Common misconceptions about the big bang

[linwood]

redshift is evidence of an single source for the big bang.
seeing how redshift happins we can use it back track, by doing so we can figure out that everything in the univerce came from a single point.
I think that is the 'infinite particle' that you are refering to, If I am mistaken forgive me.

The point that the universe started in one place does not mean it began from an "Infinately dense particle".

It could simply be that at one time all matter in its present density was gathered in one area of the universe and began expanding from there by perhaps a "Big Bang" but it would not be the same "Big Bang" described by science today.

For instance, how do we know all the matter came from one "microscopic point" instead of just a large bulk of matter in one place.
Why does it have to come from a microscopic point and what is the evidence for this microscopic point?

Has anything remotely comparable to this "Infinately Dense Point" ever been witnessed in nature ?

Also as far as "Infinate Density" goes for this microscopic point could you please explain how one fits 999 gazzillion pounds of crap into a half pound bag?

It also has not been shown that matter was not at one time "contracting" towards this "point" only to expand due to some action stronger than this matters gravitational pull...call it a bang if you will.
The fact that science says it will not contract again has no bearing on what it may have done in the past
This is not an absurd concept considering it was held not too long ago by much of the scientific establishment as possible at some point in the past or future.

If the univerce is expanding, and the evidence shows that it is, it must have a place of expansion... ie and 'edge'. And thus it must have 'something' that it is expanding into.

I think the problem here is different understandings of what "universe" means.

To me the definition of universe is "Space and all it contains"
Are you stating that space itself is expanding and if it is what is the evidence for this expansion?
I understand that the matter within this space has been verified to be "Spreading out" but space itself expanding?
The only place it could expand into would be...more space...which logically was already there sooo...I don`t get it.
I`ve said earlier that space cannot be manipulated it is just there.

I think that the biggest problems that are going on here is terminology.
This is one of the biggest challanges in science.

This I`ll agree with ..and how.

The edge of the univerce is not like the edge of a road or the walls of a room. It is the closest term that scientists could give to the phenomina that they were observing and theorizing about.

Please explain what that phenomena is.

 

[painted wolf]

This is the difficulty when talking about the univerce... it is expanding, thus logically it must have an 'edge' but space is infinitely large so it doesn't have an 'edge'... for it to expand it must have 'something' to expand into, yet it doesn't as the univerce is 'everything' and nothing is known outside its existance.....

This is why studying the origen of the univerce is difficult, and explaining it more so.
This is why so many have difficulty with it. IMHO

wa:do

 

[linwood]

You've done an excellent job so far, pw, but this is another misconception. Space is boundless. There is no 'edge' to space, and we are not expanding into 'something'. The volume of the universe is infinity right now, and it was infinity when the universe was filled with radiation as well.

Ahhh cool.
If all you Bang proponents are willing to concede the "edge of space" part of my list I will gracefully accept and move on to another point.

:jam:
But I would still like to know what the hell Hawkings was talking about.

It's kind of like a rubber sheet with red dots on it that extends for infinity in all directions. If you push down on it, the distance between the dots increases, but the area of the sheet remains infinite. If you let go, the distance between the dots becomes so small that the infinite rubber sheet becomes one, solid area of red.

This part I have a problem with .
It sounds good and all but since I`ve already asserted that space cannot be manipulated I can`t readily accept it until it is shown to me that space can be manipulated.

Wny does an answer almost always bring with it another question?
:help:

 

[linwood]

This is the difficulty when talking about the univerce... it is expanding, thus logically it must have an 'edge' but space is infinitely large so it doesn't have an 'edge'... for it to expand it must have 'something' to expand into, yet it doesn't as the univerce is 'everything' and nothing is known outside its existance.....

Ok so for the sake of this discussion can we agree that it is not the universe that has an "Edge" but the expanding matter within it does?

That I have no problem with.

 

[linwood]

Spinkles,

I just re-read this entire thread and realized I never even saw your post #20 as I usually click on the latest update to a thread from the user CP and it was the last on a previous page.

