In the beginning...

[Super Universe]

If you have a new theory of physics, go write a paper and get it published in a scientific journal. Forum discussion is not the place for it.

This topic is "in the beginning". Others have been discussing the big bang and Einstein's theories for pages now.

I should write a physics paper and get it published? Why, so math wizards can dispute that the infinite source for space/time is really God? No thanks. I don't care that much what you believe.

The forum is not the place for discussing physics? Is that the way things work where you are from? If you don't agree with what someone is saying you think you can shut them down? You don't have that power.

Why did you think you did?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well, how much proof do you have for the big bang? Or do you have any besides what some Ph.D. thinks?

I did not offer any proof, but then again, I didn't say it happened -- I merely pointed to the immense amount of data, observation, hypothesis and science that do seem to suggest that there really was a Big Bang.

You, on the other hand, said (and I quote) "there probably was no big bang." I thought, perhaps naively, that you had some science, evidence, observation or even direct revelation that led you to that conviction.

 

[DavidFirth]

I did not offer any proof, but then again, I didn't say it happened -- I merely pointed to the immense amount of data, observation, hypothesis and science that do seem to suggest that there really was a Big Bang.

You, on the other hand, said (and I quote) "there probably was no big bang." I thought, perhaps naively, that you had some science, evidence, observation or even direct revelation that led you to that conviction.

All the science, evidence and observation is merely speculation based on assumption, I'm not convinced by it at all. It all sounds to me like a bunch of guys flailing about trying to figure it all out in vain.

No one knows (I'll omit the who out of respect for your beliefs) the what, when, where, how or why the Big Bang happened, anyway. You admit you don't know what was going on before it supposedly happened or where it came from. Why should I believe it happened? I'll give you about a 1% chance, and that's being generous.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

All the science, evidence and observation is merely speculation based on assumption, I'm not convinced by it at all. It all sounds to me like a bunch of guys flailing about trying to figure it all out in vain.

I only care about opinions like the one you express above when you can demonstrate that -- rather than just not being convinced -- you actually started by doing the work of knowing what the science is about. If you haven't even bothered with that -- well, your opinion is worth exactly the same as the amount of work you put into it.

No one knows (I'll omit the who out of respect for your beliefs) the what, when, where, how or why the Big Bang happened, anyway. You admit you don't know what was going on before it supposedly happened or where it came from. Why should I believe it happened? I'll give you about a 1% chance, and that's being generous.

Yes, part of what you write is correct -- the how and why are not yet understood, nor was "what was going on before." And yet, (though you'll never know because you won't be bothered to look at it) all the evidence we have makes it abundantly clear that the universe in which we find ourselves (whether this universe is all there is or not) came into being 13.799±0.021 billion years ago. There is, I'm sorry to tell you, a great deal of observation and science to back that up. I'm even sorrier to have to tell you that this science is not being hidden from you -- it is openly available for anybody who actually wishes to know anything.

You are, of course, completely at liberty to not wish to know anything, to not want to do the work, and to opine never-the-less. But that leaves me at the same liberty to give your thoughts the appropriate amount of credence. Little to none.

 

[DavidFirth]

I only care about opinions like the one you express above when you can demonstrate that -- rather than just not being convinced -- you actually started by doing the work of knowing what the science is about. If you haven't even bothered with that -- well, your opinion is worth exactly the same as the amount of work you put into it.

Yes, part of what you write is correct -- the how and why are not yet understood, nor was "what was going on before." And yet, (though you'll never know because you won't be bothered to look at it) all the evidence we have makes it abundantly clear that the universe in which we find ourselves (whether this universe is all there is or not) came into being 13.799±0.021 billion years ago. There is, I'm sorry to tell you, a great deal of observation and science to back that up. I'm even sorrier to have to tell you that this science is not being hidden from you -- it is openly available for anybody who actually wishes to know anything.

You are, of course, completely at liberty to not wish to know anything, to not want to do the work, and to opine never-the-less. But that leaves me at the same liberty to give your thoughts the appropriate amount of credence. Little to none.

