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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Except that many thinkers in the scientific community put forth possibilities which are not provable. And they can disagree with one another. I conclude that there are things mankind will never understand, which is what makes us human and not creators of the universe. I know that may seem funny, but it's true as far as I am concerned.
It is, I believe, virtually impossible for humans (higher than "gorillas," etc. in thinking ability) to grasp the concept of no beginning. Only God has no beginning and it is virtually impossible to grasp that. That is another reason why God is God and we humans are not. I don't remember being born but I know I was. I remember slightly when I was 3 years old. I knew I was very young, had to be taught. I remember that part, in other words, not knowing much. But one aspect of God's name YHWH is that He IS, or exists. No one can defy that.
One must use concepts to convey my point, but when not interacting with people, I contemplate reality with a mind that is not dealing in concepts, in fact it is not in thought most of the time. Actual realty is what the concept of reality is meant to represent, so if you want to subjectively realize actual 'reality', don't think!
Interesting.
Thinking can be hard. Gotta concentrate.
Quite often it appears that you are not thinking at all
Seriously instead of posting nonsense and expecting others to take you seriously when you doo not understand how to properly support your claims. You still probably do not understand how the tired light idea that you floated is refuted by spectroscopy. And a dictionary is never a valid source when discussing scientific or mathematical concepts.
No one has ever claimed or even implied that humans are the creators of the universe. But we can know a lot more about it than some think that we do. Science has not given us all of the answers and may never do so. But it is an extremely huge error to think that means that it has not given us any answers.
I thank you for your post gnostic, it was well done and probably captures the salient aspects of BB theory. I have over many years read a lot about bb theory, but it is early days and science can only study the 5% of finite things. I am now more interested in the omnipresent dark energy because it holds the secret of the universe. I suspect dark energy is infinite and eternal, and never had a beginning. BB science is fine for those who are not prepared or inclined to go deeper into what constitutes existence.Wow!
All you want to do is focus on the Universe being "eternal".
That's not what the BB cosmology about, Ben. It as nothing to do with eternal vs finite, and it has nothing to do with nothing creating something.
These are not what the BB models are about.
As I have told you in my last reply, the Big Bang models only focused on the origin and evolution of the Observable Universe.
Everything that already in the universe at present, from large structures (eg molecular clouds of gases, galaxies, stars, planets, etc) to the particles that make up atoms themselves (nucleus with protons & neutrons, plus electrons), to even smaller elementary particles (from the Standard Model, eg quarks, leptons, gauge bosons & the recent discovered Higgs), and their interactions with fundamental forces. To all the fields and energy that are also tied to the Standard Model (particle physics). Then there are more exotic particles and energy such as Dark Matter that keep galaxies and Dark Energy that drive the expansion of the Universe, counteracting the attractive forces of gravity. The BB model also explained the earliest formations of earliest stars and galaxies.
So the Big Bang models are attempts to understand what these energies, forces, fields, particles & matters are and how they form from the earliest periods, starting with the Planck Epoch, when the universe as a singularity of plasma (the hot primordial plasma soup) that was infinitely hot and dense, and when all four fundamental forces (gravitation, EM, weak nuclear & strong nuclear forces) were unified into single force at this temperature.
The expansion of the universe resulted in, the cooling of the universe, the cooling that separations of the each force to separate from the unified form, as well as cool enough that elementary particles can become discrete particles from the primordial plasma. Eventually it was cool enough for quarks to form into hadron particles - the protons & neutrons, during the Hadron Epoch. This led to the formation of the earliest and lightest atoms - hydrogen, deuterium, helium & lithium - during the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. But these atoms were still ionized - the universe still exist as plasma, and the plasma was still hot enough that electrons won’t be bound to the atoms.
Around 378,000 years after the Big Bang, in the Recombination Epoch, the universe was cool enough for electrons to bond with atoms of which only 3 types exist, hydrogen, helium & lithium, with the hydrogen being the most abundant element in the universe.
Molecular hydrogen are the building blocks of stars, especially as they began to coalesce together in the cloud of gases, becoming more massive, until therefore gravity eventually causing the stars’ dense cores were hot enough to start fusing hydrogen into heavier elements, such as helium, carbon, oxygen or nitrogen. This process is known as Stellar Nucleosynthesis.
When the stars run out of hydrogen to fuse, the core will collapse and do one of several things, start fusing helium while the outer layer shred away from the white core (hence white dwarf stars), explode in one of the types of supernova; supernovas are responsible for forming heavier elements, from helium to all the way to iron, through thermonuclear fusion, hence the Supernova Nucleosynthesis. These heavier elements from supernovas are what responsible for formations of asteroids, planetesimals, planets and dwarf planets.
That’s what the Big Bang theory is trying to explain, the formations of fields & particles & matters, which in turn form into planets, stars and galaxies. 9 billion years after the Big Bang, our own Solar System form, from the base materials of gas cloud and debris heavier elements from older generations of stars.
The Big Bang theory is focused only on the history of the universe, that eventually make up today, including life on Earth.
While the Cyclical Universe model and Multiverse model might explain the universe being eternal, and I am fascinated by these alternative models (just curious), however I don’t think we have no way of testing them to be true. Which means, the alternatives are more speculative than reality.
And once again, astrophysicists have measured the total energy of the universe. That includes dark energy. You never did find out what that was, did you?
Work in progress, watch this space.
Ok, so why is Red Shift through Compton scattering a part of university physics?Quite often it appears that you are not thinking at all
SZ, you did not take the astrophysicists who wrote about TLT seriously, but now you do because it is BBT. Now of course these BB astrophysicists would use the BB theoretical model of the universe to calculate dark energy mass, but it is all based on the abstract, conceptualized reality, but since in reality, the universe is infinite and eternal, their model is not correct, the mass of the universal dark energy is actually infinite.
Since I accept the panetheistic view of God as being all that exists, unmanifest and manifest, it amounts to the same thing, only God created things have beginnings. I know that JW are big on the name YHVH, but what is on the other side of the name is what is important. From NT, "What the human eye has never seen, what the human ear has never heard, what the human mind can never conceive* of, that is what awaits those who love God/YHVH."
What "physicists"? The only ones that seem to do that today are the EU nuts. You never were able to address spectroscopy and how it supports the Big Bang theory. I do not think you even understand how it supports it. You cannot refute that which you do not understand.
Ming-Hui Shao, Na Wang and Zhi-Fu Gao.
Why no beginning? And so some obscure Chinese scientists. In ten years one of the articles has 18 citations. That is it was referred to 18 times by other researchers. And we do not know if those were positive or negative citations. But considering that this should be a groundbreaking discovery many many more should have cited it if they took it seriously. Your sources only got the attention that any obscure crank would have received. I can't judge his work, but it appears that those than can do not think anything of it.
Chinese science is not generally published in western science journals, so little coverage in the west.
They count all citations. The article was not cited by the Chinese either. You are searching out people that could not support their claims.
This is not a horse race, and human science on this planet has a long way to go given some still think the universe came from nothing. BB theory of a beginning to existence of the eternal universe has little credibility except to the true believers. The reason the BBers probably think this way is that it seemed the easiest way of getting God out of the equation, instead of God being the cause, nothing became the cause.
Ya think, try not thinking, that is harder.Interesting.