I`ts late and I work early (and i`ll probably need to check out some stuff ) so I`ll give you a reply tomorrow.

I apologise.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hey don't mention it linwood. Have a good day at work tomorrow. I probably won't be on at all tomorrow myself, so take care friend.

 

[linwood]

Because the theory predicts that as the universe expanded and cooled, when the entire universe was still filled with radiation, some of that radiation was finally able to escape, and a cosmic background radiation should be bombarding Earth at certain wavelengths with very high red shifts. In 1960-something, we detected precisely that.

I`m still not sure how this verifies an "Infinately dense particle".
It may be my inability to grasp the concept yet again ( I am beginning to tire of this possibilty though) but what does this have to do with a literal, unobservable, infinately dense particle ?

Why is my hypothesis of all matter being gathered in one area of space not valid compared to this particle theory?

This again only seems to verify that the matter within the universe is expanding.

It doesn`t verify an infinately dense particle, you cannot even begin to calculate the density of anything until you know "how big" it is.

Can we determine "how big" the particle was?

In fact if what I understand is true there could have been no particle anyway.

*Before the Bang there was no space.(This I know because my science tells me so)
*The Bang needed this particle in order to occur.
*This particle is matter.(All matter in fact)
*Matter needs space to exist.
*Therefore this particle could not have existed.

It`s a conundrum..religion anyone?

Don`t worry I`m not going "creationist" on ya.
I don`t really believe there was no space before the Bang so the above scenario isn`t valid in my eyes.
But science does.
I just wanted to give an example of how unbelievable it all is

I'm not sure what you mean here: is there a difference between "witnessing" something and "detecting" it? We can detect black holes, and they are believed to be infinitely dense.

What I mean by witnessing is directly observing OR observing the affects of a phenomena.

Why are black holes "believed" to be infinately dense?

We cannot observe a black hole due to it`s very nature all we can do is observe what we believe are the affects of black holes on the matter around them.

I have no dounbt that a black hole is dense as hell by why "infinately" dense?

As I understand it the gravitational pull of a black hole is caused by it`s mass and density. (Correct me if I`m wrong)
If it were "infinately dense" would not it`s gravitational force be "Infinate" as well?
Thats a serious question from a thought I just had.
I could be wrong.

While we may be able to determine "how big" a black hole is by watching its affects on it`s surrounding we have no way to know the mass of any black hole and we cannot begin to calculate the density of anything until we know what its mass is.

Can we determine the mass of a black hole?

There are lots of other possibilities....but given what we know, some possibilities seem more likely than others.

This is my overall point, why do proponents of the Bang defend it as if it were the the original manuscript of Mark?

I`ll give the theory its due because it has been the purpose for study and research that has led us to some of mankinds greatest scientific discoveries but it`s obviously riddled with holes.
The lack of answers I`m getting here is evidence of that.

Maybe y`all should bring in a ringer

linwood.....you're starting to sound like a Creationist. Take a telescope, and look at the sky, my friend...the evidence is bombarding us as we speak.

The evidence of matter expanding throughout the universe is bombarding us.
The evidence of an infinate particle is not.
The evidence that space can be manipulated is not.
The evidence of space not existing or having an "edge"is not.
The evidence of the concept of time not existing is not.

Yet science speaks of these things as if they are proven.
People accept it as if they are fact when it so obviously is not.

That is why I call it religion.

linwood....the expansion of space is a fact. The existence of cosmic background radiation is a fact. If you can explain either of these facts without the use of an ancient, high density and high energy universe, please enlighten us.

This is a strawman.
I have not once in this thread or any other ever stated that these discoveries were not fact.
Not once.
Ever.

What I have stated is that these discoveries do nothing but provide evidence that the matter witthin the universe is expanding.
*They do not provide evidence of an Infinately dense particle
*They do not provide evidence of an edge to space.
*They do not provide evidence that space can be or has been manipulated.
*They do not provide evidence of time not existing.
*They do not provide a basis for science promoting concepts that are not falsifiable.

