Big bang theory?

[DeistPrimate]

I just looked, I have different demi-gods on either foot.

Polytheist podi-deities?

 

[DeistPrimate]

I am no expert and I don't have the answers to how the universe began... no one does, only faith in something wether it be in God or accident.

Science has given us a much better idea of how the universe began than humans had previous to the scientific method. Science not only doesn't require faith but has no use for it.

 

[Onlooker]

The hypothesis of Steinhardt and Turok (as well as being potentially testable) does not require ex nihilo creation of our universe.

I just google'd the names and its the cyclic model of the universe (Bang then Crunch).
This makes sense because this is what happened to me in college after an a big party, starts out with a Bang, then Im doing crunches over the toilet bowl.
I like the theory, I would have to read more but how would that be testable?
It seems like the time frames are crazy and the mass over distance are insane.
My only problem with it (again, havent read anything except for 6 pages of google "abstracts") is the epoch that intrigues me the most: inflationary epoch.

 

[David M]

I just google'd the names and its the cyclic model of the universe (Bang then Crunch).
This makes sense because this is what happened to me in college after an a big party, starts out with a Bang, then Im doing crunches over the toilet bowl.
I like the theory, I would have to read more but how would that be testable?
It seems like the time frames are crazy and the mass over distance are insane.
My only problem with it (again, havent read anything except for 6 pages of google "abstracts") is the epoch that intrigues me the most: inflationary epoch.

Its the more recent work on branes that it more interesting and has made some testable predictions. Its the work they have published in the last couple of years, although I had to read the guide for dummies as physics is not my thing.

 

[Kwebb]

Welcome to the forum....
And good luck with that book.

Been here quite some time and have been making similar discussion from the start.

But as you can see.....

I can see!!!

 

[DeistPrimate]

I just google'd the names and its the cyclic model of the universe (Bang then Crunch).

The theory that our universe goes through cycles of bangs and crunches, at least as postulated back in the 60s with an eventual slowing down of expansion followed by collapse, has been falsified. In fact the expansion is accelerating.

Of course this doesn't negate the possibility the universe is embedded in spherical space and will smash into itself on the other side of the sphere (presently space appears flat but so did the earth long ago - it was just a lot bigger than assumed).

 

[Meow Mix]

It seems to be the same as everybody else: ex nihilo.
Lambda CDM model- from singularity an abrupt appearance of expanding space time ......etc.
Torah model- ..."now the earth was formless and empty" (hebrew, not easily translated into other languages, but one interpretation is: "the earth was tohu and bohu"). The hebrew tohu and bohu is interesting. Tohu being created out of nothing, and bohu creation out of created objects [building blocks][and "earth" being the "universe" in this sense].

Both seem to converge on ex nihilo

But creation ex nihilo implies "from nothing." There are no indications that the Big Bang event occurred "from nothing" -- in fact, there is every indication that it didn't thanks to the conservation of energy.

 

[Meow Mix]

This is in fact my intention to expose that the traditional and orthodox claims of "God" are severely incorrect and their meaning is very wrong.

Science gives new meaning to the thing we call as "God" as like the Big-Bang gives us a new explanation of the creation day.

Then you must drop other Godly attributes like omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, wisdom, love, writer of the Bible (or whatever other text), consciousness, etc. in order to make it identical to the Big Bang event. Like I said, doing so strips "God" of most of the things that meaningfully would give it the property of being God.

Again, might as well call a pair of socks "God." You've reduced God to the god of Einstein and Spinoza, i.e. the non-conscious universe. Why not just call it "the universe?"

 

[Onlooker]

The theory that our universe goes through cycles of bangs and crunches, at least as postulated back in the 60s with an eventual slowing down of expansion followed by collapse, has been falsified. In fact the expansion is accelerating.

Of course this doesn't negate the possibility the universe is embedded in spherical space and will smash into itself on the other side of the sphere (presently space appears flat but so did the earth long ago - it was just a lot bigger than assumed).

True, dark matter is over 70% of the total mass in the universe and this is the repulsive force. So this baby has juice to expand for a while.
If Omega is over 1 and we are in a spherical universe , we can confidently state, it wont effect you or me for a while.

