Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang - Big Dud
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 226 of 287 (185506)
02-15-2005 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Chiroptera
02-14-2005 6:13 PM


Topic
The evidence for evolution is not on topic here, Chiroptera. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Chiroptera, posted 02-14-2005 6:13 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Chiroptera, posted 02-15-2005 10:43 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 287 (185513)
02-15-2005 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by AdminNosy
02-15-2005 10:32 AM


Re: Topic
You are quite right. I got this thread mixed up with another one. My apologies. Before I leave off, though, I would like to take the opportunity to invite sog345 to return to that thread to discuss whether there is or is not evidence for evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by AdminNosy, posted 02-15-2005 10:32 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Phobos
Inactive Member


Message 228 of 287 (208660)
05-16-2005 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Chiroptera
02-14-2005 8:27 PM


Re: Shakey?
quote:
Our current knowledge of physics only allows us to speak of the universe after about 10 to the minus 14 th of a second after the alleged origin. The first 10 to the minus 14 th of a second is, so far, beyond our ability to understand, although people are working on this.
Perhaps you meant 10^-43 seconds?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Chiroptera, posted 02-14-2005 8:27 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Crazy Nut
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 287 (213273)
06-01-2005 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by daaaaaBEAR
02-05-2005 2:12 AM


Re: back to the big bang
quote:
The orginal matter all of sudden appearing is the whole foundation for the Big Bang, am I wrong? Without something appearing out of nothing the Big Bang never would have happened.
Not matter, just energy. It formed matter later.
At a singularity, the laws of classical and nuclear physics break down. When the singularity was broken, it broke the symmetry of supersymmetry, causing a massive fountain of energy to be released. As this ultradense energy cooled, it formed matter.
quote:
14 billion years, wow, that's a long time. It's funny how we can't have faith in the eternal God and yet think our earth is 14 BILLION years old.
Redshift/expanding Universe.
Not think ... for most people, it's a know.
quote:
Creationists can't go back to when they believed that God formed the heavens and the earth. We both don't know. But what I hear from evos is that they base their theories on the most likely explanation, while you may not be able to comprehend an all-powerful creator, how do you comprehend an entire universe popping out of nowhere?
Philosophy is not the way to debate this.
This message has been edited by Crazy Nut, 06-01-2005 08:53 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 02-05-2005 2:12 AM daaaaaBEAR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 06-02-2005 11:43 PM Crazy Nut has not replied

  
daaaaaBEAR
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 287 (213709)
06-02-2005 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Crazy Nut
06-01-2005 8:30 PM


Re: back to the big bang
Philosophy is not the way to debate this.
what a crutch....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Crazy Nut, posted 06-01-2005 8:30 PM Crazy Nut has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 231 of 287 (214053)
06-03-2005 10:12 PM


Big bang - big model
I already posted on this here before I saw this thread, but
published in the latest issue of Nature is a huge mathematical algorithm that very precisely reconstructs the entire universe in its present form by extrapolating from first principles the big bang theory. If scientists can not only develop and proof all the logic, but also recreate a similar 'digital' reality, will anyone not yet believe ?

  
Pro Terra
Inactive Member


Message 232 of 287 (216051)
06-11-2005 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by crashfrog
03-30-2004 6:16 PM


RE: Conclusion on Thermodynamics
Nuclear reactions convert matter into energy not destroy it.
Think E=MCsq.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 03-30-2004 6:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by crashfrog, posted 06-11-2005 8:52 AM Pro Terra has not replied
 Message 237 by sidelined, posted 06-12-2005 12:26 PM Pro Terra has not replied

  
Pro Terra
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 287 (216054)
06-11-2005 12:50 AM


Holes in the Big Bang Theory
According to evolutionists the "Big Bang" theory is how everything started, however there are many problems with it.
1) Where did the matter first come from?
2) A part of the "Big Bang" theory includes the "Big Squeeze" which says that all matter was squeezed into one area, so were did the energy of the squeeze come from?
The second part of the "Big Bang" was when everything exploded out from the "Big Squeeze" into gas and planets and all those other things.
3) The "Big squeeze" turning into an explosion that formed everything would not work considering that the gravity of everything hold everything on place and if it was supposed to be an implosion everything would be put into one gaint mass.

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by AdminNosy, posted 06-11-2005 3:15 AM Pro Terra has not replied
 Message 235 by Sylas, posted 06-11-2005 5:59 AM Pro Terra has replied
 Message 238 by cavediver, posted 06-18-2005 1:33 PM Pro Terra has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 234 of 287 (216071)
06-11-2005 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Pro Terra
06-11-2005 12:50 AM


Re: Holes in the Big Bang Theory
Welcome to EvC.
However, I would ask that you read over existing material. Given that your questions have been asked and answered several times you might feel a bit embarassed.
Given that your understanding of the subject matter is way, way off you would do well to read over existing threads.
I suggest, as a starter, that you read everything Sylas has posted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Pro Terra, posted 06-11-2005 12:50 AM Pro Terra has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 235 of 287 (216099)
06-11-2005 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Pro Terra
06-11-2005 12:50 AM


Re: Holes in the Big Bang Theory
Pro Terra writes:
According to evolutionists the "Big Bang" theory is how everything started, however there are many problems with it.
Not evolutionists, but physicists and astronomers. The Big Bang has nothing to do with biology or evolution.
There are plenty of unanswered questions; but I am not aware of "problems" in the sense of conflicting with the basic idea of general relativity and expanding spacetime that is the heart of Big bang cosmology.
Cosmology is one of the most exciting and vibrant fields of science at present; and new discoveries seems to be turning up almost month by month. This is allowing us to nail down more and more details, and sometimes it reveals details that are surprising and unexpected.
Big Bang cosmology is not just one fully worked out model. It is a whole class of models, all sharing the underlying fundamentals of spacetime expansion. This fundamental has been solidly confirmed by all modern observations; even as the details turn up all kinds of surprises.
I'm on the edge of my seat; truly. I expect big changes and huge surprises, and I regularly scan the latest research to see what's going on and what may turn up.
The position of modern cosmology is a bit like explorers making the first land falls on a new continent. New surprises and new discoveries come at a tremendous rate. The people who miss out on the excitement are those who reject the whole notion of a continent at all, or who confuse the fact that so much remains unmapped with uncertainty of its very existence.
The Big Bang is the continent; and scientists are the explorers, and those missing out are those who insist that the Big Bang is a dud when they don't even know the first thing about the model.
1) Where did the matter first come from?
Actually, this is one of the outstanding successes and confirmations of Big Bang cosmology; at least as far as the matter of which we are made is concerned.No other model except the Big Bang has an answer to this question, and the Big Bang model makes some quite specific predictions about the distributions of matter that should be expected. These predictions are so successful that the distributions of light elements (matter made in the Big Bang) is now considered one of the primary lines of evidence for modern Big Bang cosmology.
There are some outstanding glitches (the Lithium problem) which indicate the story is not fully complete, and until this is resolved there is a bit of a question mark over the origins of matter. But to a first approximation the origins of normal (baryonic) matter are very well explained indeed.
The real unanswered question is not the origin of matter; but the origin of energy from which matter was formed. And basically, we don't know where that came from at all.
In fact, it's worse than this. We don't even know what all the energy and matter actually is! Although we now have a pretty good handle on "baryonic" matter, which is the matter we are made of, it seems that most of the matter in the universe is a non-baryonic "dark matter" that does not shine like stars; so we can't see it. It can only be detected (so far) by its gravity. Another dramatic discovery is that most of the energy of the universe is a "dark energy" or "vacuum energy". We don't know what it is or how it works. This is a very new discovery and the race is on to find out more.
None of these discoveries are "problems" in the sense of indicating a difficulty with the theory; but a case of questions so far in the unsolved basket. Science is like that. We don't pretend to know all the answers; and pointing out the bits that are still a mystery is worthless as a criticism of models that are able to answer other questions.
