Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The problems of big bang theory. What are they?
EighteenDelta
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 389 (430127)
10-23-2007 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by TyberiusMax
10-23-2007 12:49 PM


Re: The bitter simple question
You didn't bother to read did you?
You should try learning this subject by reading rather than having the members of this board spend their time teaching you things you will never allow yourself to believe.
Leaving out antimatter isn't a small thing as you seem to imply, that only demonstrates further the point that you are disbelieving things you haven't made the effort to understand.
Lets start here
Where did all the matter and radiation in the universe come from in the first place? Recent intriguing theoretical research by physicists such as Steven Weinberg of Harvard and Ya. B. Zel'dovich in Moscow suggest that the universe began as a perfect vacuum and that all the particles of the material world were created from the expansion of space...
Think about the universe immediately after the Big Bang. Space is violently expanding with explosive vigor. Yet, as we have seen, all space is seething with virtual pairs of particles and antiparticles. Normally, a particle and anti-particle have no trouble getting back together in a time interval...short enough so that the conservation of mass is satisfied under the uncertainty principle. During the Big Bang, however, space was expanding so fast that particles were rapidly pulled away from their corresponding antiparticles. Deprived of the opportunity to recombine, these virtual particles had to become real particles in the real world. Where did the energy come from to achieve this materialization?
Recall that the Big Bang was like the center of a black hole. A vast supply of gravitational energy was therefore associated with the intense gravity of this cosmic singularity. This resource provided ample energy to completely fill the universe with all conceivable kinds of particles and antiparticles. Thus, immediately after the Planck time, the universe was flooded with particles and antiparticles created by the violent expansion of space. (Kaufmann, 1985, 529-532)
First thing, notice it says like a black hole, that doesn't mean = to a blackhole. Experiments have been conducted to create pairs of particle/anti-particles. This isn't just limited to the big bang.
-x

"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
-Stephen Jay Gould

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-23-2007 12:49 PM TyberiusMax has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-23-2007 1:34 PM EighteenDelta has not replied

EighteenDelta
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 389 (430128)
10-23-2007 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by TyberiusMax
10-23-2007 12:49 PM


Re: The bitter simple question
Since you keep adding things after I have started my response I then have to respond multiple times.
it is a LAW: something cannot come from "pure nothing"
(please tell me you believe this)
Show me this law, in its entirety. You are over simplifying things again.
The only logical reasoning is that something is outside of existence(Matter,Anti-Matter, Laws,Time,Everything) and created existance. Anything else goes against logic
Only your version of 'logic'.
You are stuck on your conclusion and simply playing a shell game to try and reach the same conclusion, regardless of how many times you are shown that your basic assumptions are incorrect. The sure sign of a locked mind, unwilling to bend to the evidence, and a waste of time for those of us posting in response.
P.S. Can I recommend that since you are in all likelihood using internet explorer(from the state of your posts), you try FireFox web Browser, it would make your posts more comprehensible since it includes a spell check option. Its not perfect as my posts will show, but it will vastly improve them.
-x

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-23-2007 12:49 PM TyberiusMax has not replied

TyberiusMax
Member (Idle past 5999 days)
Posts: 39
Joined: 10-23-2007


Message 48 of 389 (430129)
10-23-2007 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by EighteenDelta
10-23-2007 1:24 PM


Re: The bitter simple question
Ok, so your telling me that anit-matter, matter, particles, and virtual particles made all we had from the enrgy of the big bang.
SO what.
You go right from particles just appearing to the big bang giving them energy.
How does a particle appear out of nowhere. It can't it is impossible there is truly "ZERO ENERGY/ZERO EXISTENCE" before existence.
Everything you say requires energy to be present but that had to come from somewhere.
Did it come from virtual particles and particles.
Even if, How were they then made.
you cannot use anything that exists ( matter,particles) to explain how they came to exist since they were required to began existence.
It is illogical to say this therefore the only logical answer is that "Something" outside of existence created existence.
How is your logic not the same?
Your goal is to prove that existence came to be from objects that were made by existence. Your mind-set is that somehow, objects from existence already existed and then created existence. But that just plain doesn't make sense does it?
Edited by TyberiusMax, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by EighteenDelta, posted 10-23-2007 1:24 PM EighteenDelta has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 49 of 389 (430130)
10-23-2007 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by TyberiusMax
10-23-2007 11:16 AM