Below is a list of questions I have asked that no one has attempted to answer.
I do not wish them to get lost in this discussion.

1: Did science or did science not document two quasars with redshifts that seem to provide evidence (However small) against the Big bang theory?
refer to post #19
2: How is this infinately dense particle that it all started with verified?
3: As far as "Infinate Density" goes for this microscopic point could you please explain how one fits 999 gazzillion pounds of crap into a half pound bag?
4: Has anything ever been witnessed to be infinately dense?
5: How has the manipulation of space been verified?
6: How can space have an end?
7: How can space "not exist"?
8: Can we agree that it is not the universe that has an "Edge" but the expanding matter within it does?

Whew!!

Thats alot of unanswered questions.
Hell, thats a bigger list than most creationists create in threads larger than this one.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Whew!!

Thats alot of unanswered questions.
Hell, thats a bigger list than most creationists create in threads larger than this one.

It is quite a laundry list. Unfortunately linwood, just like the questions of the creationists, these stem from ignorance rather than well-informed disagreement. I don't have time to answer your entire post right now...but I will. You appear to have many misconceptions about the big bang, and many of your arguments are strawmen.

I'll answer the questions you have at the end of your post, for starters.

1: Did science or did science not document two quasars with redshifts that seem to provide evidence (However small) against the Big bang theory?
refer to post #19
I already addressed this question in a previous post.

2: How is this infinately dense particle that it all started with verified?
The term "particle" is misleading. Even when the universe was infinitely dense, the entire, infinite volume of space would have been filled with this "particle". It's better to think of it as the solid red sheet of rubber I submitted earlier. Here is how it is verified: If the universe was infinitely dense, as it expanded and cooled it should have released radiation at cartain wavelengths. Not only would it have released radiation, it would have released what is called "black body" radiation. Black body radiation comes from objects where almost none of the light is reflected light (our Sun emits black body radiation, for example). When graphed, this radiation looks like a bell curve, with certain wavelengths being emitted at the highest intensity (at the top of the curve). Furthermore, if all this happened, the radiation reaching us should have an extremely high red shift, since it has traveled through the expanding space of the universe for the entire age of the universe. When all of this is taken together, we find that radiation at very specific wavelengths and intensities, with extremely high red shifts, and furthermore, with a specific spectrum (I can't remember if the specturm has hydorgen absorption lines or not...this is all from memory...my book does a better job explaining it but takes an entire chapter to do so ) should bombard us in all directions. This prediction was confirmed about four decades ago.

3: As far as "Infinate Density" goes for this microscopic point could you please explain how one fits 999 gazzillion pounds of crap into a half pound bag?
"Microscopic point" is another misleading term. Even when the universe was very young, space was infinitely large, but this space was filled with high density, high energy radiation. The volume of this so-called "point" was always infinite.

As for fitting 999 gazzillion pound of crap into a half pound bag...a more interesting question is "what's keeping all those particles apart?" Remember that most of the universe is empty space. In fact, most of the volume that our bodies occupy is empty space. If the nucleus of an atom were the size of a grape, the electron cloud surrounding it would be about the size of a football field, and the electrons within that cloud would be tiny. The only thing preventing a proton and an electron from occupying the same space is the repulsive forces between them....but we can calculate this force, and we can calculate the force of gravity. The force of gravity compared to mass is (if I remember correctly) called an "inverse square" proportionality. This means that as the mass of an object increases, the force of gravity greatly increases. If the force of gravity is larger than the repulsive forces between particles of matter, the gravity will overcome them and they density will become infinite.

