Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 31 of 317 (640050)
11-07-2011 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Nuggin
11-07-2011 1:07 AM


quote:
The Universe as it is now could be one of an infinite series Universes bursting forth in a Big Bang, expanding until heat death eventually shatters all the atoms into nothingness followed by a new Big Bang
A finite cannot contain an infinite. Science #101.
There was once no heat; heat requires dual-entity friction; thus no 'shatters'; atoms [plural]; nor multiverses - these all violate the finite factor.
The case in this thread is already vindicated the universe is finite, in which case none can explain its emergence outside of a universe creator or an external, precedent and transcendent force which is infinite and singularly so; namely one not subject to change.
IMHO, there can be only one potential, possible exception: if another realm does exist, it will not contain anything which is already contained in this universe; nothing physical or corporeal. Thus none here would be able to percieve it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Nuggin, posted 11-07-2011 1:07 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Admin, posted 11-07-2011 6:33 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 38 by Nuggin, posted 11-07-2011 8:06 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 32 of 317 (640051)
11-07-2011 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by designtheorist
11-07-2011 1:39 AM


Re: Reply to frako
Regarding your argument about virtual particles, it appears you are trying to argue against the Conservation of Energy. Physicists do not agree with you that quantum fluctuations or virtual particles violate this important law of physics. To quote from Wikipedia In the modern view, energy is always conserved, but the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (energy observable) are not the same as (i.e. the Hamiltonian doesn't commute with) the particle number operators.
Well no they dont because they always come to be or start to exsist as a positive and a negative and when they clash they cese to exsist.
There are some theories of how they can bend the rules a bit if they pop in to exsistance on the edge of a black holes horizon where on particle is pulled in by the black hole and the other escapes. But still the energy in the universe remains the same there is still a positive and a negative particle equaling 0 it is just that they have not annihilated each other.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 1:39 AM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 7:23 AM frako has replied
 Message 89 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 8:58 PM frako has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 317 (640052)
11-07-2011 6:10 AM


General Relativity and the Big Bang
Let's be clear about what is currently known.
The current theory of gravity, known as General Relativity, will produce a spacetime for any
given collection of matter. So first of all, what is a spacetime? A spacetime is a four-dimensional shape,
just as a sphere is a two dimensional shape or a cube is a three dimensional shape. However this shape
has time built into it as one of its dimensions, so it behaves a little differently to normal shapes, however
that doesn't really matter for now.
What a spacetime describes is an entire history of a universe, the curves and contours in the shape, describe
the paths objects take as they evolve in space and time. As human beings, we see these paths as gravitational
orbits.
In what follows _ means a subscript and:
0 = time
1 = x-direction
2 = y-direction
3 = z-direction
The next most important thing is the matter. This is described via an object called the Stress-Energy Tensor,
T_uv (_ means subscript). T_uv looks like a matrix, such as this:
T_00 T_01 T_02 T_03
T_10 T_11 T_12 T_13
T_20 T_21 T_22 T_23
T_30 T_31 T_32 T_33
T_00 is the density of mass, amount of matter per volume
T_10, T_20, T_30, are momentum per unit volume
T_11, T_22, T_33, are pressure
T_21, T_31, T_32, T_23, T_13, T_12, are shear stress. The kind of stress that rips things, or
the kind of stress that occurs when things rub off or flow over each other.
T_01 T_02 T_03, are energy flux, for example heat conduction, the transfer of energy basically.
G_uv is a geometric object, that tells you about the curvature of a spacetime. Basically you
take an arrow pointing in any direction. For example an arrow pointing in the y-direction:
^
|
then drag it along a square, with one side along the u direction and the other along the
y-direction. So for G_12, I'll drag the arrow along x and y directions.
First I drag it along the x-direction:
↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
then the y-direction:



↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
Then back along the x direction:
↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑


↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
and back down along the y-direction to complete the square.
In a flat space, the arrow will align perfectly with how it started.
In a curved space it won't, so this provides a measure of the curvature. G_12 is basically the difference or "gap" between arrow after it travels around the square and its original position.
(An example is to be found here, for a sphere:The Riemann Curvature Tensor , just scroll down to the picture of a sphere and you'll see a vector being dragged along.)
G_uv is this process for all squares you could try, a z/y-square for example.
General Relativity says the following:
G_uv = 8pi T_uv.
So the change in the arrow is proportional to the amount numbers I gave at the beginning. For example, taking u = 1 and v = 2:
G_12 = 8pi T_12
so in a spacetime, the change in the arrow after being dragged along the square I've described above is given by the amount of shear
stress times 8pi. Specifically the shear stress coming from an object with momentum in the x-direction pushing against a plane of
material lying in the y-direction.
So the mass density, shear stress, momentum density and energy flux (e.g. heat flow) completely determine the curvature of the spacetime.
If you know the curvature, you know the spacetime, so you have then figured out the spacetime.
So, when we look at the night sky we see a roughly homogeneous cloud of gas on the largest scales. Of course it doesn't look like that to us,
but on the largest scales that is what the universe looks like. So, we write down the T_uv matrix of a cloud of homogenous cloud of gas. Quite
easy because a cloud of gas has no shear stress, so a lot of the terms are just zero. Then we use Einstein's equations to figure out the curvature.
The result is a spacetime which gets smaller in space as you turn back time. The "Big Bang" spacetime, because when played forward, its early sections
look like an explosion. When we apply this spacetime to our universe, with its particular collection of matter, it turns out the universe would have been
about the size of a tennis ball about 13.7 billion years ago. Unfortunately we can't go any further back than this because the equation:
G_uv = 8pi T_uv
becomes unreliable.
So that's it. I don't particularly see anything there that implies a creator god.
Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Huntard, posted 11-07-2011 6:31 AM Son Goku has replied
 Message 93 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 9:44 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 34 of 317 (640055)
11-07-2011 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Son Goku
11-07-2011 6:10 AM


Re: General Relativity and the Big Bang
Son Goku writes:
...just as a sphere is a two dimensional shape...
Did you perhaps mean circle?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Son Goku, posted 11-07-2011 6:10 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Son Goku, posted 11-07-2011 8:28 AM Huntard has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(3)
Message 35 of 317 (640057)
11-07-2011 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by IamJoseph
11-07-2011 2:33 AM


Hi IamJoseph,
Please stop posting to this thread. Thanks.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by IamJoseph, posted 11-07-2011 2:33 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 36 of 317 (640060)
11-07-2011 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by frako
11-07-2011 5:56 AM


Re: Reply to frako
The key point is that quantum fluctuations do not violate the Law of Conservation of Energy. It is best to view quantum fluctuations and virtual particles as constant but they simply become observable at specific points as they move about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by frako, posted 11-07-2011 5:56 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by frako, posted 11-07-2011 7:41 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 37 of 317 (640062)
11-07-2011 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by designtheorist
11-07-2011 7:23 AM


Re: Reply to frako
That does not mean our universe does violate that law for all we know the energy of our universe is 0, or our universe has a counterpart and combined their energy value is 0.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 7:23 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 38 of 317 (640072)
11-07-2011 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by IamJoseph
11-07-2011 2:33 AM


A finite cannot contain an infinite. Science #101.
And since the Universe is an endless series, it is not finite.
Science 001.
The case in this thread is already vindicated the universe is finite,
Wrong. You've declared that the universe if finite based on criteria that you've made up.
We've given you examples of things which are infinite which you have not addressed. Your criticisms of the Universe are no more valid than criticisms of number sequences.
IMHO, there can be only one potential, possible exception: if another realm does exist, it will not contain anything which is already contained in this universe; nothing physical or corporeal. Thus none here would be able to percieve it.
That makes your religion invalid, you realize that right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by IamJoseph, posted 11-07-2011 2:33 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by frako, posted 11-07-2011 8:08 AM Nuggin has not replied

