Gravity and the Expanding Universe

[Clara Tea]

Rrobs quoted Wikipedia: "model of the observable universe."



It is more than that. Friedman's Equation (derived from general relativity) is used to calculate the age of the universe, and that includes the part of the universe that we cannot see. We can't observe it because the metric of the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light.



WMAP Big Bang Elements Test



Paraphrasing the link above: "Light element formation in the early universe (made of nuclear plasma) is called "Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN)." It establishes the density of ordinary matter relative to photons. Neutrons decay in 10 minutes, so they can't be responsible for the heavier elements. Heavier elements were made in stars. Thus, carbon-based creatures on earth came from exploding stars.



Rrobs wrote: "The forces of gravity and expansion must be in incredibly precise proportions....or the universe would collapse back onto itself....or fly apart."



The universe is flying apart, and at an accelerated rate, so these forces are not in balance. Though, to bolster your argument, the balance is close. However, your odds of being balanced were likely not scientifically derived (pulled numbers out of nowhere). Theists strain to use science to prove religion, yet, scientists don't accept their unqualified and inept use of their science.



ChristineM pointed out that Christians (or other theists) glom onto gaps in our knowledge to assert the existence of God.

 

[Regiomontanus]

"The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of extremely high density and high temperature, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and large-scale structure." Big Bang - Wikipedia

The forces of gravity and expansion must be in incredibly precise proportions. If gravity was too much greater than expansion, the universe would collapse back onto itself. If the force of expansion was too much greater than gravity, the universe would fly apart.

The precision of the balance between the forces is 10 to the 60 power. That's a chance of 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. To put it another way, it would be like aiming at and hitting a 1 inch target located at the opposite end of the universe!

I just read something about the gullibility of Christians for having faith in intelligent design. Of course it would have been written by someone who apparently has no problem in believing in such mind boggling and overwhelming odds in the "chance" appearance of our universe. It would also be by "chance" that an explosion would end up with sentient beings that could even ponder said explosion.

So who is taking what by blind faith?

You are just scratching the surface here!

 

[shunyadragon]

You are just scratching the surface here!

Scratch is not science.

 

[rational experiences]

Sentience. Self. A human. Thinking.

Stands on a body of energy that he concluded by thinking became stone.

Human says I am not stone.

Said thinking about energy and stone.as a human was to name O a planet God. The stone philosophy.

However he lives in and within a heavenly spirit space. Not God the stone. But in spirit space. Cold space. Cold space that owns burning. As a thinker.

What has God info got to do with a non God statement as a planet. When the words you use are big bang. Spatial expansion and cooling whilst living on the stone planet thinking?

Who is correct in believing in God O stone presence? Not the big bang theist.

If you put earth as an inclusion in that theory as a human claim science I will copy earth no longer existing O as God, God in your thinking would no longer exist.

The thinker then claims as theist God does not exist. In reality God by same defined thinking does exist.

Warning self destructive human owned my rnentality its owned problem.

If you question the space theist where does the real space expanding moment exist in your natural human living reality as a science theory? It is in an activated want gain to earth God mass convert. As a pre thought aware male science theory.

How to convert mass in spatial expansion as a mass reaction.

Self possessed by subliminal theorising. Male science psyche feedback.


Theist. List of ist, Satan ist. Who destroys God as mass in spatial expansion application.

As a coercer of words claims his theory is natural history. Is being coercive as all theories in science belong to changing God earth mass itself in a machine reactive cause.

Coercer. If machine X mass presence does not exist first. But law for machine presence does exist first stone. Then you theory for earth to be pulled apart by cosmic forces.

Why you theory about natural spatial vacuum. Which is natural to its owned history. Which you the human thinker did not invent.

Common sense is owned first. Irrational human egotism secondary.

 

[paarsurrey]

The Big Bang did not happen by 'chance.' Chance is not a cause. The Big Bang was Caused by Natural Laws underlying Quantum Mechanics..

But friend the Quantum Mechanics did no do it, please?
Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

But friend the Quantum Mechanics did no do it, please?
Regards

Why not? All that I can say for sure is that I don't know.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But friend the Quantum Mechanics did no do it, please?
Regards

First, the "Quantum Mechanics" weren't people, like mechanics in a garage. Quantum Mechanics refers only to the rules science has so far understood about how subatomic particles behave.

And if you don't think natural behaviour can create a universe, what do you think can?

But then, I must ask you to explain one thing further -- if you think that there is something that is not natural that can create a universe, how do you think that something came to be, without something to create it?

 

[paarsurrey]

Why not? All that I can say for sure is that I don't know.

Quantum Mechanics science did not exist at that time (if time existed then), please? Right, please?

Regards

 

[shunyadragon]

But friend the Quantum Mechanics did no do it, please?
Regards

I did not say Quantum Mechanics did it. The underlying Natural Laws determine the nature of our physical existence. Quantum Mechanics is the science that is the product of the consistent and predictable nature of nature of our physical existence at the Quanta level.

 

[shunyadragon]

Quantum Mechanics science did not exist at that time (if time existed then), please? Right, please?

Regards

Quantum Mechanics does not exist, It is the descriptive science of the nature of our physical existence at the Quanta scale.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Quantum Mechanics science did not exist at that time (if time existed then), please? Right, please?

Regards

Wrong.

 

[firedragon]

The Big Bang not happening by chance doesn't mean God did it.