4: Has anything ever been witnessed to be infinately dense?
I went over this...black holes. No offense, but your comments regarding my answer in your last post here demonstrate to me that you would really benefit from a course in astronomy. Yes, we can determine the volumes and masses of objects in space--even black holes. I don't have time right now for a thorough explanation...but here's a brief one: we can determine the volume of objects by measuring the time-intervals between high luminosity and low luminosity (so for example, if something flickers very fast, it has a relatively small volume). We can determine how massive an object is by measuring the orbital velocities of objects surrounding it and using the orbital laws of motion to calculate mass. Finally, we can use our knowledge of volume and mass to determine density. Scientists are confident that certain objects are black holes because they contain roughly the mass of the Milky Way within roughly the volume of our solar system. At such a density, the force of gravity would overcome all other known physical forces.

To answer one of your other questions about black holes...black holes are not vacuum cleaners. They do not go around sucking up everything. Their gravity is not infinite, because the force of gravity does not depend on density...it depends on mass. High density might make an object a black hole, but it takes high mass to give it a high gravitational pull. If our Sun was crushed into a small enough volume where it's density forced it into becoming a black hole, it would still have the same mass, and Earth would continue to orbit it as if nothing had happened.

Again, you would greatly benefit from a course in astronomy. I don't mind answering questions...but I don't think I can be expected to educate you on cepheid variables and type I supernovae, and how astronomers use them to determine distance, etc.

5: How has the manipulation of space been verified?
It's been verified in a number of ways. For example, when a high mass object passes in front of a distant quasar, the light from the quasar follows a curved path around the object (because of the curvature of space caused by gravity) and makes it appear through a telescope as if the object is surrounded by four quasars.

6: How can space have an end?
It seems to defy common sense that space can have an end. That is why modern cosmology assumes space does not have an end. Nice strawman though.

7: How can space "not exist"?
Space has always existed.

8: Can we agree that it is not the universe that has an "Edge" but the expanding matter within it does?
Objects have centers and edges. Space has neither. I've said this all along.

 

[linwood]

You appear to have many misconceptions about the big bang, and many of your arguments are strawmen.

This thread is about dispelling my (and others )misconceptions.
Thats why I posted here.

Not a single point I`ve raised is a strawman.
A strawman can only be used to protect a position through diversion, I have no position to protect.
(I`m quickly developing one though)

You see, you`re approaching this incorrectly.
You think I`m attempting to start a debate when I am not.
I am not trying in any way to support any belief I have simply because I have none.

I want to believe the Bang is right.
There`s just not enough evidence to support my belief.
The need you have to defend this theory from attack is palpable in the forum.
The odd part is that I am not attacking it.
I`m just repeatedly asking that questions I have be answered instead of avoided as they have been up to this point.

It`s ironic that you`ve fruballed me in the past for questioning theists in the same manner about their beliefs.

1: Did science or did science not document two quasars with redshifts that seem to provide evidence (However small) against the Big bang theory?
refer to post #19
I already addressed this question in a previous post.

No, you have not.
Not in this thread anyway.
You simply dismissed the site I posted it from.
You did not address the question.

2:

How is this infinately dense particle that it all started with verified?
The term "particle" is misleading. Even when the universe was infinitely dense, the entire, infinite volume of space would have been filled with this "particle".

Steven Hawkings states, and I quote..

"Hubbles observations suggested that there was a time when the universe was infinitesimally small, and therefore, infinitely dense."

"The general theory of relativity- on which Freidmans solutions are based- predicts that there is a singular point in the universe."

This is repeated throughout his works and the works of every astrophysist I have ever read.

Now you are telling me that "The Particle" was not infinitesmally small but infinitely large.

I`ve never heard this before.

How can a singularity/Particle "be" or "fill" infinite space?
If The Particle was matter then where is all this matter that filled the entire universe now?

Here is how it is verified:

IF the universe was infinitely dense, as it expanded and cooled it should have released radiation at certain wavelengths.

Please notice the highlighted text above, the emphasis is mine.

You and science have already asserted that it WAS infinitely dense.
In fact the theory of the Big Bang relies upon it and now you say IF. Why do you say IF?