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


Message 39 of 317 (640074)
11-07-2011 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by designtheorist
11-07-2011 1:41 AM


Re: Even if true it provides no support for any creator or god
Well, defeating philosophic arguments is not very hard and philosophic arguments are pretty much as worthless as philosophers in the first place.
This universe seems to have had a beginning but that is no more consistent with the idea of a creator God or Designer then it is with the idea of magic fairies or purple people eaters.
There is no evidence of any god or designers while there is overwhelming evidence that causes are usually trivial, insignificant and transient.
In addition, you made a series of unsupported assertions to begin your discussion which while unsupported and false, I accepted for this discussion.
The point is that even IF the premises you presented were true, they provide no evidence to support any creator God or Designer.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 1:41 AM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 9:56 PM jar has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 40 of 317 (640075)
11-07-2011 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Nuggin
11-07-2011 8:06 AM


IMHO, there can be only one potential, possible exception: if another realm does exist, it will not contain anything which is already contained in this universe; nothing physical or corporeal. Thus none here would be able to percieve it.
That makes your religion invalid, you realize that right?
So a theist has provided atheists with a "logical" proof of no heaven or hell. lol
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Nuggin, posted 11-07-2011 8:06 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 41 of 317 (640077)
11-07-2011 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by designtheorist
11-07-2011 1:48 AM


Re: Reply to Dr Adequate
I am happy to invite your scrutiny into the evidence and logic as I lay it out.
Well, so far my scrutiny has consisted of asking you a question, which I shall restate: are there (conceivable) universes which would not be compatible with the idea that some omnipotent metaphysical being* wanted them to exist and be the way they are?
Otherwise, you see, the observation that ours is one of the universes which is compatible in this way doesn't actually get us anywhere.
* I write "omnipotent metaphysical being" rather than "God" not because I'm addicted to circumlocution (though I am) but because according to many popular definitions of God our universe is not compatible with the God hypothesis, because of the Problem of Evil.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 1:48 AM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 10:07 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 42 of 317 (640079)
11-07-2011 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by designtheorist
11-07-2011 1:44 AM


Re: Reply to Hooah212002
but it is too early to answer them at this point.
So you want soooo bad to allow the option for a god, but you have no clue to what end? You have no clue what we would do with that information? You have no clue how that would advance our understanding of anything?

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 1:44 AM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-07-2011 8:43 AM hooah212002 has replied
 Message 102 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 10:10 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 317 (640080)
11-07-2011 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Huntard
11-07-2011 6:31 AM


Re: General Relativity and the Big Bang
I should have said I mean a sphere the way it is talked about in mathematics, i.e. the surface
of a ball, not the whole ball. This is a two-dimensional curved object.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Huntard, posted 11-07-2011 6:31 AM Huntard has seen this message but not replied

  
Aware Wolf
Member (Idle past 1420 days)
Posts: 156
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 44 of 317 (640083)
11-07-2011 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by designtheorist
11-06-2011 5:39 PM


Simply stated — If there was a big bang, there has to be a Big Banger.
And if there is a Big Banger, there has to be a Big Banger Factory, or whatever it is you want to call the thing that created the Big Banger.
BTW, "Big Banger" was my nick-name back in High School.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by designtheorist, posted 11-06-2011 5:39 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 10:15 PM Aware Wolf has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 45 of 317 (640084)
11-07-2011 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by hooah212002
11-07-2011 8:25 AM


Re: Reply to Hooah212002
So you want soooo bad to allow the option for a god, but you have no clue to what end? You have no clue what we would do with that information? You have no clue how that would advance our understanding of anything?
He just said he wouldn't address those questions yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by hooah212002, posted 11-07-2011 8:25 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by hooah212002, posted 11-07-2011 8:45 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024