Well that's true, but "does not mean" does not mean "absolutely not".

Thus the explanation of dogmatism. At least one must accept that it goes both ways. Otherwise its again, dogmatism.

 

[firedragon]

do you have a reference for the 10^60 claim. It seems to me it is ignoring original conditions, quantum interactions and (assumed) dark energy.

And the fact that, yes the universe is flying apart at terrific speeds anywy

Actually if you read up Roger Penrose he provides a much larger figure or a much smaller probability factor.

 

[ecco]

That's a chance of 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. To put it another way, it would be like aiming at and hitting a 1 inch target located at the opposite end of the universe!

YOU are YOU. YOU are unique. YOU are the product of one sperm in 100,000,000 from YOUr father impregnating your mother. If any other sperm had gotten there first, YOU wouldn't be YOU. You could be someone very similar to you or you could be a female version of you. But, YOU wouldn't be YOU.

YOUr father is the result 1 sperm in 100,000,000 sperm from YOUr grandfather impregnating YOUr grandmother. If any other sperm impregnated her, he would not be he and YOU would never have become YOU.

At this point YOU are the result of a 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000.

I'll let you do the math. How many zeros just back to Christ's time? How many to Noah?

To put it another way, YOU existing would be like aiming at and hitting a 1 inch target located at the opposite end of the universe!

Now, please tell us again the point you were trying to make?

 

[Heyo]

I am not sure what you are referring to. To the fact that people use the term "Chance" to explain the universe, or my statement that they do so.

Your comparison of chance to god.
We don't believe in chance. We don't worship chance. We don't congregate to play Bingo. We don't kill people who don't "believe" in chance.
It is a false equivalence. And if you ride on that false equivalence it becomes a straw man. And some people may be offended by being straw manned.
(I'm not. I don't assume malice when ignorance is an adequate explanation.)

 

[blü 2]

Well if you look at things objectively, life always only comes from previous life. That is the only scientific fact we can draw on. Never anywhere has life been shown to originate from non-life. Never anywhere has intelligence ever been seen to develop from nonintelligence. And something cannot come from nothing. Or perhaps you are like the adherents to Dawkins "nothing is something."

It's correct that at the present time science does not have a description of how a self-replicating cell could arise and chemistry to proceed to biochemistry.

But the alternative to abiogenesis is magic.

So please tell me, step by step, what God actually did, and what exactly happened as a result, to create Adam ─ plainly it would be good to know the technique so we can employ it ourselves as needs be.

 

[blü 2]

This is called irreducible complexity.

The question of "irreducible complexity" was raised at the Dover trial 2005.

All the proffered examples of "irreducible complexity" were refuted by scientific evidence, since all were explainable by exaptation. Michael Behe, giving evidence that relied on "irreducible complexity" had acknowledged in 2001 or so that he needed to adjust his argument to take exaptation into account; but now it's 2020 Nov and he still hasn't done so.

There is presently not a single authenticated example of "irreducible complexity" on the table.

And even were there such a thing, it wouldn't do what is claimed for it ─ demonstrate the creationist claim of "intelligent design".

 

[Straw Dog]

"The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of extremely high density and high temperature, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and large-scale structure." Big Bang - Wikipedia

The forces of gravity and expansion must be in incredibly precise proportions. If gravity was too much greater than expansion, the universe would collapse back onto itself. If the force of expansion was too much greater than gravity, the universe would fly apart.

The precision of the balance between the forces is 10 to the 60 power. That's a chance of 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. To put it another way, it would be like aiming at and hitting a 1 inch target located at the opposite end of the universe!

I just read something about the gullibility of Christians for having faith in intelligent design. Of course it would have been written by someone who apparently has no problem in believing in such mind boggling and overwhelming odds in the "chance" appearance of our universe. It would also be by "chance" that an explosion would end up with sentient beings that could even ponder said explosion.

So who is taking what by blind faith?

I don’t think that any of us need to take anything on blind faith. The most intellectually honest option is to accept the reality of our ignorance. Yes, we may have some very creative hypotheses, but what is the likelihood that we actually know what we’re talking about yet?

Events appear as “chance” because we cannot comprehend the complex chain of causality. Have you ever made a choice without a reason?

 

[Left Coast]

Well that's true, but "does not mean" does not mean "absolutely not".

Thus the explanation of dogmatism. At least one must accept that it goes both ways. Otherwise its again, dogmatism.

The time to believe something is when there is good evidence for it, not merely when it can't be absolutely ruled out. Thus the rationally justified position is lack of belief, until such time as good evidence comes along.

 

[exchemist]

<Sigh> So it's back to the Fine Tuning Argument then? Whereas 10 to the 60th power is a big number, then chances of getting a PERFECT deck of cards dealt to you (ace through king in spades, then hearts, then diamonds and then clubs) is 8.0658e67!!! That 52! or 8.0658 to the SIXTY SEVENTH power!!! An even larger number! Now here's the catch... We go, "WOW!!! That's a miracle" when things like that happen yet fail to recognize EVERY HAND OF 52 has the exact same probability!

The human brain is set to recognize patterns. Just because something seems exceedingly unlikely or a "miracle", hardly makes it one. Douglas Adams has the perfect analogy so I don't need to reinvent the wheel...

Spot-on. This is what I have been trying to say but you have found a nice illustration.