Re: The bitter simple question
Hi, Tyberius Max,
Your entire argument is based on the Fallacy of Composition, just because things inside the universe behave in a certain way gives us no reason to suppose that the universe itself does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-23-2007 11:16 AM TyberiusMax has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-23-2007 1:42 PM Dr Jack has replied

TyberiusMax
Member (Idle past 5999 days)
Posts: 39
Joined: 10-23-2007


Message 50 of 389 (430132)
10-23-2007 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Dr Jack
10-23-2007 1:38 PM


Re: The bitter simple question
So jack, are you telling me that even though our universe tells us that something cannot come out of "pure nothing", maybe somehow, for some reason, the universe actually was at one time created out of nothing?
Edited by TyberiusMax, : Spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Dr Jack, posted 10-23-2007 1:38 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by jar, posted 10-23-2007 1:48 PM TyberiusMax has not replied
 Message 52 by EighteenDelta, posted 10-23-2007 1:49 PM TyberiusMax has replied
 Message 73 by Dr Jack, posted 10-24-2007 5:12 AM TyberiusMax has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 51 of 389 (430135)
10-23-2007 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by TyberiusMax
10-23-2007 1:42 PM


a suggested starting point
It might help you if you start here and then read all of the posts by cavediver and Son Gyku before posting much more on the origin of the universe.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-23-2007 1:42 PM TyberiusMax has not replied

EighteenDelta
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 389 (430137)
10-23-2007 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by TyberiusMax
10-23-2007 1:42 PM


Re: The bitter simple question
I have already told you that something can in fact come from 'pure nothing'. And I have already told you that there is no such thing as 'pure nothing' in the realm of physics. You simply aren't paying attention.
In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy. (Morris, 1990, 25)
We know they are there because they affect the physical world we inhabit. But you will continue to ignore this...
-x

"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
-Stephen Jay Gould

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-23-2007 1:42 PM TyberiusMax has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-23-2007 2:01 PM EighteenDelta has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 53 of 389 (430138)
10-23-2007 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by TyberiusMax
10-23-2007 11:16 AM


Re: The bitter simple question
Matter exists physically and exists as energy
Matter is what EVERYTHING is made out of...
Matter cannot be created nor destroyed...
The amount of matter in the Universe has been the same ever since the matter came about.
I think you're getting matter and energy a bit mixed up.
The amount of energy in the form of matter can certainly change --- it is energy (including matter) that's conserved.
The universe therefore cannot be infinitely old because that would mean that matter has been here forever
Which you rule out why?
(N.B: again, you should be talking about energy, not matter.)
How, since you cannot make SOMETHING from NOTHING, is this possible
Consider that if energy is conserved this means that you can in fact create positive energyso long as in the process you create an equal amount of negative energy (such as is associated with a gravitational field) to offset it. This would look like "something from nothing", but would not violate the law of conservation of energy.
(I mention this because some physicists think that this may have happened.)
There is a Being or Something who is outside all boundaries of LAWS and NATURE and TIME, and created all we know and do not know.
Well, since you're prepared to acknowledge "a Being or Something", perhaps you should also write "created or caused".
Also, it's not necessarily true that it caused "all we don't know". There might, in principle, be cosmoses other than our own, with different causes.
So, overlooking any minor deficiencies in your exposition, we seem to have reached the conclusion that something must have made the Big Bang go Bing, but we don't yet understand it in terms of our current state of scientific knowledge.
As you have remarked, this is not an argument to make anyone rush out and become a theist, or even a deist.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-23-2007 11:16 AM TyberiusMax has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 54 of 389 (430139)
10-23-2007 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by TyberiusMax
10-23-2007 12:49 PM


Re: The bitter simple question
Because anything that is there is existence and therefore had to be made at sometime.
I think this is the weakest point of your argument. It is not internally, logically self-contradictory to imagine that energy that has always existed in the past and will always exist in the future. Nor would this violate any of the known laws of nature.
Indeed, it would superficially appear to violate the laws of nature if there was a point at which it came into existence, since the law of conservation of energy states that however much energy there is in the Universe now, there must have been at all times in the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-23-2007 12:49 PM TyberiusMax has not replied

TyberiusMax
Member (Idle past 5999 days)
Posts: 39
Joined: 10-23-2007


Message 55 of 389 (430140)
10-23-2007 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by EighteenDelta
10-23-2007 1:49 PM


