• 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!

Let's talk about the "Big Bang" (theory)

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
There are two ways to get a red shift. These two ways can be explained with a simple example. Say we have a train that is passing by, blowing its horn. We will hear the pitch of the horn change as it approaches us and as it moves away. The pitch will increase as it approaches and decrease as it moves away. This is the classic doppler shift; blue and red shift, respectively. This is used by science to measure the rate of expansion and to estimate age of the universe.

The other way would be the train is stationary, but the engineer is altering the pitch of the horn; frequency shift, by turning a dial on the horn, that allows you to tailor the pitch. To the untrained ear, this will make one think the train is moving toward us or away from us depending on the pitch profile the engineer plays for the crowd. The second option is not part of the current science model, but makes a big difference in terms of what we think we know.

There is actually another way to get a red shift: gravity. A photon rising in a gravitational well will red shift. This is a well-known and measured effect.

The red shift of the BB theory is actually closer to being a gravitational red shift than it is a doppler shift. In particular, a doppler shift of more than 1 would be impossible, but there are many known galaxies with such a red shift.

Next, we do not see the change in red shift as in your second scenario. We can detect the lines for hydrogen emission and measure the red shift that they show. This i definitely NOT what happens in your second scenario.

Time is a dynamic variable, while length is a passive variable. We measure time with a clock, with clocks needing a source of energy to work. We measure length with a meter stick which is a passive tool that does not need a battery or spring. Frequency shift is connected to a change in the dynamic variable of energy; frequency, leading a change in the passive variable; wavelength, instead of the current passive variable leading the dynamic variable; doppler shift.

Time moves to the future. As time goes on, things age. Unlike energy, that is a wave that repeats, time does not repeat, nor can we go back into time. Entropy has this in common with time, in that both spontaneously move in one direction; both time and entropy will increase. This commonality allow the 2nd law to induce a frequency red shift.

Hmmm...and entropy induced red shift? Do you have any evidence of such an effect?

Suppose I change the entropy of a gas. Will that change the frequency of the spectrum emitted by that gas? That would be a very simple experiment to do. Do you have any evidence this effect occurs?

The confusion in science is connected to the clocks we use to measure time. These use some form of energy and are set up to cycle like energy; 12 noon and 12 midnight appears each day like a sine wave. This tool misrepresents the nature of time. It equates time with energy; kinetic energy, instead of entropy.

Actually, it does neither. For example, the frequency of light is neither kinetic energy nor is it entropy. But that is what is usually used to measure time.

When entropy increases, energy is absorbed and time is used up;
Really? Care to give evidence of this? It would have been very obvious in many experiments done over the last 150 years, but as far as I know, no such effect has been found. Do you have a reference?

As a visual, say we had a compressed cylinder of gas at temperature T. We opened the valve and the cylinder will gets colder; red shift in the observational IR energy as entropy increases.
No, this will NOT give a red shift in the spectrum. So, for example, if you look at a particular emission line, that line will not get red shifted. It *would* narrow slightly because of the cooling and the overall, *thermal* emission would shift to lower frequencies. But this is NOT the type of red shift actually observed.

It will appear to be moving away from us if we assume there is only kinetic energy and doppler shift.
No, it would not. The spectrum actually observed would show *cooling*, not a doppler shift.

We will never see a blue shift connected to 2nd law, since the genie will not go back into the bottle and release the lost energy, since both entropy and time need go forward and increase, which will use up energy.
If you compress that same gas and thereby heat it up, the thermal emission will become bluer.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
First, no, the sun did not directly come out of the Big Bang. Nor did stars directly come out of it.

The earliest stars formed millions of years after the BB and the sun didn't form until about 9 billion years after.

Second, there was no 'clump'. The hot dense material was literally everywhere.


And we have a winner!

We have a lot of speculation, but we do not know. I can list some of the bits of speculation that are based on science that we know. But previous to about a few seconds into the BB expansion, we simply do not know.