 

[David M]

The theory that our universe goes through cycles of bangs and crunches, at least as postulated back in the 60s with an eventual slowing down of expansion followed by collapse, has been falsified. In fact the expansion is accelerating.

The Turok/Steinhardt model is not the 60s bang then crunch model. It implies that the rate of expansion would increase and better explains dark energy than the current big bang cosmology (according to the explanations I have read).

One of the tests is to do with the polarisation of the cosmic background radiation (current Big Band cosmology leads to polarisation while the Brane model does not).

 

[Gloone]

Well I would say it is a long drawn out explanation for one hell of a magic trick. So as the planet rotates east, and we pass by the sun on 12 hours cycles on the earth’s odyssey through space and time. I realize the big-bang is just a lame explanation for its timeless travels involving life and death in a seemingly effortless motion, with forces inviolate to mankind. Until man discovered that things like rocks and sticks were useful and started to bash them against things, shooting birds out of the sky, putting them in the deep fry, and picked up lightsabers thinking it was the age of the Jedi.

 

[Onlooker]

But creation ex nihilo implies "from nothing." There are no indications that the Big Bang event occurred "from nothing" -- in fact, there is every indication that it didn't thanks to the conservation of energy.

"Nothing" being infinitesimally small spacial occupation with lots of density and energy. That to me is very interesting.
Your argument is the same I give for the "Omni" Creator /God/Yahweh.
Out of "nothing" , in an infinitesimally speck of space, an infinite energy source infused a whole universe.
But whether you believe in creation or chance: faith is on the left side of the equation:
Creator or blip in singularity dynamic= complete universe with ? energy.

 

[esmith]

It seems to be the same as everybody else: ex nihilo.
Lambda CDM model- from singularity an abrupt appearance of expanding space time ......etc.
Torah model- ..."now the earth was formless and empty" (hebrew, not easily translated into other languages, but one interpretation is: "the earth was tohu and bohu"). The hebrew tohu and bohu is interesting. Tohu being created out of nothing, and bohu creation out of created objects [building blocks][and "earth" being the "universe" in this sense].

Both seem to converge on ex nihilo

ex-nihilo = out of nothing

I am going to quote directly out of the "Five Books Of Moses" The Schocken Bible Volume I; Translated by Everett Fox. This book is considered the most literal translation available.

At the beginning of God's creating of the heavens and the earth,
when the earth was wild and waste,
darkness over the face of Ocean,
rushing-spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters--

Now as I read it the earth was not created ex-nihilo. Where the preexisting matter came from is not specified...Big Bang sounds likely to me . It is commonly understood that the creation stories in the bible were taken from existing creation stories; with the Babylonian myth/legend Enuma Elish as the primary best guess.

 

[DeistPrimate]

The Turok/Steinhardt model is not the 60s bang then crunch model.).

I didn't assume it was.

One of the tests is to do with the polarisation of the cosmic background radiation (current Big Band cosmology leads to polarisation while the Brane model does not).

Interesting stuff that.

 

[Onlooker]

ex-nihilo = out of nothing

I am going to quote directly out of the "Five Books Of Moses" The Schocken Bible Volume I; Translated by Everett Fox. This book is considered the most literal translation available.

At the beginning of God's creating of the heavens and the earth,
when the earth was wild and waste,
darkness over the face of Ocean,
rushing-spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters--

Now as I read it the earth was not created ex-nihilo. Where the preexisting matter came from is not specified...Big Bang sounds likely to me . It is commonly understood that the creation stories in the bible were taken from existing creation stories; with the Babylonian myth/legend Enuma Elish as the primary best guess.

Hebrew is the "caged Lion" that is not translated well.

Gematrios, purposely missing or misspelled words, protruding lines or crowns, even the recent bible code are examples of "translation" issues.