Re: The bitter simple question
Im not saying there is "pure nothing", I'm just saying that
Even if existence(Universe,anything else that possibly exists) goes back for eternity, you are then saying that there was no begining of particles, matter.
You are then doing the same thing as peoplewho believe in a creator who has no beginning.
You ask creationist "who made god then"?
We ask you "who made the (particles, matter) then"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by EighteenDelta, posted 10-23-2007 1:49 PM EighteenDelta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by EighteenDelta, posted 10-23-2007 2:14 PM TyberiusMax has replied

EighteenDelta
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 389 (430144)
10-23-2007 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by TyberiusMax
10-23-2007 2:01 PM


Re: The bitter simple question
You need to decide what you are and aren't saying. if you want to talk about 'before the universe' then you are saying there was a 'pure nothingness'.
Particles do have beginnings. I have not claimed otherwise. Particles/Matter/Anti-matter originated(had a beginning) with the big bang, which is a singularity extending through all space at a single instant. I do not, in the remotest sense believe in a creator with no beginning, nor in a creator with a beginning, I don't believe in any creator entities/creatures/beings.
-x

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-23-2007 2:01 PM TyberiusMax has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-23-2007 2:29 PM EighteenDelta has replied

TyberiusMax
Member (Idle past 5999 days)
Posts: 39
Joined: 10-23-2007


Message 57 of 389 (430147)
10-23-2007 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by EighteenDelta
10-23-2007 2:14 PM


Re: The bitter simple question
So you believe in a finite existence in which there was a beginning to everything. You believe this was the Big Bang
This brings us back to point one... how did the (matter,antimatter, virtual particles, particles, energy) that caused the Big Bang come about.
Since (matter,antimatter, virtual particles, particles, energy)caused the Big Bang this would prove something was before the Big Bang, otherwise there would be nothing to bring it about
Edited by TyberiusMax, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by EighteenDelta, posted 10-23-2007 2:14 PM EighteenDelta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by EighteenDelta, posted 10-23-2007 2:40 PM TyberiusMax has replied

EighteenDelta
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 389 (430149)
10-23-2007 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by TyberiusMax
10-23-2007 2:29 PM


Re: The bitter simple question
Since (matter,antimatter, virtual particles, particles, energy)caused the Big Bang this would prove something was before the Big Bang, otherwise there would be nothing to bring it about
No. virtual particles aren't a thing of the past. Do you think god is the one still making them to this day? Because you do realize this is a part of everyday physics? Why do you see the need of a god to create something that still pops into and out of existence to this day? The difference is that the matter of the universe and the gravitational conditions existent today do not provide for a new big bang.
And nothing 'brings it about'.
-x

"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
-Stephen Jay Gould

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-23-2007 2:29 PM TyberiusMax has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-23-2007 2:56 PM EighteenDelta has not replied

TyberiusMax
Member (Idle past 5999 days)
Posts: 39
Joined: 10-23-2007


Message 59 of 389 (430150)
10-23-2007 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by EighteenDelta
10-23-2007 2:40 PM


Re: The bitter simple question
you tell me there is no such thing as nothing
Tell me then, what was before the Big Bang
Would you say "nothing"?
But there is no such thing as "pure nothing", something is always present.
Therefore we must question. Where did this something come from?
I'm not saying that you must believe in God. But tell me, why can't people believe in a God outside of existence when you believe something came out of nothing.
They both, at present, sound illogical
Edited by TyberiusMax, : No reason given.
Edited by TyberiusMax, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by EighteenDelta, posted 10-23-2007 2:40 PM EighteenDelta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Chiroptera, posted 10-23-2007 3:02 PM TyberiusMax has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 389 (430154)
10-23-2007 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by TyberiusMax
10-23-2007 2:56 PM


Re: The bitter simple question
Tell me then, what was before the Big Bang
As I've tried to tell you in the other thread, there was no "before the Big Bang".
"Before" and "After" denote relative coordinates in time. There was no time before the Big Bang, and hence there was no "before". You need time to be able to speak of "before" -- without time you cannot speak about "before" or "after". "Before the Big Bang" is like speaking about "North of the North Pole". It just doesn't make sense.

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-23-2007 2:56 PM TyberiusMax has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-23-2007 3:13 PM Chiroptera has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024