WalterTrull
Godfella
Oh Yeah?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Big Bang Theory Primer
- Thread starter sayak83
- Start date
There are many questions that are meaningless because they assume things that are wrong.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Well, the whole theory makes assumption on top of assumption so I find your statement rather ironic.
Which assumption is made that you don't think has been tested? That GR is a good description of gravity? Or that thermodynamics should apply? Or do you think the math was done poorly?
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
So you are going to actually attempt to say that no assumptions whatsoever are made in the theory?
No, I am saying that assumptions are tested whenever possible and the theory is made to have as many testable as possible. So which assumptions do you think need to be tested further?
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
All of them. I do not accept any tests of the big bang as valid. In order to test the Big Bang Theory you would need to create a massive explosion approx. equal to the density of mass assumed and wait billions of years and see what happens. Of course that cannot happen so the Big Bang cannot be accurately tested.
I strongly disagree that this is required for testing of the ideas. For example, we can know what happens in the center of the sun without creating a star on our own. We can do so by understanding the conditions and using the known laws of physics to see what would happen. We can then test by a variety of means, including solar oscillations and neutrino emissions.
The basic ideas of gravity have been tested repeatedly. The various underlying assumptions for the BB model have been tested. The specific predictions of that model have been tested to an accuracy that is simply incredible.
And, since the BB wasn't a 'massive explosion' in the usual sense, your method would be definitely NOT a test!
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Well, if it wasn't a massive explosion that produced all of the matter in the universe, then what was it, in your opinion?
The problem is than an explosion is a pressure wave that propels the debris through space.
That is NOT what happens in the BB scenario. The BB is an expansion of space itself with the galaxies (and other things) carried along with that expansion.
So, for example, an explosion has a boundary of effect that moves outward because of the pressure produced in the explosion. There is an 'inside' and an 'outside'.
This is NOT the case with the BB! Again, the BB is an expansion of space itself. There is no 'boundary' between what is moving outward and a space beyond. Instead, ALL of space is filled with matter and it is the space itself that is expanding.
There is a very fundamental difference between what is conventionally thought of as an explosion and what happens in the BB. The BB is NOT a pressure wave that drives matter outward into surrounding space.
Whatever Polymath said. There was no explosion, ever. Its more like stretching of a flat sheet of rubber or gum on all sides, with matter being small specks embedded in that sheet.
WalterTrull
Godfella
Some folks might think of it in terms like: "Let there be light"
And they might. Except, of course, that photons happened later and 'Let there be light' doesn't say anything about an expansion of space.
Not to mention, there is no firmament in the BB scenario.
WalterTrull
Godfella
Mmmm… Could be construed that Genesis is just a different description of the same thing that physicists call the big bang. Different perspectives.
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” could be thought of as quite an expansion of space.
Unfortunately, the BB scenario only deals with the temporal aspect of the universe, while Genesis tries to deal with the atemporal aspects. Firmament is said to separate the temporal view from the atemporal and would itself be atemporal.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Wow, talk about a huge assumption.
It's not an assumption, the universe can be directly observed to be expanding in that fashion and we know that it has expanded in that fashion as far back as one can go since only physics based on such an expansion (unlike physics based on explosion) successfully predicted the various features of this universe that were eventually observed. Simple.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
No, you don't know that. The only way you could is if you actually went back however many billions of years ago and observed it.
What if God created the universe 10,000 years ago almost just as you see it today? You're assumption would be wrong in that case.
As I said before, God could have created everything 5 minutes ago with all our memories artificially implanted (along with all our convictions and memories) and we would not know. God would be a deceiver if he created everything 10,000 years ago in such a fashion that when one looks at how nature works, all its features points to a very ancient universe that has expanded in the manner I said above. It's like a forger, who uses artificial means to make a fake copy look old to pass it of as an ancient find. If you believe in a forger God, that is your choice of course.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Well, you and your fellow scientists are all assuming that everything started at ground zero with the big bang and therefore all of your thinking is derived from that assumption. If there was a Creator I doubt seriously He would have created everything in its pristine state with it taking billions of years for the light from one star to reach the nearest stars. That doesn't make sense.
That's why you can't accept the idea of a Creator who created 10,000 years ago. Your point of view and therefore your thinking is stuck in the assumption of the big bang theory. In order to approach it scientifically and impartially you must get the big bang theory out of your head and stop being so set in your way of thinking.