The Big Bang is NOT Scientific

quote:

---

I have a reason to believe that you (evolutionists) believe that the big bang was an explosion.

---

Yes, you are correct: you did have reason to believe that evolutionists think the Big Bang was an explosion. And some evolutionists may have gotten their information from the same books that you did, and so some evolutionists do think that the Big Bang was an explosion.However, your books are wrong. Cosmologists who study the early universe do not believe that Big Bang was an explosion.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

I know. Crap isn't it when books you would hope you can learn from can't get it right. The trouble is that the Big Bang has no similarities to anything in our everyday experience, so popular science writers struggle with their descriptions.By the way, I'm not an evolutionist, I'm a cosmologist and theoretical phjysicist... oh, and a Christian You'd be surprised... there's actually rather a lot. Not really. Before the Big bang scenario, most thought the universe was eternal and had no beginning. In fact, the biggest resistance to the Big Bang was by atheistic scientists who thought that it smacked too much of creation

As stated, it's an inaccurate metaphor. The Big Bang was an "explosion" in the sense that it was a very rapid expansion of spacetime; not in the sense that it was a detonation caused by the rapid combustion of an explosive material like dynamite. 1) The observation that everything in the universe is moving apart from everything else.2) A constant hum of microwave background radiation that is uniform in every direction observed.The first was the evidence that suggested the theory; the second was a fulfilled prediction of it. The math works out, too. Where did you get the idea that there's no scientific evidence for the big bang?

I havent heard any evidence, just assumptions.Reply to point 1) I thought that gravity pulls things together. My old science teacher has said that if you had an empty universe and put two pencils on oposite sides of the universe they would move twords one another, not away. And all that proves is that there is a core to the universe, not that there was some explosion or rapid expansion of very hot gasses.And that still doesnt explain anything. Something cant be created out of nothing, its not possible. Saying that there was a single atom or molocule in the begining that created everything is farfeched, and saying that everything was very compact (dont argue my definitions please) is not solving anything, because it all still had to be there, unless you are saying that the laws of phisics were different which leads to the absurd statement that the big bang changed physics. If you were to say that the matter existed forever, then you would have to believe in infinity, which means that a very long time ago there was a universe EXACTLY like this one with people siting at their computers doing the exact same thing we are doing right now, and if you dont beleive that you cant beleive that the matter has existed forever. If you say the world came from a single atom or molocule, then aside from the argument of where that came from, you would have to say that the laws of phisics were changed as they would have been if all mater was compact (as I mentioned earlyer).I could go on but i am guessing yuor brains hurt. If you need me to explain anything just ask.

That's absolutely correct, assuming the pencils are initially at rest. Unfortunately that's not what is observed; we observe that galaxies, pencils, and all the rest of it are moving apart, against gravity, not towards each other. That means that these objects did not begin at rest but rather, with an initial acceleration away from each other. If we trace that backwards through time we discover that all observable objects in the universe begin at one single location. We know from simple physics that compressing the observable mass of the universe into one small space would result in very hot gases indeed. So, indeed, it does prove that there was a rapid expansion of superheated, primordeal gas. What makes you say that? "Something" out of nothing is often observed at the quantum level, a truth detectable by the "Casimir effect". We've known this for about 50 years or so. I don't think there was a single atom or molecule; the big bang theory does not state that the initial singularity was an atom or molecule. You may be confused because common descriptions of the big bang assert that the primordeal universe was the size of an atom, or even smaller; but that primordeal concentration of energy was not itself an atom.Where did that concentration of energy come from? That's not clear at this point. Did the big bang change physics? Not likely; it's much more likely that we simply don't know how the laws of physics work at that point in time. You're funny.

