Big Bang - Big Dud

Essentially, the goal is to do this:Find a model that allows us to predict natural phenomena.If the model can predict natural phenomena and the predictions are in agreement with the observations we can make, we say that the model is a good way to describe reality.It is in no way the final and glorious truth. It's only a model that so far has shown to be correct.Two sepparate models can both be correct if they both make useful predictions. In this case, the one that explains all the evidence in the simples way is considered the most complete one. Sometimes, if the other model is much more simple, it can be used for certain cases. As an example is Newtonian mechanics which is taught in school because it's "right enough" to start with, and then you can later on use it as a base for relativistic theories.So, while you can't technically prove a model, you can show that it is practically useful by following the scientifical methods.Just make sure that the model explains something new, or does a better job at explaining than previous models.So a model CAN and DO make statements about things that can not be direct observed, by showing that it makes correct predictions. It is possible, and some would say inevitable as we spend more time into it, that sometime down the road, an error with the current Big Bang theory is found, which means it's revised into a completely different model. An example is the speculations regarding branes that is going on in the field of string theories, which shows a slightly different view on the start of the universe.[This message has been edited by Melchior, 04-01-2004]

You should study carefully this link
Page not found - WORLD MYSTERIES{Relevant information or not, this message is a violation of Guideline 5: Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-02-2004]

You wanna stop spamming every thread with that crap, eggman? Physicsforums and sciforums being spammed with this pseduoscience was bad enough.

There is no such thing as a "creation" scientist...I'll buy an; "apologetics-scientist wannabe".

quote:

---

There is no such thing as a "creation" scientist

---

Ranks up there with "honest snake oil salesman". Science is the study of natural phenomena through natural mechanisms. If you stray away from this you are no longer a scientist. I think we call them theologians, so maybe creationist theologian would be a better title.

Taking the advice of JonF, I have decided to do some studying up on Thermodynamics, and what I have learned so far is that Thermodynamics refers to "understanding the patterns of energy change and how these changes relate to the states of matter" not the matter itself. So the First Law of Thermodynamics should then be "Energy cannot be created or destroyed." Not, as you said, "Matter cannot be created nor destroyed." (crashfrog mentioned this mistake, but failed to make clear exactly what it was)Crashfrog also stated that matter can be destroyed through nuclear reactions, but this doesn't mean that it can be created, unless of course there is some evidence of this that I am unaware of (this is highly probable due to my limited knowledge). If matter has been created by man then please tell me.However, the Big Bang Theory (as I know it) does assume a pre-existing concentration of energy, where did it come from? It couldn't have just been created from nothing because that does go against the First Law.

---

Also, while studying Thermo's 2nd Law, I read "Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place to becoming diffused or dispersed and spread out." Now, I'm just making an inference here, but since Thermodynamics refers to "understanding the patterns of energy change and how these changes relate to the states of matter", then would this mean that the energy affects the matter and causes it to move in the same dirrection as it? If so, then the energy (and matter) would tend to disperse and spread out, not concentrate into planets and stars. I put "tend" in bold there because it is possible that a strong enough force could concentrate the energy pull the matter together to form planets, but would that really happen? I was taught that gravity is caused by matter, in that any two objects exert a gravitational force of attraction on each other, that the direction of the force is along the line joing the objects, and that the magnitude of the force is dependant on the mass of the objects, as well as the distance between them. If this is all true then would the gravitational force exerted by the matter be strong enough to attract any other matter? I'm actually asking this question (because I'm rather ignorant concerning the subject) and would apprecitate an answer.

---

Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life.

You are lagging a bit behind the times there, friend.DNA is a chemical. You can produce it from other chemicals.DNA synthesis is now a perfectly standard practice. There are companies which will make DNA for you. You tell them the sequence you want, and you can get it at prices of around $1.00 a base pair or thereabouts.There are many companies competing in this market. Here is one picked out pretty much at random: Beckman Coulter.Cheers -- Sylas

You are unfortunately applying the standard thermodynamic laws to situations they most definitely don't apply.Try finding out why the 1st & 2nd laws occur at all. It's out there on the web if you look - and I think I have written some posts in the past on this topic.

All you need to remember is E=mc². In a nuclear reactor, matter is converted to energy. Saying that the matter is destroyed isn't really wrong, but it isn't really accurate, either. Again, all you need to know is E=mc². Matter can be converted to energy, so naturally energy can be converted to matter. On a pragmatic level it is far easier to convert matter to energy than the reverse, and until recently it was only a theoretical possibility, but a few years ago it was experimentally verified. It's very difficult to make photons collide in just the right way to produce matter. What came before the Big Bang is a matter of speculation at this time. Many scientists believe that the laws of physics as we know them did not hold under the conditions before the Big Bang. This is pretty much the case, but what actually happens depends upon the particular circumstances. Heating one end of a metal bar causes the heat to flow down the bar, but the metal itself doesn't change shape unless you heat it to the melting point. But heat a gas and unless it's confined it will expand. These are examples of thermal energy, which is just molecules in motion. The faster the molecules are moving, the higher the temperature. Molecules in a fixed lattice like metal express their heat by vibrating in place, while molecules in a gas move in a straight line until they strike another molecule. Yes. All matter in the universe attracts all other matter in the universe. I think you're wondering if the Second Law of Thermodynamics and gravity are contradictory. The answer is no. When matter is brought together by gravity, heat increases, which increases entropy. The entropy of the system will still not decrease. Sylas already responded to this, but I wanted to respond, too, because this comment kind of startled me. Life is just very complicated chemistry, but you make it sound like you believe something almost uncomprehensibly magical is taking place. We *can* produce made-to-order DNA sequences. But your comment is not exactly incorrect in a more general sense because there *are* complex organic chemicals and processes which we don't know how to synthesize or duplicate at this time.--Percy

