 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by JJboy
09-04-2002 12:15 AM


[QUOTE][B]You guys keep talking about this ample evidence. Please explain to me what this is.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Pretty much everything dealing with the ground. We can find out a great deal, it boils down to how much we are allowed to spend. You want to know where creeks were? Ground-penetrating radar can find them. What direction the current was going? Excavate the area and check the pebbles in the channel sediment, they'll be lined up along their axis of least resistance. You want to know how much it rained over Canada fifteen MYA? Check the glacial varves, while you're there also see how big the summer wildfires were over western NA by extracting ash and see the population ratios of grasses on the great plains by consulting a polynologist. Be sure and double-check your results with ice cores from Greenland--there you can find atmospheric samples trapped in the ace, you might check and see how many volcanic eruptions there were, and by measuring isotopes in the ash, you can determine which volcanoes the source came from, not to mention determining things like the CO2 load in the atmosphere. I don't feel like writing a book here, it might be wiser just to check NSF grants instead.

[QUOTE][B]'Where did that come from?' [/QUOTE]

[/B]

Maybe it was created. Or maybe it was always there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by JJboy, posted 09-04-2002 12:15 AM JJboy has not yet responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 125 (16533)
09-04-2002 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by JJboy
09-03-2002 10:03 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by JJboy:
[B]
And how does he know? Was he there before the BB? He can only guess, same as you or me.
[/quote]

[/b]

Hawking is one of the leading minds in cosmology. I won't tell you or anybody else to accept his conclusions based on that alone. That would be an appeal to authority and I don't do that. But it is a mistake to ignore the work of people who have spent their lives trying to answer these questions.

quote:
Got it. But I do not agree. So the Big Bang just happened? But I will call a truce on this, because neither you nor I can prove our point. I can not prove that the Big Bang didn't happen to you, and you can't explain that it did happen, based on these arguments.

It works like this. Cosmologists study whatever data is available-- cosmic background radiation, galactic velocities, whatever. Then, based on that data, construct a model which produces the same results. It is like reverse engineering a piece of software. The model that explains the most data wins. The BB, at the moment, is the best contender for the title.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[This message has been edited by John, 09-04-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by JJboy, posted 09-03-2002 10:03 PM JJboy has not yet responded

steppjr
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 125 (16565)
09-04-2002 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JJboy
08-31-2002 12:13 AM


If you read the new book “the universe in a nutshell” you will hear the latest idea as to what was around before the big bang. It has to do with the fact that there are more than the 3 dimensions that we see. There are 11 dimensions to the world; just we don’t see them all as we do the three spatial ones. The theory says that the explosion that created our universe might have happened inside one of the other 7 dimensions that are outside our own. And this other dimension is thought to be infinitely large. I hope this has answered your question. This would also allow the laws of physics to exist before out universe was created. This is the same idea as I posted before about the brane worlds.

[This message has been edited by steppjr, 09-04-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JJboy, posted 08-31-2002 12:13 AM JJboy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by gene90, posted 09-04-2002 4:36 PM steppjr has responded
 Message 17 by John, posted 09-05-2002 12:26 AM steppjr has responded

gene90
Member (Idle past 1988 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 15 of 125 (16581)
09-04-2002 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by steppjr
09-04-2002 12:29 PM


I would be skeptical of using a book rather than a pr source.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by steppjr, posted 09-04-2002 12:29 PM steppjr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by steppjr, posted 09-04-2002 5:33 PM gene90 has not yet responded

1
23456
...
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019