I'd like to offer a different perspective from the suggestion that the pencils would have had an initial acceleration away from each other, but I'm still going to keep it simple.While the pencils *would* experience a gravitational attraction, even when positioned on opposite sides of the visible universe, that attraction would be easily overcome by the expansion of the intervening space. In other words, the space between the two pencils would be expanding more rapidly than gravitation could pull them together.As the pencils become increasingly far apart their gravitational attraction will continually diminish, and the expansion of space will carry them ever increasingly further apart. At some point the pencils will pass out of each other's observable universe and will no longer experience any gravitational attraction. This happens because the influence of gravity travels at the same speed as light, but once the pencils are far enough apart they will be receding from other at a rate greater than the speed of light.This doesn't violate relativity, which holds that nothing can move through space faster than the speed of light. That's because the perceived relative motion of objects on opposite sides of the visible universe is not due to motion through space, but to the expansion of the intervening space.--Percy

I will also add to what Percy has just said.According to the General Theory of Relativity, space must either be expanding or contracting. Observations show that it is actually expanding. So, it actually is the case that the gravitational attraction of the two pencils must overcome the fact that the space between them is expanding. If they are too far apart, then the gravitational attraction will be too weak, and the expanding space will bring them further and further apart.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

Something cant come out of nothing. it is a law of science. I know several people who beleive evolution, but can admit that the big bang is not very likely to have happened.This message has been edited by Genghis Khan II, 03-22-2006 07:08 PM

My apologies to crashfrog for butting in, but:

quote:

---

Something cant come out of nothing.

---

Big Bang does not say that something came out of nothing.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

I think what he is trying to say is, the Big Bang does not explain where the matter originated, or how it came to be in an extremely dense pinpoint.

Welcome Admiral Bob! Well, yes it does, or at least it can do. But to understand the point you must first understand that "matter" isn't what you think it is, and an origin is not necessarily a beginning, but simply a location. Interested?

That is exactly what I did say. Big Bang is (at least not yet) a theory about origins. It is a theory about history. Big Bang (to sum it up in a sentence) merely says that the universe is expanding, and if you "run the clock backwards" it must have been very, very hot and very, very dense.So far, our current understanding of the "laws of physics" are incomplete, and we do not have any theories as to origins; at least no testable theories.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

You're probably thinking of laws like "matter can neither be created nor destroyed" and the law of conservation of energy.About the "matter can neither be created nor destroyed" law, this isn't a scientific law, and in fact, it's wrong. Matter can be destroyed by converting it to energy, where the amount of energy E produced is equal to mc². Energy can also be converted to mass, but it's very difficult to create the necessary conditions.It also turns out that empty space is not really empty. As we now know from quantum theory, all of space is seething with virtual particles that flit in and out of existence. This process doesn't violate conservation laws because the particles form in equal and opposite pairs. For example, an electron and positron can spontaneously appear from out of seemingly empty space. This was theoretically postulated before being confirmed with the observation of the Casimir effect, which you can look up at websites like Wikipedia if you're interested.There are at least several theories for the origin of the matter and energy of the Big Bang, but it cannot be considered anything close to a settled issue at this time. But that the Big Bang happened there can be no doubt. It is confirmed by several lines of independent evidence, and we can discuss those if you like.--Percy

Hi Percy, Just to be picky, but it is an important point: while your paragraph is completely correct, I get nervous when it is used around "something from nothing" arguments with the Big Bang. Although you stopped shy of that, it was used further up the thread (Crash?). Although I am sure this was first advanced by some public speaking cosmologist as a good "shut them up with some techno-speak" it is almost totally unrelated to the issue of the Big Bang.Virtual particle pairs are merely rumblings in the quantum fields. It is the quantum fields that are the real objects and they are always there... they are the ocean and the particle pair are a couple of induced waves. So this does not help at all with the Big Bang, as here we are looking at the very creation of fields, not just the particles.I did say "almost totally unrelated", but that is a very long story...

This explanation of space and particles still bothers me, no matter how it's been presented.1. "Space is seething with", implies matter/energy which exists in space rather than an adequate definition of what space is. As per topic, it seems to me that since BBists must come up with an expansionable space for the BB to have worked, this is how it is done.2. Like beings which have the ability to appear and disapear to human detection as many folks, including some scientists believe to be in existence, so possibly with particles. As per TDL 1, I don't see how they can become non-existent and I'm not convinced they do. Science has come a long way from where they were so far as knowledge goes two centuries ago. We've learned a lot and there's likely a whole lot more to be discovered before the (abe: the end of this age.3. Perhaps the day will come when humans will discover that the alleged non-existent cycle or state of particles are the first of what will come to be discovered as an existing form of energy in the universe which humans have been unaware of due to the limited
earthly ability of our minds and senses to know and detect thus far.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-22-2006 11:16 PM

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW