Genesis - Big Bang mash-up

[gnostic]

It was Fred Hoyle’s, but the joke was on him, for now.

On the subject of Genesis and the Big Bang, many people in astronomy, philosophy, and theology recognise how the opening verses of the Bible seem to echo in what is now the standard theoretical model of cosmology.

Lemaitre, the astronomer and theologian, downplayed the significance of this. But the sheer poetic drama of the one as metaphor for the other, is there for anyone who cares to see it, and make of it whatever they will.

You got the "like" about what you wrote about Hoyle & Lemaitre, but not the part about Genesis connection to the Big Bang model.

What Genesis have attempted to describe, was only about the creation of the Earth and the life upon Earth, not about the creation of the Universe.

And even then, what it say plants being created before the Sun, Moon and stars, are just wrong.

What it also say the Earth being covered in water at the very beginning, is also untrue.

And birds being created at the same time as marine life (eg fishes), before land animals, also wrong.

How many things must Genesis get wrong, before creationists finally realized that the Genesis is not history book or science book, is quite telling about willful ignorance.

PS, I wasn't referring to you, RestlessSoul. I don't know about your position upon the matters of Genesis creation, so I wasn't talking about you.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The term “Big Bang” wasn’t coined by Hubble, or by anyone el during the 1920s. It was unofficially called the “Expanding Universe” cosmology.

I am thinking, you may have been confusingly referring to the “Hubble’s Law” or the “Lemaître-Hubble Law”, because the “Law“ comprised of both of 2 mathematical solutions that explain the Expanding Universe model:

1. the Friedmann Equations and the FLRW Metric, both proposed by Friedmann (1922) & Lemaître (1927),
2. and the Gravitational Redshift proposed by Lemaître (1927) & Robertson (1924), and the Redshifts were verified by the discovery by Hubble in 1929.

As @RestlessSoul said, the name “Big Bang” was coined by Fred Hoyle, during BBC interview in 1949.

Lemaître was still alive, when everyone started using the ”Big Bang” during the 1950s.

At the time of the interview, Hoyle was trying to promote the version of the Steady-State model (1948), against the new version of the Expanding Universe model (also 1948), proposed by George Gamow, Ralph Alpher & Robert Herman. But the Big Bang hypothesis was turned into scientific theory, with the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation in 1964, that was discovered by Arno Penzias & Robert Wilson…the discovery which refuted Hoyle’s Steady-State model.

The name (”Big Bang”) itself was invented by Hoyle, in 1949…the “Big Bang” was used by Lemaître or by Hubble during the 1920s.

It is not and was never about who coined the name, it was about who was responsible for the scientific concept of the beginning of the universe that came to be given the name BB theory?

You originally claimed Edwin Hubble was the cause of the concept of the big bang model when he discovered the Milky Way isn't the only universe, etc..

Here is your post and my original response to it that is was Georges Lemaitre with supporting links to some articles from what I understand are reasonably reputable authorities on matters of science, they are: Nature, National Geographic, Britannica, and Astronomy.

gnostic said:
The big bang model started because of Edwin Hubble, back in 1919, when he discovered that the Milky Way isn’t the only universe, and what were classified in the 18th & 19th centuries to be nebulae were actually gal, which implied that the universe was larger than everyone had imagined.

Ahem.....Georges Lemaître originated the concept of the Big Bang Universe.
The Jesuit astronomer who conceived of the Big Bang | Astronomy.com

How did the Big Bang get its name? Here’s the real story

The origins of the universe, explained

Georges Lemaître | Big Bang Theory, Cosmology & Physics

Now if you do not agree it was Georges, take it up with these authorities.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Clearification
Semantic error due to imprecision in the language.
The model that became what is known as the big bang model began with a discovery by Edwin Hubble, it was not called the Big Bang until 1949 when Fred Hoyle tried to make fun of it.
Now you know the rest of the story and will be able to correct others who make the mistake of attributing Big Bang to Hubble.

Please read the articles I linked to from Nature, National Geographic, Astronomy and Britannica, attributing it to Georges Lemaitre.

 

[Pogo]

Please read the articles I linked to from Nature, National Geographic, Astronomy and Britannica, attributing it to Georges Lemaitre.

Yes Lemaitre took the data that Hubble had collected and the equations that Einstein wrote and applied some of the ideas of Friedman who had found multiple solutions to the equations and realized that a solution to Einsteins equations fit the data that Hubble had collected and then calculated the solution backward from the current data and demonstrated that it converged to a point which pretty much made it obvious that the prior idea of a steady state universe was not correct. It was not so much a singular discovery as a normal scientific pseudo-collaboration where Lemaitre was the one who put the puzzle together correctly deleting the extra term that Einstein had added to make his equation "pretty".
He deserves credit, but he was also standing on the shoulders of giants as the saying goes.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes Lemaitre took the data that Hubble had collected and the equations that Einstein wrote and applied some of the ideas of Friedman who had found multiple solutions to the equations and realized that a solution to Einsteins equations fit the data that Hubble had collected and then calculated the solution backward from the current data and demonstrated that it converged to a point which pretty much made it obvious that the prior idea of a steady state universe was not correct. It was not so much a singular discovery as a normal scientific pseudo-collaboration where Lemaitre was the one who put the puzzle together correctly deleting the extra term that Einstein had added to make his equation "pretty".
He deserves credit, but he was also standing on the shoulders of giants as the saying goes.

Fair comment Pogo, I'll go with that.

 

[Audie]

It is not and was never about who coined the name, it was about who was responsible for the scientific concept of the beginning of the universe that came to be given the name BB theory?

You originally claimed Edwin Hubble was the cause of the concept of the big bang model when he discovered the Milky Way isn't the only universe, etc..

Here is your post and my original response to it that is was Georges Lemaitre with supporting links to some articles from what I understand are reasonably reputable authorities on matters of science, they are: Nature, National Geographic, Britannica, and Astronomy.




Now if you do not agree it was Georges, take it up with these authorities.

It's easy to be tiresome, you needn't try so hard

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It's easy to be tiresome, you needn't try so hard

That's really deep.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Unfortunately the sciences of Physics and Cosmology "Do not finally know" anything. There are various theories on th eorigins of our universe including what misnamed as the "Big Bang." It is not Bang of any sort, but one theory that our universe began as a singularity. Most of the current proposals include a prior Quantum existence that is "boundless" and no known beginning or end. The current theories include various cyclic models and, of course, a likely multiverse. There is at present no reason to believe our universe is unique.

Rewording ancient tribal texts without science to justify an agenda does not work. There is at present no objective evidence or reasons to conclude a Theological explanation of the origins of our universe or the greater physical existence.

How does science justify something that has no beginning?

What evidence are they basing that off of?

 

[shunyadragon]

How does science justify something that has no beginning?

Science determines the nature of our physical existence as it is regardless of whether it has a beginning or not. The use of "justifies" here has no meaning. Science does not justify anything.

Even though our universe began with the expansion of a singularity. The possible singularity formed in a grater Quantum existence. Sience simply has no evidence of a beginning of our physical existence. Current theories explain our Quantum existence is boundless, and without continuous time and three dimentional space beyond our universe and all possible universes,

What evidence are they basing that off of?

Quantum Mechanics and present knowledge of physics and cosmology and observations provide no evidence of a beginning of anything.

Read post #5 again. @Pogo's post provide more excellent information.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I go by just one line in RigVeda:
"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."

Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

Rig Veda, tr. by Ralph T.H. Griffith, [1896], full text etext at sacred-texts.com

sacred-texts.com

Difficult to visualize at the moment, but perhaps science will find it to be true in future.

No girlfriend? Just wait for quantum fluctuations to bring one into existence​

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Science determines the nature of our physical existence as it is regardless of whether it has a beginning or not. The use of "justifies" here has no meaning. Science does not justify anything.

Even though our universe began with the expansion of a singularity. The possible singularity formed in a grater Quantum existence. Sience simply has no evidence of a beginning of our physical existence. Current theories explain our Quantum existence is boundless, and without continuous time and three dimentional space beyond our universe and all possible universes,


Quantum Mechanics and present knowledge of physics and cosmology and observations provide no evidence of a beginning of anything.

Read post #5 again. @Pogo's post provide more excellent information.

How can something not have a beginning?

This is what science tells us:

The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.

Do you realize how utterly ridiculous that sounds?

Where did the energy come from in the first place?

How was matter formed out of exploding energy?

What made all that energy Consolidate in one point?

 

[Pogo]

How can something not have a beginning?

This is what science tells us:

The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.

Do you realize how utterly ridiculous that sounds?

Where did the energy come from in the first place?

How was matter formed out of exploding energy?

What made all that energy Consolidate in one point?

No that is not what science tells us, the reality is that the math that Einstein and LeMaitre and others say is that the equations that describe the universe that we know approach what is called a singularity which is a point at which the math breaks down and becomes meaningless like 0 divided by 0. Scientists say we don't know at this point. It is not simple but describing it as ridiculous because it doesn't fit your concept of common sense only shows a lack of education and imagination.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

No that is not what science tells us, the reality is that the math that Einstein and LeMaitre and others say is that the equations that describe the universe that we know approach what is called a singularity which is a point at which the math breaks down and becomes meaningless like 0 divided by 0. Scientists say we don't know at this point. It is not simple but describing it as ridiculous because it doesn't fit your concept of common sense only shows a lack of education and imagination.

Maybe that singularity is called God.

 

[Pogo]

Maybe that singularity is called God.

Or maybe George, it doesn't matter. We don't know what it is and assigning unknown characteristics to it is unproductive.

 

[shunyadragon]

How can something not have a beginning?

When there is a no boundary Quantum existence.

This is what science tells us:

At present science has not determined that there was ever a beginning of our physical existence. There was a possible beginning of our universe expanding from a singularity,but then again our universe may be cyclic.

The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.

It did not explode the singularity expanded, Yes the expansion resulted in matter forming first Hydrogen and Helium.

In reality there was no 'Big Bang.' The name began from a sarcastic remark made by a skeptic.

Do you realize how utterly ridiculous that sounds?

Not ridiculous at all, At present the best knowledge science has at present.

Where did the energy come from in the first place?

The Quantum physical existence where the singularity formed by Quantum Gravity.

How was matter formed out of exploding energy?

Energy did not explode it expanded, as it expanded matter formed first Hydrogen and Helium.

What made all that energy Consolidate in one point?

Gravity, in particular Quantum Gravity. The singularity as defined is the result of the collapse a rather huge Black hole.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

When there is a no boundary Quantum existence.


At present science has not determined that there was ever a beginning of our physical existence. There was a possible beginning of our universe expanding from a singularity,but then again our universe may be cyclic.


It did not explode the singularity expanded, Yes the expansion resulted in matter forming first Hydrogen and Helium.

In reality there was no 'Big Bang.' The name began from a sarcastic remark made by a skeptic.

Not ridiculous at all, At present the best knowledge science has at present.

The Quantum physical existence where the singularity formed by Quantum Gravity.

Energy did not explode it expanded, as it expanded matter formed first Hydrogen and Helium.


Gravity, in particular Quantum Gravity. The singularity as defined is the result of the collapse a rather huge Black hole.

So can we make matter out of helium and hydrogen?

 

[shunyadragon]

So can we make matter out of helium and hydrogen?

When the first Hydrogen Helium stars formed the heavier elements began to form in the center of the stars by stellar nucleosynthesis.

Stellar nucleosynthesis​

In astrophysics, stellar nucleosynthesis is the creation of chemical elements by nuclear fusion reactions within stars. Stellar nucleosynthesis has occurred since the original creation of hydrogen, helium and lithium during the Big Bang. As a predictive theory, it yields accurate estimates of the observed abundances of the elements. It explains why the observed abundances of elements change over time and why some elements and their isotopes are much more abundant than others. The theory was initially proposed by Fred Hoyle in 1946,[1] who later refined it in 1954.[2] Further advances were made, especially to nucleosynthesis by neutron capture of the elements heavier than iron, by Margaret and Geoffrey Burbidge, William Alfred Fowler and Fred Hoyle in their famous 1957 B2FH paper,[3] which became one of the most heavily cited papers in astrophysics history.
Stars evolve because of changes in their composition (the abundance of their constituent elements) over their lifespans, first by burning hydrogen (main sequence star), then helium (horizontal branch star), and progressively burning higher elements. However, this does not by itself significantly alter the abundances of elements in the universe as the elements are contained within the star. Later in its life, a low-mass star will slowly eject its atmosphere via stellar wind, forming a planetary nebula, while a higher–mass star will eject mass via a sudden catastrophic event called a supernova. The term supernova nucleosynthesis is used to describe the creation of elements during the explosion of a massive star or white dwarf.
The advanced sequence of burning fuels is driven by gravitational collapse and its associated heating, resulting in the subsequent burning of carbon, oxygen and silicon. However, most of the nucleosynthesis in the mass range A = 28–56 (from silicon to nickel) is actually caused by the upper layers of the star collapsing onto the core, creating a compressional shock wave rebounding outward. The shock front briefly raises temperatures by roughly 50%, thereby causing furious burning for about a second. This final burning in massive stars, called explosive nucleosynthesis or supernova nucleosynthesis, is the final epoch of stellar nucleosynthesis.
A stimulus to the development of the theory of nucleosynthesis was the discovery of variations in the abundances of elements found in the universe. The need for a physical description was already inspired by the relative abundances of the chemical elements in the solar system. Those abundances, when plotted on a graph as a function of the atomic number of the element, have a jagged sawtooth shape that varies by factors of tens of millions (see history of nucleosynthesis theory).[4] This suggested a natural process that is not random. A second stimulus to understanding the processes of stellar nucleosynthesis occurred during the 20th century, when it was realized that the energy released from nuclear fusion reactions accounted for the longevity of the Sun as a source of heat and light.

