Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
37 online now:
dwise1, Faith, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), vimesey (4 members, 33 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,958 Year: 18,994/19,786 Month: 1,414/1,705 Week: 220/446 Day: 18/98 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The problems of big bang theory. What are they?
TyberiusMax
Member (Idle past 4289 days)
Posts: 39
Joined: 10-23-2007


Message 121 of 389 (430480)
10-25-2007 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Dr Adequate
10-25-2007 5:47 PM


Re: Once more...
Ok forget about matter, I just want you to understand that a infinite universe is simply as impossible as having a God

I quote Keith Mayes who uses info from Stephen Hawking:
"I understand that many people have a problem with the idea of our universe being finite, that it has an 'end' to it, a boundary. They ask what this boundary would be physically like, as though it were some form of partition that we couldn't get through. However, there is not a particular direction that we could set off in our warp speed space craft that would lead us to a boundary, no matter how far or fast we travelled. The explanation for this seeming impossibility is that space-time is curved, thus you would be travelling in a circle that only appears to be a straight line. If it were possible to direct a laser beam from here through the centre of the universe it would not hit the other side of the universe, it would eventually hit the back of your head (metaphorically speaking). Einstein demonstrated how matter in the universe distorts the space-time continuum by accurately predicting how much our Sun distorted local space. He used a total eclipse of the Sun (as the only time that stars and the Sun can be seen at the same time in close proximity) to demonstrate that a star that was behind the Sun, and therefore not visible from our line of sight, would in fact be visible (in the darkness of totality) because the Sun warps the space-time around it and thus curves the light beam around the Sun, enabling us to see the star. Strictly speaking, the Sun does not actually curve the light around itself, the entire space-time continuum is curved, the light is still travelling in a 'straight' line."

"I do not believe that infinity exists in our universe."

END QUOTE

The last part is what it all comes down to. Even after this, there is still no way yet of explaining what created our "curved space-time universe" This is why infinity cannot be applied to the universe.
The question once again goes right back to "but how does this curved space-time universe" in which infinity does not exist relate to what could be outside of it. You cannot because it is curved and we are bounded by this.
We cannot yet explain how a universe that has no infinity could have come to existence in the first place because that would contradictorily require something to be infinite to create this finite universe.

It is simple as that, an unresolved question, there truly is no answer yet to how the universe could come to be when it itself requires something infinite.

On the other hand is a BELIEF in a Creator who is infinite.
This would not have any scientific boundaries because it is just that; a BELIEF

Edited by TyberiusMax, : spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-25-2007 5:47 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2007 2:51 PM TyberiusMax has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 122 of 389 (430481)
10-25-2007 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by TyberiusMax
10-25-2007 4:16 PM


Re: Once more...
Now, I am in fact prepared to explain to you the difference between something that is finite in space and something that is finite in time --- or perhaps you could figure that out for yourself? --- and, indeed, why applying the same sort of thinking to the dimension of time would prove your thesis incorrect --- and why the entirely unsupported opinion of someone who has read Stephen Hawking is not definitive --- but first I should like you to show some vague signs of having read and understood just one or two of the things I've already explained to you.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-25-2007 4:16 PM TyberiusMax has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-25-2007 6:04 PM Dr Adequate has responded

TyberiusMax
Member (Idle past 4289 days)
Posts: 39
Joined: 10-23-2007


Message 123 of 389 (430482)
10-25-2007 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Dr Adequate
10-25-2007 5:55 PM


Re: Once more...
Am I mistaken.. or do I not see you explaining anything that goes against anything I say?

All you have done is reply with simple sentences that do not try to disprove anything I say, along with simply denying credit to the two quotes of Davies, and Mayes/Hawking.

I don't know about you but it I find it hard to counter ideas that simply say "thats illogical". You must explain why a idea is illogical before you can claim that it is not.

To say that someone's answer is wrong would mean that you yourself knew the answer. Otherwise what else does saying their answer is not logical mean.

Edited by TyberiusMax, : spelling

Edited by TyberiusMax, : spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-25-2007 5:55 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-25-2007 6:10 PM TyberiusMax has not yet responded
 Message 126 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2007 2:43 PM TyberiusMax has not yet responded

  
TyberiusMax
Member (Idle past 4289 days)
Posts: 39
Joined: 10-23-2007


Message 124 of 389 (430484)
10-25-2007 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by TyberiusMax
10-25-2007 6:04 PM


Re: Once more...
I do not deny the hypothesis that the universe is finite yet somehow "just exists".
Because there is no evidence to go against or for it

In the same manner you cannot deny the hypothesis of a God who is independent of existence because he can niether be proven nor disproven because there is no evidence for either.

Edited by TyberiusMax, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-25-2007 6:04 PM TyberiusMax has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by sidelined, posted 10-26-2007 12:03 AM TyberiusMax has not yet responded
 Message 128 by Chiroptera, posted 10-26-2007 4:13 PM TyberiusMax has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 389 (430549)
10-26-2007 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by TyberiusMax
10-25-2007 6:10 PM


Re: Once more...
TyberiusMax

In the same manner you cannot deny the hypothesis of a God who is independent of existence because he can niether be proven nor disproven because there is no evidence for either.