Please explain how an infinitely dense universe(I’m assuming we’re both defining the universe as space and everything within it) can expand.
Where does it expand to?
If it is infinitely dense that means that all space is filled everywhere and forever on.

If all space is filled what space does this universe expand into?

This does not verify The Particle it merely raises a thousand different questions and conundrums.

Not only would it have released radiation, it would have released what is called "black body" radiation. Black body radiation comes from objects where almost none of the light is reflected light (our Sun emits black body radiation, for example). When graphed, this radiation looks like a bell curve, with certain wavelengths being emitted at the highest intensity (at the top of the curve). Furthermore, if all this happened, the radiation reaching us should have an extremely high red shift, since it has traveled through the expanding space of the universe for the entire age of the universe. When all of this is taken together, we find that radiation at very specific wavelengths and intensities, with extremely high red shifts, and furthermore, with a specific spectrum (I can't remember if the specturm has hydrogen absorption lines or not...this is all from memory...my book does a better job explaining it but takes an entire chapter to do so [

Redshift again. I have already stated (numerous times)that I agree redshift has determined that matter within the universe is expanding.

Again, this does not confirm The Particle but merely confirms that all matter in the universe is expanding.
It provides no evidence as to exactly "Why" all matter is expanding.
I will agree with some sort of bang to start this expansion but I`ve seen nothing that would indicate The Particle.


It does not provide evidence for either an infinitely small or (The new & improved) infinitely large "Particle"

3: As far as "Infinite Density" goes for this microscopic point could you please explain how one fits 999 gazzillion pounds of crap into a half pound bag?

"Microscopic point" is another misleading term. Even when the universe was very young, space was infinitely large, but this space was filled with high density, high energy radiation. The volume of this so-called "point" was always infinite.

In essence, what you are telling me is that there was no half pound bag.

I won’t argue it but I must tell you this is the first I’ve heard it.
That doesn’t mean anything though.
You mention many "Misleading terms" in your reply.
I would just like to point out that these misleading terms are not mine.
They are the terms science has given to these real or supposed phenomena.
Personally I believe if they indeed mean to describe something as “infinite” using the terms "point", "Particle", or "singularity" is ridiculously idiotic.
I can think of a half dozen common words/terms to better describe such phenomena off the top of my head.
The terms used would seem to mean the exact opposite of what is meant.

I thought these people were supposed to be smart.

As for fitting 999 gazzillion pound of crap into a half pound bag...a more interesting question is "what's keeping all those particles apart?" Remember that most of the universe is empty space. In fact, most of the volume that our bodies occupy is empty space. If the nucleus of an atom were the size of a grape, the electron cloud surrounding it would be about the size of a football field, and the electrons within that cloud would be tiny. The only thing preventing a proton and an electron from occupying the same space is the repulsive forces between them....but we can calculate this force, and we can calculate the force of gravity. The force of gravity compared to mass is (if I remember correctly) called an "inverse square" proportionality. This means that as the mass of an object increases, the force of gravity greatly increases. If the force of gravity is larger than the repulsive forces between particles of matter, the gravity will overcome them and they density will become infinite.

It is an interesting question but it doesn’t define or verify "The Particle" it again just verifies that the matter within the universe is expanding.

4:

Has anything ever been witnessed to be infinitely dense?
I went over this...black holes. No offense, but your comments regarding my answer in your last post here demonstrate to me that you would really benefit from a course in astronomy.

I most definitely would.
I’d also benefit from a straight answer.

Could you direct me to a reference that shows falsifiable evidence of a black holes infinate density?

Yes, we can determine the volumes and masses of objects in space--even black holes.

Excellent!!
Then you are saying that Black Holes have been falsifiably verified as infinitely dense!!
Thank you!!

You’re not saying that though are you Spinkles?
If you are not saying that then why the obfuscation?

I was wrong about not being able to determine the mass of a black hole.
Under the right conditions science can indeed determine the mass of a black hole and those conditions have been met in many cases.