You sometimes get people who say that "dark matter" or "dark energy" is some kind of problem for Big Bang cosmology; and who propose other models that don't invoke such things. These people have failed to grasp a very simple point... Big bang cosmology itself does not require these things. You could have a big bang model with no dark energy and no dark matter just fine; the thing is that it would not be a model for our universe
We have observations indicating that dark matter and dark energy do exist. Any credible model must deal with those observations. Models that fail to take these observations into account are not serious about studying the world we actually live in.
2) A part of the "Big Bang" theory includes the "Big Squeeze" which says that all matter was squeezed into one area, so were did the energy of the squeeze come from?
That's not accurate. No part of Big Bang cosmology involves a big squeeze in which things are compressed. There is no evidence at all of prior states in which a squeeze took place. Traditional Big Bang cosmology is expansion all the way, starting out from a singularity in which physics breaks down. So sure; we don't know how it all got started; but there is no squeeze involved as far as we can tell, and it is certainly not a part of the model.
The second part of the "Big Bang" was when everything exploded out from the "Big Squeeze" into gas and planets and all those other things.
3) The "Big squeeze" turning into an explosion that formed everything would not work considering that the gravity of everything hold everything on place and if it was supposed to be an implosion everything would be put into one gaint mass.
This is the only part of the "Big Bang" cosmology. No initial squeeze; just the expansion. It's not really an explosion in way we normally think. That's just an easy word picture to help people get a bit of a feel for the model without learning general relativity, but unfortunately it leads to a lot of confusions when people take the analogy too far without knowing the maths of the real theory. The real theory is spacetime expansion, not explosions. And part of what that means is that in fact no; gravity does not hold everything together in quite the way you might think.
In short, this is a complete non-problem. In fact, when modern gravitational theory was worked out by Einstein early in the twentieth century, it was a consequence of gravity that spacetime should be either expanding or contracting. This was unexpected, and Einstein tried to tweak his theory to avoid this feature. But a few decades later it was discovered that spacetime was actually expanding; just as Einstein's theory of gravity had predicted.
There's a lot more to that story. But the main thing to appreciate is that no, the physics of gravity does not predict that the Big Bang would have been halted. It would be more correct to say that modern gravitational theory predicted the expansion of spacetime in advance, and that subsequent observational evidence for expansion was a dramatic confirmation of Einstein's model for how gravity works.
Cheers -- Sylas
PS. And yes... welcome to EvCforum! I don't expect you to accept everything I say off the bat; but since this is a subject in which I am particularly interested, I'm happy to answer questions without insisting you immediately agree. You will find (I hope!) that what I say is pretty close to what a real physicist might tell you. I'm just an interested amateur.
By far the best thing would be if you were to catch just a bit of the excitement that is in the air for modern cosmology, and check it out in more detail for yourself. You'll really be missing out if you only read critics and never read anything from those who understand and use the model. There is a good book come out just recently, aimed for a popular audience, called Big Bang by Simon Singh. Singh is not a scientist himself, but he writes about science very well indeed. If you get the chance, check it out.
This message has been edited by Sylas, 06-11-2005 06:11 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Pro Terra, posted 06-11-2005 12:50 AM Pro Terra has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Pro Terra, posted 06-21-2005 7:33 PM Sylas has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 236 of 287 (216110)
06-11-2005 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Pro Terra
06-11-2005 12:26 AM


Nuclear reactions convert matter into energy not destroy it.
Which, if you'll read, is exactly what I said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Pro Terra, posted 06-11-2005 12:26 AM Pro Terra has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 237 of 287 (216421)
06-12-2005 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Pro Terra
06-11-2005 12:26 AM


