-
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!
First cause of the universe.
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You did not pay attention. You do not know what "nothing" is. Guess what? Neither did Lemaitre. Astrophysicists did not even begin to have a handle on 'nothing' until after Einstein's general relativity and quantum gravity were better understood.
Do you know that the universe is still expanding?
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Do you know conscious humans live inside a stretched water heated atmosphere that ground science causes to expand in ice melt.
And you experience the conscious perception inside the heavens only?
You know earth has holes of nothing in its mass. Yet our consciousness lives in the heavens that enters those holes in the mass.
And your human experience is affected by life on planet earth itself.
You make theism suggestions via life's bio organic experience.
You said the space vacuum removes burning light from existing and maybe one day the suns big bang expansion will be sucked back to a no energy presence. As our universes heat.
But maybe it might blast out on the other side. So you said maybe we need to look for another planet to live on.
I think any other planet wouldn't want you after how you treated planet earth human inventor.
And you experience the conscious perception inside the heavens only?
You know earth has holes of nothing in its mass. Yet our consciousness lives in the heavens that enters those holes in the mass.
And your human experience is affected by life on planet earth itself.
You make theism suggestions via life's bio organic experience.
You said the space vacuum removes burning light from existing and maybe one day the suns big bang expansion will be sucked back to a no energy presence. As our universes heat.
But maybe it might blast out on the other side. So you said maybe we need to look for another planet to live on.
I think any other planet wouldn't want you after how you treated planet earth human inventor.
Luchito Prays
Member
I will love you to tell what "nothing" is, according to general relativity. How it was detected or foresaw. What an emotion! what an emotion!
I truly will wait for your insight. Finally I will learn something new.
Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
Then I wonder what other scientific explanation there is. Could you expand upon a more appropriate scientific theory?
Luchito Prays
Member
What about, no one knows yet?
Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
Then, how does the Big Bang theory not fit in science?
Luchito Prays
Member
No way a microscopic particle can carry inside the whole matter found in the universe.
No way such explosion of that particle can create an immense light as seen in most publications sponsoring the big bang theory.
The big bang theory is not science... the big bang theory is magic!
Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
How would you know that for sure? Nobody knows, remember?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
But you can't demonstrate it. So you're in the same "I don't know" boat as everyone else.
gnostic
The Lost One
I think you don’t understand the Big Bang model at all, Luchito Prays.
And when you say or write something that you don’t understand, you will more than likely misrepresent the BB theory.
There are no “nothing” and no “middle of nothing”...that’s your misunderstanding.
The universe is the “singularity”. And as the universe isn’t “nothing”, neither is the singularity. Again another mistake on your part.
And while Lemaître is one of the 1920s pioneers (the others being Friedmann and Robertson) of the Big Bang theory (which was called this at this time, as this name was coined until 1949), Lemaître had proposed the beginning being “cold”, so essentially a Cold Big Bang model.
This was later replaced by a former student of Friedman, George Gowan, along with Ralph Alpher & Robert Herman in 1948’s joint papers of the Hot Big Bang model.
This joint papers also included two vital predictions - the Primordial Nucleosynthesis (or the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, BBN) and the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).
These predictions explained how the earliest lightest elements formed (hydrogen, deuterium, helium and lithium) formed and how the earliest radiation formed (photon decoupling) and detected.
This CMBR wasn’t detected until 1964.
The Big Bang theory isn’t a single model.
It started out in 1920s, where 3 physicists (Friedmann, Robertson & Lemaître) independently wrote their own papers on expanding universe model, followed by 1948 (joint papers by Gowan, Alpher & Herman). Then independently in the early 1980s, Alexei Starobinsky, Alan Guth, and Andrei Linde have proposed the cosmic inflation, further expanding and refining the Big Bang theory with the inflationary model. This is followed by the 1990s ΛCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter) model, that explained why the universe is still expanding, and even accelerating in its expansion.
My point with this little history lesson is that galaxies are composed of stars, and stars are made of the most abundant elements in the universe: hydrogen.
Remember, you wrote:
This entire sentence is oversimplification, leading to misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the BB model.
It wasn’t a single particle or even a single atom.
The singularity is when the universe was infinitely hot and compact (infinitely dense), when the universe was in plasma state.
As the universe expand, the universe continued to becoming increasingly cooler, so that particles formed from gluon-quark plasma to separate quarks. As the universe’s plasma cooled further, quarks were able to form into hadron particles (eg protons & neutrons) as well as meson particles. Other particles also formed like leptons (eg electrons).