So, since we can determine the mass of some black holes please tell me how many have been falsifiably verified to be "Infinitely Dense" as you’ve stated.

Please provide reference or stop obfuscating.

Mathematical equations have determined that a black hole is infinitely dense but true falsifiable evidence would have to come from observation within the event horizon and that’s just not possible.
Well, it’s possible for whoever crosses the event horizon but I doubt he’d be much in the mood to gather the data to run those calculations nor could he relay that information.
[font=&quot]

Continued.....
[/font]

 

[linwood]

I don't have time right now for a thorough explanation...but here's a brief one: we can determine the volume of objects by measuring the time-intervals between high luminosity and low luminosity (so for example, if something flickers very fast, it has a relatively small volume). We can determine how massive an object is by measuring the orbital velocities of objects surrounding it and using the orbital laws of motion to calculate mass. Finally, we can use our knowledge of volume and mass to determine density.

I understand how the density of any matter is determined.

What I don’t understand is why since we can determine the density of some black holes you use the word "believe" when you speak of a black holes "infinite" density instead of "know".

You said...
"We can detect black holes, and they are believed to be infinitely dense."

Has science verified a black hole as having infinite density?

If it has not then why did you cite it as example when I asked if anything had been verified as having infinite density?

Scientists are confident that certain objects are black holes because they contain roughly the mass of the Milky Way within roughly the volume of our solar system. At such a density, the force of gravity would overcome all other known physical forces.

I didn’t deny the existence of black holes.
In fact I said they can be determined by observing the affect of objects around them

High density might make an object a black hole, but it takes high mass to give it a high gravitational pull.

How did we get from "Infinite density" to "high density"?
You used black holes as an example of infinite density when I asked for an example.

Are they or are they not “infinitely” dense?

We don’t really know do we?

Again, you would greatly benefit from a course in astronomy. I don't mind answering questions...but I don't think I can be expected to educate you on cepheid variables and type I supernovae, and how astronomers use them to determine distance, etc.

That’s ok, I’ll skip the course on astronomy.
I’m starting to think I’d last as long in an astronomy class as I would in a Bible study class.
The parallels are mind boggling.

5: How has the manipulation of space been verified?
It's been verified in a number of ways. For example, when a high mass object passes in front of a distant quasar, the light from the quasar follows a curved path around the object (because of the curvature of space caused by gravity) and makes it appear through a telescope as if the object is surrounded by four quasars.

I’ve read this but have not studied it.

Until I have opportunity to do so I’ll concede the question .

Once I have studied I may very well raise it again.

J

6: How can space have an end?

It seems to defy common sense that space can have an end. That is why modern cosmology assumes space does not have an end. Nice strawman though.

Much of the assertions in this topic seem to defy common sense so that standard is out the window.

Actually the only strawman I see is your continued evidence of redshift whenever I ask for an example of infinite density and or verifiable evidence of The Particle.

Again you cry "Strawman" as if I’m purposely changing direction when you know very well many scientists have put forth the idea .

Painted Wolf stated it not two pages back in this very thread quoting a friend studying the subject as if it were common knowledge and you yourself corrected her.

I know you stated you don’t hold this belief but we are not the only ones engaged in this discussion (Which I believe has just become a debate) and at least one other participant has stated they hold this belief.

From the frubals I’m receiving regarding this thread I’d say there are a few people lurking it as well and I wish to get my point across clearly

I asked for consensus on the point and received accusations of building strawmen

I asked in post #43 ...

"If all you Bang proponents are willing to concede the "edge of space" part of my list I will gracefully accept and move on to another point."

I did not receive a reply to the post , from anyone.

Your accusation of my strawman building itself is a strawman.

7: How can space "not exist"?

Space has always existed.

Agreed, why did it take 5 pages and 48 posts just to clear up this on point that we apparently have consensus on?

8: Can we agree that it is not the universe that has an "Edge" but the expanding matter within it does?