Thanks for clarifying those couple of things there Percy (as well as Sylas and to a lesser extent Eta_Carinae), I'll be sure to do some more studying on these subjects. Thanks also for not being too harsh on me, though I'm pretty sure I have a distinct education disadvantage (I had no idea matter could be converted into energy and so on), so please excuse me for not fully understanding the facts you have presented. Also, if you could explain entropy to me then please do.[This message has been edited by SoulFire, 04-06-2004]

After the very first post in this thread, I couldn't find any other post made by the thread starter, CreationScientist, even after 4 pages of responses. Looks like another case of hit and run.

Hi SylasIn your reply to SoulFire you wrote: I was just wondering, but can you produce the other chemicals from, say, some minerals, water, carbon dioxide, oxygen and nitrogen?
I have been to one of these DNA-producing companies (pretty interesting by the way) and they had just four bottles with labels saying: "Thymine", "Adenine", "Cytosine" and "Guanine". I didn't ask where they got these bottles from so unfortunately I don't know whether these nucleotides are synthesized in living cells or chemical labs. (These two do not necessarily exclude each other, but I think you know what I mean) Can you help me out?Greets Stellatic

---

"What interests me is whether God had a choice when he created the world.". --Albert Einstein

You can harvest it from living tissue or synthesize it in the lab. Google "nucleotide synthesis" for more info. I didn't check any of the links myself, but there seems to be lots of information out there.--Percy

Yes, you can. I have no idea where they get the base nucleic acids. They may well be from living things; it just depends which is more cost effective, I guess.But we have long since known that the chemistry of living things (organic chemistry) is still chemistry; albeit with larger and more complex molecules. If there was some reason anyone really needed to synthesize DNA from elements, I can't see anything to prevent it.This reminds me of the old joke: The old view of the vitalists is that living (organic) chemicals were completely different from non-living, and worked by different laws, and one could not be made into the other. They were wrong.Traditional Christianity regards God as creator of all the natural world; complex, simple, living things, inanimate things, weather, crystals, everything. That humans can also make this or that is not a refutation of God as creator, because anything humans might make is still using the same natural world and relying upon the same natural laws of the world. If God is creator; then God is creator of all of it, and we can only do anything within that created world.It may be, perchance, that humans one day will be able to make some simple life forms in a lab. There is nothing in the bible to suggest that this is impossible in principle. I was reading a paper the other day about a laboratory synthesis of a new form of DNA, not seen in nature (as far as we know). This DNA had the ability to duplicate itself without using other molecules. See Evolved DNA stitches itself up. Note that in this case, the researchers used a kind of artificial chemical evolution method. Basically, design is not as good as evolution for making really complicated things. If you can use evolution; it generally does a better job than design.In my opinion (albeit as a non-Christian myself) the creationists and the intelligent design advocates are selling God short. They somehow consider if that something is made by natural processes, or can be made by humans; this somehow undermines the notion of God as creator. It is as if their God is some kind of super-being within the universe, who designs and manipulates and constructs some things; but not others, and we can point to some things as being made by God and others which are not.In this, they are a lot like the more strident atheists, who consider finding natural causes for a thing is a disproof of God's involvement. Strange bed fellows indeed!Cheers -- Sylas[This message has been edited by Sylas, 04-06-2004]

SoulFire writes:
Crashfrog also stated that matter can be destroyed through nuclear reactions,...All you need to remember is E=mc2. In a nuclear reactor, matter is converted to energy. Saying that the matter is destroyed isn't really wrong, but it isn't really accurate, either.I would like to see if I can resolve things that are confusing me as to this formula E=MC^2 and the use of matter in the place of mass. From this website I have a quote from Einstein himself concerning it.Page not found | American Institute of Physics
"It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing -- a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E is equal to m c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned before. This was demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932, experimentally."And from this website we get this.http://home.pacifier.com/~ppenn/page4M.html#matterThe clue:
The letter "m" in E = mc2 stands for mass.Missed:
The distinctions between mass, weight and matter. Seeing the distinction between mass and weight is one of a few indicators that someone is ready to understand elementary physics beyond the first week of a first course in physics. Surprisingly many students still do not understand that distinction when they graduate from the course. (Weight is a force, that due to the pull of gravity; mass is resistance to force, resistance to being accelerated by a force.) Confusing weight and mass indicates a very serious failure of comprehension of some very simple science. Failing to see the distinction between mass and matter is even more serious. "Matter" refers to little more than "quantity of substance" and can have many different meanings, meanings that must be distinguished before we try to understand those basic principles.Also missed is the profound meaning of E = mc: "Energy and mass are merely different expressions of the same thing." When we query nature we may see mass or we may see energy, but we are seeing two sides of the same thing. Einstein called E = mc, the "energy-mass equivalence," and that's a logical (Boolean) equivalence.So I am going to see if this can be resolved or if I am going to remain confused. I will begin a new topic posting if it is necessary so that I can get myself straight on what actually occurs.

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)