No, the whole universe was at high density and pressure. if it was not, the background radiation that we see *today* would not be nearly as uniform as it is.
So nobody put that "high density and pressure" universe there...it just was ... right? (in your opinion, of course.)
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I think the fundamental problem here is that this is a highly complex and technical set of questions that most of us simply aren't in a position to fully understand. The general concepts and principles of things like The Big Bang can be explained in layman's terms but once you get in to the kind of detailed questions you're asking, you'd need a fundamental understanding of the underlying physics to grasp the answers. So, unless you're willing (and able) to invest the time and effort in getting that fundamental understanding, even those people who do understand all the answers won't be able to explain them in a way we could fully understand.

There are loads of much more immediate and relevant scientific concepts most of us can't fully understand - how airplanes fly, how nuclear power works, what actually causes inflation, how do vaccines work etc. No one person can get a full understanding of all of those things so we all have to accept that we rely on the experts in any given field once we move beyond the basic concepts. There are probably areas in which you're better educated or experienced in and therefore have a fuller understanding of that the average person, but you'd still struggle to explain the specific details to a random person if they didn't already grasp the basics.

As they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing (and I assume "they" know what they're talking about ;) ).
Well, there were no photos of that "high density and pressure" universe before it supposedly what? exploded? imploded? banged? WHAT?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So nobody put that "high density and pressure" universe there...it just was ... right? (in your opinion, of course.)
That is what appears to be the case. There is no evidence for a someone.

When you try to clam that there had to be a someone then you take on the burden of proof. If you cannot support this belief why would any rational person think that there is need for a magical creator?
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
So nobody put that "high density and pressure" universe there...it just was ... right? (in your opinion, of course.)
Science cannot say. There is no evidence to guide us.

There is evidence for the big bang model, which we have described to you in this thread, but that does not go right back to the start, as our models stop working under those conditions.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Well, there were no photos of that "high density and pressure" universe before it supposedly what? exploded? imploded? banged? WHAT?
There are no photos of neutrons either. Nor are there photos of the Earth's core. But we have very solid theories for the existence, composition and properties of both.

What it did was expand.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
So nobody put that "high density and pressure" universe there...it just was ... right? (in your opinion, of course.)

Well, there was no intelligent agent until after at least the first generation of stars, so 'nobody' was around to 'put it there'.

But far more relevantly, causality happens in the forward time direction (the past causes the future). If there is no past, then there is no causality.

My view is that the universe as a whole, including all of space, all of time, all matter, and all energy, 'just exists'. It is not caused because all causes happen *inside* of the universe. It did not 'begin to happen' because time is part of the universe.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, there were no photos of that "high density and pressure" universe before it supposedly what? exploded? imploded? banged? WHAT?

No, there were no 'photos' because photography is a chemical process that can only happen after the heavier elements have formed.

We do have left over light from the hot dense phase in the cosmic background radiation. In a sense, it is a 'photo' of the universe at about 300,000 years old.

Space expands. There was not an explosion (no motion of matter through space). The expansion was there whenever there was space and/or time.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
So -- I've been reading a little about the sun and its composition. And the idea by (some, i guess) scientists is that the sun and stars came from a Big Bang. So the question is: how big was the material in the clump? that initiated the "Big Bang"? A secondary question is: did that clump have anything outside of that clump? There are more questions but maybe we can talk about it a little. :)
(Not that anyone knows...but we can try to see maybe what scientists are saying...well, some of them anyway.)

The same person who speaks like the Big Bang is fact could also say there maybe several options ;)

I am thinking that your first question should have been "was there a clump?".

Theoretically, most of this boils down to some kind of a leap of faith.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Me thinks it's time for ...

... the BALLOON :D
Okay . . . but I don't think that it will do any good:

balloon-animal-poodle-510533093-9fcbb2e597c942ea970ed92fafebf8f5.jpg


maxresdefault.jpg
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Big Bang is miracle. No further research is possible. God did it.
There's no evidence supporting this conclusion. "Miracle" evades the real question of "how?" and attribution of agency is not an explanation.