Objects have centers and edges. Space has neither. I've said this all along.

Thank you.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I wanted to throw in a new twist to the "boundless space" discussion.

To me, it does not make sense to talk about empty space as if it is something that exists on its own. Space without objects that live in has no meaning. We have a tendency to think of space as if it were an object itself, like a stage. To me, this will lead to some odd perceptions.

Space and distance are one in the same. Distance is a property of matter, just like momentum. Both of these properties are meaningless unless being used to relate two or more objects. If there were only one particle in the Universe it does not make sense to say it has distance or momentum because these properties only have meaning when compared to other particles. Once we do add another object to the scene can we say it is 3 meters away from object A, or is moving 10 MPH compared to object B. Distance starts to have meaning, and likewise, so does the dimensions of space.

We say space is continually expanding because space has no meaning out beyond the farthest photons. It is non-existant and therefore useless to regard as something that is "real". Space exists as a conceptual construct we use to understand the relations between objects, but there is no reality to it beyond that which is meaningful to the relationships between the objects.

This may be hard to grasp because of the way our consciousness processes the information we receive about the physical world. But perhaps if you think of all of the objects out there in the Universe as simply information with properties of position, velocity etc, it will make more sense.

One way to look at it is if we were to treat the property of temperature as a dimension in the same way space represents the dimension of distance. If the hottest object in the Universe is 100000 degrees (I am making up that number), we shouldn't think that it is necessarily a boundary. Perhaps it is possible for something to become hotter, but it doesn't make sense to think of those higher temperatures as being real until an object actually reaches those temperatures.

In the end, the distance between two objects will always be finite, and therefore the dimensions of space will always be finite.

Hope this makes sense.

 

[daniel]

if you believe the big bang theory then how is it that every plant exploded into perfect round objects,
its like a watch shop exploding and all the watches falling down reassembled

 

[Pah]

if you believe the big bang theory then how is it that every plant exploded into perfect round objects,
its like a watch shop exploding and all the watches falling down reassembled

Earth is not perfectly round. nor is Earth's orbit circular.

 

[TranceAm]

its like a watch shop exploding and all the watches falling down reassembled

How many watches do you know that have only 1, 2 or 3 parts?

 

[croak]

Very interesting argument. But what does obfuscation mean?

Just a small thing I'd like to ask, which I think I've asked before, in one way or another:

Where did the energy to make the Big Bang come from. As far as I know, everything has energy. If something does not have energy, it is nothing. Hope that made sense......Well, according to my reasoning, there is not in between. No energy cannot form energy, as it is nothing. The matter, particles, whatever, that formed the Big Bang, must be made of energy. Otherwise, they would be nothing.

This is my reasoning. I haven't studied physics yet, so it may be partially or completely incorrect. If it is, at least answer the first question.

 

[croak]

Earth is not perfectly round. nor is Earth's orbit circular.

Well, at least you agree with the Qur'an on one point. It says that it is round; however, it is somewhat stretched, similar to an egg.

 

[linwood]

Very interesting argument. But what does obfuscation mean?

Obfuscation means "To cloud the issue".

 

[TranceAm]

>Just a small thing I'd like to ask, which I think I've asked before, in one way or another:

>Where did the energy to make the Big Bang come from.

Best guess from my side without invoking magic:
A higher dimension where this universum is part of.
Alike a point is part of a line.
But your guess is as good and as welcome as everyone elses.

Nice tangent question would become:
Is that Energy needed to create a big bang and form our universe, slowly seeping back into that higher dimension? Or will that Energy slowly seep back when the universe cools down enough? Is that coolling down the same as seeping?

Nice statement could become:
There are a lot of points on a line.

And the wonderfull question that line throws in front of you
Is this number of points comparable to big bangs creating universes?

At the same time, or in sequence?
Mindboggling for humanity...
We either gain infinity, or we gain exclusivity.