I have seen the evidence. I have also seen the same evidence interpreted in a completely different way. There isn't enough evidence to draw a definite conclusion, I feel sure you can agree with that.

I believe there are a lot of things that men are not intelligent enough to understand so I don't think physical evidence by itself is enough to draw a definite conclusion. There is just too much that we don't and can't know for sure.

One must choose who and what to believe or believe in nothing, which isn't desirable and maybe not even possible. But as for me and my house, we will believe God.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I have seen the evidence. I have also seen the same evidence interpreted in a completely different way. There isn't enough evidence to draw a definite conclusion, I feel sure you can agree with that.

I believe there are a lot of things that men are not intelligent enough to understand so I don't think physical evidence by itself is enough to draw a definite conclusion. There is just too much that we don't and can't know for sure.

One must choose who and what to believe or believe in nothing, which isn't desirable and maybe not even possible. But as for me and my house, we will believe God.

Fine. Believe God. But what have you studied? You claim to have "seen the same evidence," (although in a different way). Where did you see it? How did you interpret it? What would you consider "enough evidence?" You seem to require, for example, pretty much zero evidence for your claim that you "will believe God." Why would that take so much less evidence than anything else? (May I suggest brainwashing as a child?)

 

[DavidFirth]

Fine. Believe God. But what have you studied? You claim to have "seen the same evidence," (although in a different way). Where did you see it? How did you interpret it? What would you consider "enough evidence?" You seem to require, for example, pretty much zero evidence for your claim that you "will believe God." Why would that take so much less evidence than anything else? (May I suggest brainwashing as a child?)

Well, there is something involved that you just simply won't believe that I can't prove. The Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit in dwells me. He reveals truth. He also reveals lies. He doesn't communicate with words like we are doing now, but He gets through loud and clear. He strengthens my faith, also.

No, I'm not crazy and no, I wasn't brainwashed as a child. Many former atheists have become Christians, or so I've heard.

 

[sayak83]

This topic is "in the beginning". Others have been discussing the big bang and Einstein's theories for pages now.

I should write a physics paper and get it published? Why, so math wizards can dispute that the infinite source for space/time is really God? No thanks. I don't care that much what you believe.

The forum is not the place for discussing physics? Is that the way things work where you are from? If you don't agree with what someone is saying you think you can shut them down? You don't have that power.

Why did you think you did?

No. You can say what you want. But if you go on talking about a "new" theory of physics that you have invented, don't expect many responses.

 

[sayak83]

So it's the same "force" with two different forces acting at the same time? Nope.

Same force arising from mass, various types of energy, tension and pressure.
Yep. The equation is

Ricci tensor * (Ricci Scalar) * (Metric Tensor) = ((8 * PI * G) / c4) * (Stress Energy Tensor)

Ricci Tensor
Ricci Tensor in the field equation defines the deviation of the n-dimensional volume of the space in a curved space-time from the flat Euclidean space. For instance in a flat space time, Pythagoras theorem holds good for a right angled triangle, whereas on the surface of a sphere the relationship between hypotenuse and the other two sides of a right angled triangle do not obey the Pythagoras theorem. Ricci tensor defines this amount of deviation in terms of volume in a curved space from that of flat space.


Stress-Energy Tensor
This tensor is the source of the space-time curvature. It describes the energy density and the momentum at the given point in space-time. The value of this tensor is zero at points where there is no energy density.
Just like the the metric tensor, the stress energy tensor is just a set of 10 numbers in 4D space-time.

One number defines how much mass-energy density is there at the point.

Three numbers define the momentum of the matter at that point.

Next three numbers define the pressure in each of the three spatial directions at that point.

Last three numbers define the stress in the matter at that point.



Demystifying Einstein’s Field Equations on General Relativity

 

[Ted Evans]

Next question, in context.

But that doesn't mean all opinions are equally valid. Any opinion that the universe to be 10,000 years old can be dismissed as invalid.

In response to your statement.