More to follow . . .

Science has yet to create a star, but we are working on it.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

When the first Hydrogen Helium stars formed the heavier elements began to form in the center of the stars by stellar nucleosynthesis.

Stellar nucleosynthesis​

In astrophysics, stellar nucleosynthesis is the creation of chemical elements by nuclear fusion reactions within stars. Stellar nucleosynthesis has occurred since the original creation of hydrogen, helium and lithium during the Big Bang. As a predictive theory, it yields accurate estimates of the observed abundances of the elements. It explains why the observed abundances of elements change over time and why some elements and their isotopes are much more abundant than others. The theory was initially proposed by Fred Hoyle in 1946,[1] who later refined it in 1954.[2] Further advances were made, especially to nucleosynthesis by neutron capture of the elements heavier than iron, by Margaret and Geoffrey Burbidge, William Alfred Fowler and Fred Hoyle in their famous 1957 B2FH paper,[3] which became one of the most heavily cited papers in astrophysics history.
Stars evolve because of changes in their composition (the abundance of their constituent elements) over their lifespans, first by burning hydrogen (main sequence star), then helium (horizontal branch star), and progressively burning higher elements. However, this does not by itself significantly alter the abundances of elements in the universe as the elements are contained within the star. Later in its life, a low-mass star will slowly eject its atmosphere via stellar wind, forming a planetary nebula, while a higher–mass star will eject mass via a sudden catastrophic event called a supernova. The term supernova nucleosynthesis is used to describe the creation of elements during the explosion of a massive star or white dwarf.
The advanced sequence of burning fuels is driven by gravitational collapse and its associated heating, resulting in the subsequent burning of carbon, oxygen and silicon. However, most of the nucleosynthesis in the mass range A = 28–56 (from silicon to nickel) is actually caused by the upper layers of the star collapsing onto the core, creating a compressional shock wave rebounding outward. The shock front briefly raises temperatures by roughly 50%, thereby causing furious burning for about a second. This final burning in massive stars, called explosive nucleosynthesis or supernova nucleosynthesis, is the final epoch of stellar nucleosynthesis.
A stimulus to the development of the theory of nucleosynthesis was the discovery of variations in the abundances of elements found in the universe. The need for a physical description was already inspired by the relative abundances of the chemical elements in the solar system. Those abundances, when plotted on a graph as a function of the atomic number of the element, have a jagged sawtooth shape that varies by factors of tens of millions (see history of nucleosynthesis theory).[4] This suggested a natural process that is not random. A second stimulus to understanding the processes of stellar nucleosynthesis occurred during the 20th century, when it was realized that the energy released from nuclear fusion reactions accounted for the longevity of the Sun as a source of heat and light.

More to follow . . .

Science has yet to create a star, but we are working on it.

Let us know when you do and when you can create life out of that man-made sun also.

 

[shunyadragon]

Let us know when you do and when you can create life out of that man-made sun also.

Life would not come from the manmade sun, It would come from the environment like in hydrothermal vents at the spreading zones of continental drift where life first formed

Your sarcastic intentional ignorance of science is problematic and likely based on a religious agenda that rejects science.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Life would not come from the manmade sun, It would come from the environment like in hydrothermal vents at the spreading zones of continental drift where life first formed

Your sarcastic intentional ignorance of science is problematic and likely based on a religious agenda that rejects science.

I accept all proven science but all I’m hearing from you is we don’t know yet.

All of the theories you’ve listed, even if verified, still wouldn’t disprove God and in case you didn’t realize it this site is a religious forum not a a science forum so yes religion creeps into everything.