Had you lived a couple of centuries ago, I'll bet you'd have given the same Goddidit! 'explanation' for volcanoes, disease, earthquakes, hurricanes and other phenomena we now understand to have natural causes.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Questions: what caused the siingularity to explode? How big was the singularity? And I guess a question that's been asked by others, where's the "center," in other words, from what point did it start at, that is, assuming someone believes it started 'somewhere'?

The most abundant elements in the universe (today) is the hydrogen, and it is what the molecular clouds and all the stars are most made of.

And hydrogen was even more abundant before the formation of galaxies and stars. Neutral atoms, when protons and electrons balanced out the charges of the atoms, first occurred at the Recombination Epoch (this epoch started 378,000 years after the Big Bang), as I said before in my previous post.

This bonding of electrons to the lighter elements (hydrogen, helium and lithium atoms) during Recombination Epoch, made the universe transparent for the first time. The transparent universe also allowed decoupled photons to travel freely from the still expanding universe, which I have already mentioned before in my previous post.

BEFORE the Recombination Epoch, the universe was still hot and dense, because these elements were ionized, meaning without electrons bonded to atoms’ nuclei, hence matters were in “plasma” state.

There is a period - 10 seconds after the Big Bang and lasting for 20 minutes - a period known as the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), where atoms formed, nuclei were the shells for protons (and neutrons for deuterium, helium and lithium atoms) but no electrons bonded to these nuclei, hence matters were “ionized” and “plasma” state.

So for 378,000 years, matters (hydrogen, deuterium, helium and lithium) were hot and dense matters, but it was cooler than periods or epochs BEFORE the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. The further back in time you look, the hotter and denser was the universe.

The earliest epoch that the Big Bang theory proposed, was the Planck Epoch, that started after the Big Bang, at 0 second, and lasting for 10^-43 second.

This Planck Epoch is period where the universe was at infinitely hot and dense state, that -
  • there were no four separate fundamental forces (gravitation, strong nuclear, weak nuclear & EM), that they were unified as one force,
  • and that the extremely dense and hot plasma cannot separate fundamental elementary particles.
It is only when the universe started expanding that universe became increasingly cooler for particle to be distinguishable, and each force separated from unified force.

The entire universe from the Planck Epoch was the singularity, and the universe was expanding from this singularity, was cosmic expansion, it was not an explosion, despite Hoyle referring to it as a “Bang”.

If you compare explosion to the universe expanding, explosion from a bomb, would cause the immediate area of explosion to sudden increase in temperature.

The expanding universe actually made the universe increasingly cooler, not hotter.

In the earlier 1980s, several astrophysicists introduced the Inflationary Epoch (or the Cosmic Inflation) to Big Bang theory, where the universe (singularity) expanded exponentially for a short period of time, increasing the size of universe. This cooled the universe very rapidly.

The Inflationary Epoch started around 10^-36 second (after the Big Bang) and ended between 10^-33 and 10^-32 seconds.

Before the Inflationary Epoch, the singularity was the whole universe. When the singularity expanded, so did everything within the universe, therefore there was no “centre” of the universe.

Like @Aupmanyav said it is absurd to talk about “centre of the universe”, with expanding universe.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
It is idea of Atheists. The theists think in opposite way.
Excuse me, aren't you forgetting that one of the 3 pioneers during the 1920s, was a Roman Catholic priest - Georges Lemaître.

People of the science community referred Lemaître as the "Father of the Big Bang". He wrote the influential the Hypothesis of Primeval Atom (1927), and was one of the astrophysicists (the other was Howard Percy Robertson, 1924) to propose the Cosmological Redshift is evidence for expanding universe.

The redshifts were discovered in 1929 by Edwin Hubble.

In the 1950s, the Catholic church, including the Pope, supported the Big Bang cosmology.

Sorry, but you trying to turn the big bang theory into an "atheist theory" is just utter nonsense.

There are no such things as atheist theory or theist theory in natural sciences.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The same person who speaks like the Big Bang is fact could also say there maybe several options ;)

I am thinking that your first question should have been "was there a clump?".

Theoretically, most of this boils down to some kind of a leap of faith.
I would say so.
 
Top