The why of exclusivity is also interesting.
And the last post of that discussion is here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8846&goto=newpost

 

[linwood]

To me, it does not make sense to talk about empty space as if it is something that exists on its own.

Whether it makes sense to you or not it there is evidence for the truth of it.
We know empty space exists, if it didn`t I wouldn`t be able to read the words on this moniter.

Space without objects that live in has no meaning.

It means I can read the writing on this moniter, without empty space this discussion is impossible.
Without empty space everything is impossible other than the existence of matter.

I understand your premise that "If life isn`t here to observe it it means nothing to life." but that doesn`t simply make it non-existent.

It`s the tree falling in the forest concept again.

We have a tendency to think of space as if it were an object itself, like a stage. To me, this will lead to some odd perceptions.

Give an example of these odd perceptions.

I understand the concepts of empty space and time/space existing before the theoretical Big bang has no bearing on scientific premise but that does not mean they do not or did not exist.

This is my problem with this overly popular theory.

It`s like science saying...
"That doesn`t matter to us, well then lets just say it didn`t exist."

 

[oracle]

The big bang comes up a lot on this forum....for some, it has religious/spiritual/theological implications. It is important, therefore, to have some accurate knowledge on this topic.

There are a lot of common misconceptions about the big bang regarding what it is, and what it is not. Don't worry though...I had these very same misconceptions not too long ago, but my astronomy course set me straight.

For starters, the big bang is NOT...

1) ...'over'. It's still happening, right now. Space is expanding as we speak, causing the distances between galaxies to increase.

2) ...an 'explosion'. Explosions happen at certain places, and for only a brief moment. The big bang, on the other hand, did not happen at any particular place....it happened/is happening everywhere.

3) ...going to slow down, turn into a 'big crunch', and cause another big bang. This theory has been thrown out due to recent studies which show that the expansion of space is accelerating. The universe will never (as far as we can tell) collapse back in on itself.

Now, here's what the big bang IS:

1) The big bang is directly observable. We can see it happening, right now. In any direction we look, we can see galaxies receeding from us.

2) The big bang is everywhere. When the universe was young, the entire, infinite volume of space was filled with high density, high energy radiation. Today, the entire, infinite volume of the universe is filled with galaxies and galaxy clusters, and as space expands the distances between these clusters increases.

3) The big bang is difficult to imagine. In order to imagine an event in X dimensions, we have to exist in X + 1 dimensions. The only way we can really grasp the expansion of three-dimensional space is to use an analogy in only two dimensions (i.e. an expanding rubber band or balloon). Still, it is important to remember that these are only analogies....they are limited in how accurately they can represent reality.

Please feel free to ask any questions you may have. I'm not an expert, but I'll answer questions the best I can. Remember, a lot is not known right now....for example, we don't know exactly what caused the big bang. There are a number of theories, but nothing is certain...still, the basic answer for why we have something instead of nothing is because 'nothing' is unstable.

Here is my Cosmological Theory:

I think that the big bang is an ongoing process. I think if Spacetime is accelerating, it is because we have reached a cap of expansion (#7 on my diagram). There is no deacceleration in the big crunch, it will accelerate just as fast as the big bang at an equal rate because spacetime is compressing. From 12-1 on my diagram, this travel will take approximately 300,000 years, considering the fact that this distance is something like a trillion lightyears. Actually, I need to re-draw this diagram. The circumferance would be much larger.
At the center, all matter gains infinite mass. Actually in the very center, is a singularity where no spacetime or matter exists.

I think the only problem with science is that they don't put all the compenents together into one big picture. I actually got this Idea from the OT and from ancient sanskrits. There is no beginning or end. The universe is infinite.

God is actually the center of our universe.

If you've guessed, Gan Eden is garden of Eden in Hebrew. Gan translated letter by letter means "ongoing relationship".
In Eden, the ayin is open ciricle, a source, a well-spring, and Dalet-Nun is related to the idea of justice, and consequences. The "garden" is the center of the universe, but this is all my speculation.