Big Bang Found

I agree.

Gravity waves are the big news here. That and the possibility of probing, even with a blunt instrument, the period before the universe became transparent to visible light are astounding physics.

If admin hadn't pretty much pooh-poohed the idea during thread creation, I would give a shout out to every poster from Alphabob to Zaius regarding their crackpot ideas on the subject.

Of course that would be crass. I Won't do it.

you guys are making this much more complicated than it really is. A "creationist" is simply someone who believes in creation.

That would be simpler, but the definition ship has already sailed. Creationist means someone who believes that creation occurred in the way their religious text says.

What does 'believe in creation' even mean?

IF you interpret the biblical text as predicting Big Bang cosmology (as Hugh Ross does), THEN any discovery that supports Big Bang cosmology automatically supports the biblical text.

Yes, that is true, but is it of any worth whatsoever? Isn't it just a tautology? If Ross mangles the Bible text so that it reads on science, then what is shown when science turns out to be right?

Let's ask these questions. This new evidence supports in particular an inflationary model in which the universe expanded from a small to a large size so that widely dispersed parts can be in thermal equilibrium. So what does the Bible say about that?

Or is it that just a vague "cosmic energy egg" thingy work just as well for Hugh Ross?

Or we might ask how much of the Bible Ross must dismiss, (like for example the order of creation rather than just it's duration, in order to make his claim that the Bible is essentially GR written in Greek. In short is Ross's claim the least bit reasonable?

Finally, I note that you stop short of endorsing Ross' interpretation. What is your actual opinion on what Ross proposes.

Hugh makes a strong, plausible case that the biblical sequence of creation is consistent with what an observer on earth would have seen.

For some definition of plausible. I'd be happy to discuss the reasons why his position is not plausible when actual science is accounted for.

I would express things a bit more like another friend, Leslie Wickman

Who the heck is Leslie Wickman?

As has been acknowledged in a few discussions here, the Big Bang theory is compatible with the idea of a universe that is not eternal but has a creation point. It is harder, but not impossible, to read alternatives like the Steady State hypothesis as being compatible, because even that hypothesis required continual creation and destruction of matter and energy.

If you cannot say anything more than that about this new understanding, then the newest discovery has no significant implication for the the Judeo-Christian worldview. Additionally The Steady State hypothesis was rejected 60 years ago.

Here is the truth without the hype. The implications, such as they are, are exactly the same for Bible followers as they are for people who prefer the Koran to the Bible.

The implications are equally compatible with this ancient Greek take on the origin of everything.

quote:

---

In the beginning there was only chaos. Then out of the void appeared Erebus, the unknowable place where death dwells, and Night. All else was empty, silent, endless, darkness. Then somehow Love was born bringing a start of order. From Love came Light and Day. Once there was Light and Day, Gaea, the earth appeared.

---

NoNukes writes: What is your actual opinion on what Ross proposes.

Hugh is a friend of mine, and I won't say anything negative about him.

I didn't ask you to say anything negative. I asked you for the truth. However, your faint praise was noted.

But this is not a physics question; it is a philosophy question.

No it isn't. Your question is purely theological from start to finish, as is that of Lennox.

Hawking's argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth?

If this is philosophy, then philosophy ought to be rejected. "Who put it there?" is just question begging And insisting that there must be a "creative force" is the same kind of non-argument.

If philosophers do that, then philosophy ought to be rejected.

Just to be clear, I don't think that philosophy ought to be rejected. What I do think is that Feynman was right about scientist opining non-scientific things.

quote:

---

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.

---

Many scientists who do not think deeply enough about these things tend to conflate these various concepts.

But you know better right? Physicists as a class are some kind of idiots who just think more shallowly than do you.

Actually, that's naval gazing nonsense. Some scientists are fools as are some non-scientists. But as a class, scientists do not consider the laws of science as anything but descriptive. What many scientists question is the need for injecting causing agent. And a scientist that does not assume such an agent is not making a philosophical error, he is simply not making a theological leap.

Just how many scientists claim that science can demonstrate that there is no God. Those few scientists are the ones that have the issue you described. That class would not include the scientists mentioned in this thread.

No, when Hawking claims that "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he is claiming causation. He claims that the laws of nature cause the universe. But he doesn't explain where the laws of nature come from. He seems to treat them as pre-existent and eternal; they are effectively his god.

That is you injecting theology where Hawking did not. Hawkins says nothing about the origin of gravity. It is your assumption that Hawking must reason exactly as you do that is wrong.

ABE:

In fact your claim is just nonsense. What scientists actually tries to claim that there was some 'eternity' before the universe existed or that there is an eternity after the universe was created. You create the impression that your philosophy is not very well thought out.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The fundalmental forces that manifest reality would not be able to influence a vaccum.

Yes, they certainly can.

So in order for there to be something there must first be spacetime.

Vacuum is not the absence of space time. Vacuum is simply a place without matter, but perhaps including energy.

There was no gravity because gravity requires spacetime and matter.

Also incorrect. Both energy and mass generate produce the warping of space-time that is responsible for the effect of gravity.

Lawyers have a 'juris doctorate'.

Only the most pompous type of idiot lawyer would ever attempt to get someone to call him 'doc' based on having a JD. There are advanced law degrees (LLM) and (SD) that actually have some academic status.

It appears you have a very low opinion on the requirements to obtain a J.D.

Well it happens that I have a very accurate and fairly high opinion of the requirements. My own JD required 89 hours of coursework spread over three evenings per week for about 4 years, no thesis required. But like most lawyers, I do not call myself Doctor anything, although I have run into a few who do otherwise. I also don't put Esq. on my correspondence, a practice I find equally silly.

What requirements are there to earn a PhD in the sciences?

Shadow71, you are making us lawyers look bad. How about starting with an MS degree, adding about 70 hours of additional course work, plus a dissertation, plus an oral defense. Possibly also some teaching experience req'd.

I fail to see how a force can act upon something when there is no something for it to act upon.

You are assuming that only actions on matter count. Gravity affects the path of energy as well as the path of matter. So you might have energy generating a gravitational field that affects itself and other energy.

Also, look into the Casmir effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

As for the last correction, thank you but I still do no see how gravity can have any effect "warpage of spacetime" if there is no spacetime to warp.

You said that space-time AND matter were required. My initial point is that the matter is not required. Further, the presence of matter and energy is what creates space-time. I'm not sure whether energy allow can be said to do this, but where there is energy, there can be matter.

So the presence of energy can create space-time without its alter-ego.

But, my understanding of GR is that the equivalence of matter and energy is total. Mass is energy and energy is mass, just different manifestations of the same thing. Like water v ice.

Well, you cannot just add salt and water to your ice cream freezer. You need the ice. Similarly, there are times when you want matter, and energy just won't do.

Nonetheless, your statement is likely true.

Do you know if the fundalmental forces existed in the absence of spacetime?

No, I don't know about that. But your original question assumed that they did.

Does scientist know if gravity exists in a region that contains neither energy or matter?

A gravitational field contains energy, so I guess the answer is either no, or that your question has no real meaning.

If 1.61803 is correct how could there be a spontaneous formation out of nothing?

I've already given perfect ratio reason to think he might be wrong.