Further cooling of the universe, allowed atomic nuclei to form, the earliest atoms, hydrogen, deuterium, helium and lithium, which I have already mentioned, during the period known as the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN). But the universe were still hot that electrons won’t bond with these atoms (hence, ionized atoms, meaning atoms were positive-charged), and the universe was still in plasma state.
Around 377,000 after the Big Bang (the Recombination Epoch) that universe was cool enough for electrons to bond with atomic nuclei, so that atoms became electrically neutral.
But this event resulted in two things,
- the universe became transparent; while previously, the universe was opaque because the universe was still a hot plasma and photons would be reabsorbed by the plasma;
- and photons decoupled from the atoms, energy is released in the form of residual radiation the CMBR, and these photons travelled freely through space in the newly transparent universe.
Stars were responsible for formation of elements heavier than helium, eg oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, and even heavier elements formed during supernovas of these very massive earliest stars. These earliest stars were also responsible for not only the generations of stars, but also the formations of galaxies.
As I have said, your oversimplified sentence that one particle can form the galaxies and the entire universe, is just utterly wrong and misleading.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
Btw, although the Big Bang theory have underwent some changes since it began in the 1920s, some things that Friedmann, Robertson and Lemaître proposed are still relevant today in the Big Bang current form (ΛCDM model), like:
- The Friedmann solution (Friedmann Equations) to Einstein’s Field Equations.
- The Redshifts that proposed by Robertson and Lemaître.
Luchito Prays
Member
Oh, I see.
From your point of view, here on earth, going in circles around the sun, incapable to see exactly the bodies inside the solar system, ignoring how many planets go in circles around the sun like you, here you come, and you have the nerve to state with extreme confidence that the universe is still expanding.
Luchito Prays
Member
Exactly, nobody knows, however, you know the difference between what is real and is fantasy.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You are not understanding what @Subduction Zone is saying.
He's saying: regardless of what "nothing" actually is (or isn't).... YOU are making truth-claims about what this "nothing" can and can not do, while you don't even know what "nothing" is.
If you don't know what it is, then how could you POSSIBLY make any valid truth claims concerning what it can or can't do?
Luchito Prays
Member
The beginning of 1900s were years full of ignorance. Those were years when dudes thought time flows. Pure ignorance.
Because ignorance, Lemaitre thought the entire universe was compressed inside a microscopic particle in the middle of nothing. His model implied a cold nothing. When his particle exploded (expanded) then the motion of its mass caused heat, his explosion was like fireworks. A "big bang" as the rest of scientists interpreted it.
Now, the new argument for the big bang theory is that in the beginning was something, right?
And that something was a "singularity". That is what you said, according to the quotes taken and shown right below.
OK. Lets put the arguments in proper chronology.
Viker said
You said
Lets use both quotes to understand your hypothesis of the origin of the universe, having in mind that "singularity" ="universe".
Lets see how the universe "came to be" according to Viker and you.
Theory of Big Bang.
Genesis
Chapter 1
1 In the beginning was the universe...
Because ignorance, Lemaitre thought the entire universe was compressed inside a microscopic particle in the middle of nothing. His model implied a cold nothing. When his particle exploded (expanded) then the motion of its mass caused heat, his explosion was like fireworks. A "big bang" as the rest of scientists interpreted it.
Now, the new argument for the big bang theory is that in the beginning was something, right?
And that something was a "singularity". That is what you said, according to the quotes taken and shown right below.
OK. Lets put the arguments in proper chronology.
Viker said
You said
Lets use both quotes to understand your hypothesis of the origin of the universe, having in mind that "singularity" ="universe".
Lets see how the universe "came to be" according to Viker and you.
Theory of Big Bang.
Genesis
Chapter 1
1 In the beginning was the universe...
Luchito Prays
Member
Well, what he said is not what you say he said.
So, finally general relativity is better understood.
What astrophysics have found about "nothing" using the well understood general relativity?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Big bang theory concerns the expansion of the universe and the universe is factually expanding.
Big bang theory makes a few very very specific predictions (like the background radiation), which can be measured and when we do, it matches the prediction perfectly.
So we do know quite a few things.
And as of yet, big bang theory is the only explanation that accounts for the relevant facts and which is able to make such accurate predictions.
So why would we toss it out? Especially since there is no better alternative. And by "better" I mean an explanation that accounts for all the relevant facts also and which makes even better / more accurate predictions.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Big bang theory actually doesn't address the origins of the universe. It addresses the expansion of it.
Having said that, how have you determined what is and isn't possible at T = 0 starting with a singularity?
Or are you just going by "gut feeling" here, making a nice little fallacious argument from incredulity?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
If nobody knows then nobody knows.
Knowing what is real and what is fantasy, would be knowing.
make up your mind. Either we know or we don't.