Why would you postulate a hypothesis of a God independent of existence since this, by default, excludes him from any interaction with the universe itself? That God can neither be proven nor disproven only means that the hypothesis has no grounds in the first place since this would allow for any possibilty { teacups in orbit,invisible,immaterial dragons in the garage, etc} whatever and thus also leaves the realm of reasonable discussion.


"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

Albert Einstein


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-25-2007 6:10 PM TyberiusMax has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Elhardt, posted 10-27-2007 10:12 PM sidelined has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 126 of 389 (430650)
10-26-2007 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by TyberiusMax
10-25-2007 6:04 PM


Re: Once more...
Am I mistaken.. or do I not see you explaining anything that goes against anything I say?

You're mistaken, as you will see if you ever bother to read my posts.

All you have done is reply with simple sentences that do not try to disprove anything I say, along with simply denying credit to the two quotes of Davies, and Mayes/Hawking.

I don't know about you but it I find it hard to counter ideas that simply say "thats illogical". You must explain why a idea is illogical before you can claim that it is not.

To say that someone's answer is wrong would mean that you yourself knew the answer. Otherwise what else does saying their answer is not logical mean.

These vague ramblings appear to have nothing to do with anything I posted.

---

Could I add that reading Stephen Hawking and then writing something about the same subject is not the same as co-authoring a work with Stephen Hawking.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-25-2007 6:04 PM TyberiusMax has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 127 of 389 (430654)
10-26-2007 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by TyberiusMax
10-25-2007 5:55 PM


Re: Once more...
Ok forget about matter, I just want you to understand that a infinite universe is simply as impossible as having a God
I quote Keith Mayes who uses info from Stephen Hawking:
"I understand that many people have a problem with the idea of our universe being finite, that it has an 'end' to it, a boundary. They ask what this boundary would be physically like, as though it were some form of partition that we couldn't get through. However, there is not a particular direction that we could set off in our warp speed space craft that would lead us to a boundary, no matter how far or fast we travelled. The explanation for this seeming impossibility is that space-time is curved, thus you would be travelling in a circle that only appears to be a straight line. If it were possible to direct a laser beam from here through the centre of the universe it would not hit the other side of the universe, it would eventually hit the back of your head (metaphorically speaking). Einstein demonstrated how matter in the universe distorts the space-time continuum by accurately predicting how much our Sun distorted local space. He used a total eclipse of the Sun (as the only time that stars and the Sun can be seen at the same time in close proximity) to demonstrate that a star that was behind the Sun, and therefore not visible from our line of sight, would in fact be visible (in the darkness of totality) because the Sun warps the space-time around it and thus curves the light beam around the Sun, enabling us to see the star. Strictly speaking, the Sun does not actually curve the light around itself, the entire space-time continuum is curved, the light is still travelling in a 'straight' line."

"I do not believe that infinity exists in our universe."

If you ever get round to reading this quotation instead of just quoting it, you will see that nowhere does he say that it is impossible for the universe to be infinite it time. What he's actually saying is that it is not impossible for the universe to be finite in space.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-25-2007 5:55 PM TyberiusMax has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6805
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 128 of 389 (430670)
10-26-2007 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by TyberiusMax
10-25-2007 6:10 PM


Re: Once more...
In the same manner you cannot deny the hypothesis of a God who is independent of existence because he can niether be proven nor disproven because there is no evidence for either.

That may or may not be true, but it is the subject for a different thread.

This thread is supposed to be about problems with the Big Bang model. So far, no one has really come up with any real compelling problems with the Big Bang model.


Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-25-2007 6:10 PM TyberiusMax has not yet responded

Elhardt
Junior Member (Idle past 3529 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 10-27-2007


Message 129 of 389 (430848)
10-27-2007 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by sidelined
10-26-2007 12:03 AM


Re: Once more...
Why would you postulate a hypothesis of a God independent of existence since this, by default, excludes him from any interaction with the universe itself? That God can neither be proven nor disproven only means that the hypothesis has no grounds in the first place since this would allow for any possibilty { teacups in orbit,invisible,immaterial dragons in the garage, etc} whatever and thus also leaves the realm of reasonable discussion.

Of course God can be proven. This may be a big shocker to some people, but there have been many who have seen him and interacted with him after dying. There are a whole series of phenomena that prove the existance of God. Both evos and creos seem to be totally clueless on that subject which is why it's always reduced to one side claiming anything they haven't seen in our material world does not exist, and the other side saying it does exist because it says right here in the Bible it exists. Materialistic denial vs blind faith. Whatever happened to objective scientific observable evidence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by sidelined, posted 10-26-2007 12:03 AM sidelined has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Chiroptera, posted 10-27-2007 10:23 PM Elhardt has responded
 Message 135 by Taz, posted 10-27-2007 11:04 PM Elhardt has not yet responded
 Message 136 by sidelined, posted 10-27-2007 11:53 PM Elhardt has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6805
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 130 of 389 (430850)
10-27-2007 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Elhardt
10-27-2007 10:12 PM


Re: Once more...
Welcome to EvC, Elhardt.