Be that as it may, the Torah has been studied by Sages throughout the history, lets refer to a 12th century sage and his description (Rashi or Ramban:cant remember):“ The Holy One, Blessed is He, created all creations from absolute nihility, We do not have any word in the Holy Tongue (Hebrew) to express the idea of bringing forth something out of nothing except for the word ‘bara’ usually rendered to create. Now, nothing that is “made under the sun” or above it, initially comes into existence from nothingness; rather, God brought into being from complete, absolute nihility an exceedingly fine primary essence with practically no substance. But this essence is the potential for bringing forth other things, ready to receive from and to emerge from the potential to actual. This is the primary substance called by the Greeks ulh (hule). This is called tohu in the Holy Tongue and the form that this takes on is bohu. So tohu is the created substance that bohu is made from. And after this hule (tohu) God did not create anything out of nothing; rather he “formed” and “made” things (into bohu)....”

This is not bad for 12th century "torah" scholars.
I personally will go on their translation before any others, I mean really, its their language, they studied it for years and it matches science pretty well don't you think.

 

[Onlooker]

It is commonly understood that the creation stories in the bible were taken from existing creation stories; with the Babylonian myth/legend Enuma Elish as the primary best guess.

It may be understood but not true.
The only tribe in the world that considers a "day" as night then day is Hebrews. That matches science: Sizzling sea of quarks for 1st 700k years, dark, then quarks broke free and photons were able to shine, light. Dark then day= a "day".
The only story to say ex nihilo from a singular Creator God.
The only story that somewhat describes the inflationary epoch.
So I would argue, no, this "story" didnt come from a Marmuduke or Marduk play.

 

[outhouse]

It is commonly understood that the creation stories in the bible were taken from existing creation stories; with the Babylonian myth/legend Enuma Elish as the primary best guess.

its a compilation with heavy influence from sumerians more then anything. look up the adamu story for creation, its where the hebrews stole it from

 

[Onlooker]

its a compilation with heavy influence from sumerians more then anything. look up the adamu story for creation, its where the hebrews stole it from

I found a website that talked about it. Their premise is this (correct me if Im wrong) That sumerians tale of a god creating aduma, a rib is involved with the female, food was a good influence verses the bible as the bad "fall" and the "chosen" people used this when they wrote their torah about 600-200 bc.
The problem is this, IF the story of God and ADAM and EVE is correct, that story has been around since, um, the beginning of mankind. So , yes , the story would get around, even after the "flood" (IF that whole story is true). And all tribes/nations would have a similar base to that story (unlike my remembrance of my bachelor party, which has been so repeated with extra stuff every time I no longer remember even being there).
That is to say, the chosen people (or person), Abram of Ur, later to be known as Abraham, would know of the story of Adam and Eve, as would everybody else.

IF the story of the God/Creation/Adam+Eve/Flood/Nimrod/etc., etc. is wrong/false/made up, THEN ABSOLUTELY,sounds like those guys picked up on a story.

 

[outhouse]

IF the story of the God/Creation/Adam+Eve/Flood/Nimrod/etc., etc. is wrong/false/made up

we know mankind is not 6000 years old
we know there was never a worldwide flood
we know there were not only two people to start the human population
we know adam and moses didnt live 800 or 900 years


we also know they were afraid of everything and lived in a myth filled world, we know many pagan practices were used in the OT BUT most of all we know the storys were told for hundreds of years orally before they were written down,, thus if the source of the storys were 300-2000 years before hebrew writing the storys should have evolved exactly as we have them now.

with moses coming from egypt he would have known all the ancient storys as well since the egyption culture was pretty advanced for that time. moses claim to fame was probably all the storys he knew. Im sure he would have been a story teller in his time.

THEN ABSOLUTELY,sounds like those guys picked up on a story.

exactly he storys are to simular not to be the source for primitive hebrew tribes

 

[Onlooker]

we know mankind is not 6000 years old

we know there were not only two people to start the human population
we know adam and moses didnt live 800 or 900 years

I think mankind/civilization, as far as setting up shop, building hut, get food, mate= 6-10k years? No doubt they see areas that they document 12k years ago (sedentism), but who did that, I have seen deer come to the same place, eat, poop, sleep, leave and repeat.
I thought if 2 people were left to do their business, its possible to get a tribe going. Forget about the sticky issues of, you know, everybody is fair game. But, I think its possible. Now that would be a heck of a study for some student, maybe a reality tv like "truman show".
How do you know adam didnt live that long. I dont think the torah states moses lived that long otherwise he would have crossed over to the "promised land".