Nor did I say they were, nor did I say anything about how old the universe is, did I?

So since you did not quote your answer to that question, it is not answered, is it?

 

[Darkstorn]

No, I'm not crazy

I would have called you willfully ignorant, but that's a good one too. I'm going to think that you are crazy, every time i could potentially reply to you. That's the exact same regard you give to those who don't agree with you. You simply refuse to even entertain the notion that they could know what they're talking about.

The problem: The way you're doing it either makes you look crazy or willfully ignorant. I won't say stupid, but i would say this: You simply do not understand the subject matter enough for me to even want to take you seriously even for a second. You'd just be a waste of time. You just repeat the same old mantra of: I'm-not-listening-lalalalalalalala-god-did-it.

And yes this was probably a waste of time.

 

[Polymath257]

The current theoy does quite nicely? Thinking the earth was the center of the universe did quite nicely for a long time. Newton's theory of gravity did quite nicely. What happened to them?

My theory that gravity has to be turned off? It's not possible to turn off gravity. It doesn't have to be turned off because the big bang is not the way galaxies formed.

Until I follow your rules you won't answer my posts? Darn.

No, once again, you claimed that 'gravity has to be turned off' at the BB given our current understanding. That is just false. The current description of gravity, GR, handles this quite well.

Now, if you want to challenge GR, then please present specific evidence from observation showing that it is wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

I take that a step further and say there probably was no big bang.

So, are you claiming the universe is not expanding?

Or are you claiming it was not once much hotter and denser than it is now?

Or are you claiming that the background radiation isn't the heat from that previous hot, dense state?

Or are you claiming that the basic light elements formed during that time when the universe was hot and dense?

Or are you saying that there was not a singularity (which many physicists agree with)?

Or are you saying that the age of the current expansion phase is not about 13.8 billion years?

Exactly what do you think it means to say the BB didn't occur?

 

[Polymath257]

Well, how much proof do you have for the big bang? Or do you have any besides what some Ph.D. thinks?

Better than the writings of a bunch of sheep herders.

 

[DavidFirth]

Better than the writings of a bunch of sheep herders.

Your humor does not amuse me. It only influences me not to take anything you say seriously due to your lack of respect for my religious beliefs.

If you don't respect others' religious beliefs why are you posting on a religious forum?

 

[DavidFirth]

I would have called you willfully ignorant, but that's a good one too. I'm going to think that you are crazy, every time i could potentially reply to you. That's the exact same regard you give to those who don't agree with you. You simply refuse to even entertain the notion that they could know what they're talking about.

The problem: The way you're doing it either makes you look crazy or willfully ignorant. I won't say stupid, but i would say this: You simply do not understand the subject matter enough for me to even want to take you seriously even for a second. You'd just be a waste of time. You just repeat the same old mantra of: I'm-not-listening-lalalalalalalala-god-did-it.

And yes this was probably a waste of time.

If you don't respect others' religious beliefs why are you posting on a religious forum?

 

[Thief]

I find it notable ....the Genesis account includes.....

specimen selection
ideal petri dish
manipulation of the specimen
anesthesia
surgery
cloning
test the result
release into the environment

I really like the part where the sheep herders are deciding if it possible to
cut a rib from a man and not kill him
and do so as he sleeps

must have kept them up all night!!!!!!!

 

[leibowde84]

I take that a step further and say there probably was no big bang.

Why do you think there was no big bang?

 

[leibowde84]

really?

It seems like you don't. You describe non-living matter as "dead", which is incorrect.

 

[leibowde84]

I find it notable ....the Genesis account includes.....

specimen selection
ideal petri dish
manipulation of the specimen
anesthesia
surgery
cloning
test the result
release into the environment

I really like the part where the sheep herders are deciding if it possible to
cut a rib from a man and not kill him
and do so as he sleeps

must have kept them up all night!!!!!!!

There is no mention of anesthesia (inducing sleep chemically), cloning (using dna to create an embryo ... not a developed adult human, which would be magic), etc. You are merely using incorrect meanings for those terms.