The post to which you are replying is part of a conversation that is off-topic for this thread. This thread is supposed to be about whether there are any problems with the Big Bang model. Whether or not there is evidence for or against the existence of a god, or whether a god can be proven or disproven is better discussed in another thread.


Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Elhardt, posted 10-27-2007 10:12 PM Elhardt has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Elhardt, posted 10-27-2007 10:28 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Elhardt
Junior Member (Idle past 3529 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 10-27-2007


Message 131 of 389 (430852)
10-27-2007 10:25 PM


This topic is way too long to read the whole thing, but I'll throw in some interesting info.

Astronomers tell us that no matter how far out into the universe they look (that means looking back in time to a younger universe), all spiral galaxies appear the same age to us, with the same amount of twist, and the same amount of development. That defies any common sense at all. There are many unexplainable things we see.

The universe is expanding if the redshift is doppler based. But we see redshift from the sun and we're not moving away from it. There is anomalous redshift all over the place totally confusing the picture.

I did see somebody mention the problem about things in the universe being older than the universe. Even the official NASA website admitted the problem. A 14 billion old universe with stars, galaxies, and dust clouds ranging from 17-19 billion years old is a problem. Apparently the way they're solving it is just hacking billions of years off the ages of things to bring them down below 14 billion years. Science did the same with the moon, by hacking 1.5 billion years off to bring it to the age of the earth to support their new theory. This is why one must take the things they say with a grain of salt.

Edited by Elhardt, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Elhardt, posted 10-27-2007 10:30 PM Elhardt has not yet responded
 Message 134 by Chiroptera, posted 10-27-2007 10:49 PM Elhardt has not yet responded
 Message 137 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-28-2007 2:39 AM Elhardt has not yet responded
 Message 142 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-28-2007 3:01 PM Elhardt has not yet responded
 Message 143 by Chiroptera, posted 10-28-2007 3:13 PM Elhardt has not yet responded
 Message 144 by Sylas, posted 10-28-2007 7:58 PM Elhardt has not yet responded

Elhardt
Junior Member (Idle past 3529 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 10-27-2007


Message 132 of 389 (430853)
10-27-2007 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Chiroptera
10-27-2007 10:23 PM


Re: Once more...
Yes, thanks, I know about the topic, but was just responding to other people who were dragging God into the picture, I guess in relation to the creation of the universe. I just wanted to make a short point and not actually go into the actual evidence which as you point out should be another thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Chiroptera, posted 10-27-2007 10:23 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Elhardt
Junior Member (Idle past 3529 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 10-27-2007


Message 133 of 389 (430854)
10-27-2007 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Elhardt
10-27-2007 10:25 PM


Ignore this post. I just learned I could edit the mistakes in my post #131, so no need for this post of corrections.

Edited by Elhardt, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Elhardt, posted 10-27-2007 10:25 PM Elhardt has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6805
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 134 of 389 (430856)
10-27-2007 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Elhardt
10-27-2007 10:25 PM


Astronomers tell us that no matter how far out into the universe they look (that means looking back in time to a younger universe), all spiral galaxies appear the same age to us, with the same amount of twist, and the same amount of development.

I doubt that this is true.

-

The universe is expanding if the redshift is doppler based.

Actually, the amount of red-shift of a galaxy correlates strongly with the distance between us and the galaxy. This is what would be expected if the universe is expanding -- in fact, I can't think of anything else that would create a red-shift that correlates with distance.

Also, the General Theory of Relativity is an extremely well verified theory. And according to GR, the universe should be contracting or expanding. So in that context, an expansion of the universe seems to be a pretty good bet.

-

I did see somebody mention the problem about things in the universe being older than the universe.

That has been mentioned before. No one says that our theories are completely precise. If the age calculated for the universe is off by a couple of billion years, and if the ages calculated for various stars or other objects are also off by a couple of billion years, then it's perfectly plausible that the ages of the various objects might be calculated to be older than the calculated age of the universe.

These would be problems if it were believed that the theories and calculations describing these things were completely, totally precise.

So:

A 14 billion old universe with stars, galaxies, and dust clouds ranging from 17-19 billion years old is a problem.

is not a problem is the Big Bang model -- it is a problem with understanding in better detail the theories that describe these phenomena and making better measurements of what we see in the sky with our instruments.

And, in fact, new measurements and better, more accurate theories have eliminated most of these discrepancies.

-

Science did the same with the moon, by hacking 1.5 billion years off to bring it to the age of the earth to support their new theory.

I don't believe this, either.


Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Elhardt, posted 10-27-2007 10:25 PM Elhardt has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1582 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 135 of 389 (430859)
10-27-2007 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Elhardt
10-27-2007 10:12 PM


Re: Once more...
Welcome to EvC. Let me be the first... or second to say that you are certainly welcome to stay here and contribute to our debates here at EvC. However, might I suggest that this other forum is really what you were looking for to post your comment?

Again, welcome to our little corner of the net. Have a wonderful day.


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Elhardt, posted 10-27-2007 10:12 PM Elhardt has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019