RE: Conclusion on Thermodynamics
Pro Terra
Nuclear reactions do not convert matter.The mass of a nucleus is always greater than the sum of the constituent protons and neutrons.The difference is the energy that binds the nucleus together.Nuclear reactions free the protons and neutrons and the binding energy accelerates this matter.The matter does not "become" energy it is simply a mass acceleration.
When the accelerated protons and neutrons encounter other matter they decelerate and impart their energy to this matter which results in an increase in mass which in turn results in more collisions.This is why the energy from a nuclear reaction is dangerous.The acceleration imparted to the mass is sufficient to break bonds in flesh and dissipate in heat as the body absorbs the impact of the accelerated matter.
E=Mc ^2 means that energy and mass are equivalent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Pro Terra, posted 06-11-2005 12:26 AM Pro Terra has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 238 of 287 (217886)
06-18-2005 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Pro Terra
06-11-2005 12:50 AM


Re: Holes in the Big Bang Theory
Hi Pro Terra
From one newbie to another...
According to evolutionists the "Big Bang" theory is how everything started, however there are many problems with it.
How many times have you been explaining God's plan of redemption for mankind through Jesus, when some nitwit has piped up with
"huh, huh, but who made God then????"
or
"oh, this will get him... can God dig a ditch so wide that he can't jump across it???"
you've rolled your eyes, thought "why me, God?", remembered that patience is one of the nine fruit, etc, etc...
Well, that's exactly how anyone versed in cosmology reacts to the questions you've posed. These types of questions naively appear as philosophical, theological or scientific bombshells. But anyone who has a grasp of the subject matter realises that the questioner doesn't really understand what they're asking.
I was once so arrogant that, as a graduate student, I thought that I had found a major flaw in black hole physics... This was after years of maths and physics study. I took this flaw to THE black hole expert, who calmly picked up a piece of chalk and drew a picture on his blackboard. Instantly I was filled with understanding and embaressment: how dare I, with only a few years of study, think that some of the greatest minds around had got it completely wrong. What a prat I was :-)
Unfortunately, Christians with little scientific background are very good at doing this. If it was so easy to poke holes in cosomology, geology and evolution, then groups like RATE wouldn't exist - a group of creationist Christians with a lot of scientific know-how, trying to make waves in the scientific community. If you want to demonstrate scientifically that God created everything in 6 days 6000 years ago and that all the non-creation scientists have got it wrong, you have to start studying... good luck! On the otherhand, it takes no time at all to just believe it in faith and be happy with that :-)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Pro Terra, posted 06-11-2005 12:50 AM Pro Terra has not replied

  
Pro Terra
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 287 (218510)
06-21-2005 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Sylas
06-11-2005 5:59 AM


Dear Sylas,
I DO have question for you. If you could, would you please explain to me how hydrogen and helium which would have shot outward, turned, and started circling and pushing out to form our present, highly organized stars and galactic systems.
Pro Terra
P.S. Thank you for your greetings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Sylas, posted 06-11-2005 5:59 AM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by NosyNed, posted 06-21-2005 8:36 PM Pro Terra has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 240 of 287 (218523)
06-21-2005 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Pro Terra
06-21-2005 7:33 PM


Stars and Galaxies
I DO have question for you. If you could, would you please explain to me how hydrogen and helium which would have shot outward, turned, and started circling and pushing out to form our present, highly organized stars and galactic systems.
I'll have a go, without the expertise of Sylas.
There are some misconceptions here. The hydrogen and helium were not "shot outtward". They were carried with the general expanstion of space.
The question isn't how did they "turn" but what allowed them to form clumps. Obviously the answer is gravity.
However, I don't know the details. It has been a difficult question in cosmology for some years as to what allowed the clumps to form. It seems there is now good evidence that the distribution of matter after the first few 100,000's of years was very uniform but not completely so. Once you have an uneven distribution of matter then you get a chance for gravity to draw the hydrogen and helium together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Pro Terra, posted 06-21-2005 7:33 PM Pro Terra has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Sylas, posted 06-22-2005 12:12 AM NosyNed 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