Questions the BB proponents have no answers for.

[leibowde84]

IMO, it was obvious in my first post in this group what the intent was but I was very mistaken. No one seems to have grasped the intent or perhaps, just chose to ignore it. Therefore, I will state as clearly as I can the intent of this post.

I use, enjoy and believe in all science that can be proven as fact with empirical evidence. Civilization would not have advanced very far without science and I believe most honest people will agree that true science deserves respect and admiration. I even appreciate scientific hypothesis and scientific theories without which, there probably would not be a lot of scientific facts.

This is about cosmology creation and since, IMO, there could be no biological evolution without first having creation, I am posting in this category.

1) The entire focus is on “in the beginning”, IOW, before the BB that many, but not all believe in.

2) For there to be a BB, there had to be certain elements, according to natural laws, space being one of them.

3) When was space created? Some say at the BB so my questions would be for those.

4) Some believe that all elements required to create the universe were contained in the BB, the Dot, the Singularity.

5) IF, that is true, could those exist without space and if so, can it be proven with empirical evidence? I do not think so and for those that contend that space and time were created with the BB, that is a point that you cannot plausibly and logically explain.

6) Therefore, in order for the BB to exist, there had to be space, according to natural laws, to contain it before the “explosion/rapid expansion”, you cannot have it both ways, space was created before the BB or, there was no BB.

7) Which brings us back to where did space, time, energy and matter come from, in the beginning since it seems many, if not most, physicists believe the universe ihad a beginning.

9) When and how did the laws of nature come into being?


10) Now the intent of the post, to demonstrate there are a plethora of questions relative to the creation of the universe that science cannot answer, they have hypothesis, theories, beliefs, conjectures, speculations but no answers for much of how creation began and some contradictions.

There are no absolutes in science. Even gravity is a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. So, what are you referring to when you say "scientific facts"? And, what kind of science are you applauding here?

 

[leibowde84]

IMO, it was obvious in my first post in this group what the intent was but I was very mistaken. No one seems to have grasped the intent or perhaps, just chose to ignore it. Therefore, I will state as clearly as I can the intent of this post.

I use, enjoy and believe in all science that can be proven as fact with empirical evidence. Civilization would not have advanced very far without science and I believe most honest people will agree that true science deserves respect and admiration. I even appreciate scientific hypothesis and scientific theories without which, there probably would not be a lot of scientific facts.

This is about cosmology creation and since, IMO, there could be no biological evolution without first having creation, I am posting in this category.

1) The entire focus is on “in the beginning”, IOW, before the BB that many, but not all believe in.

2) For there to be a BB, there had to be certain elements, according to natural laws, space being one of them.

3) When was space created? Some say at the BB so my questions would be for those.

4) Some believe that all elements required to create the universe were contained in the BB, the Dot, the Singularity.

5) IF, that is true, could those exist without space and if so, can it be proven with empirical evidence? I do not think so and for those that contend that space and time were created with the BB, that is a point that you cannot plausibly and logically explain.

6) Therefore, in order for the BB to exist, there had to be space, according to natural laws, to contain it before the “explosion/rapid expansion”, you cannot have it both ways, space was created before the BB or, there was no BB.

7) Which brings us back to where did space, time, energy and matter come from, in the beginning since it seems many, if not most, physicists believe the universe ihad a beginning.

9) When and how did the laws of nature come into being?


10) Now the intent of the post, to demonstrate there are a plethora of questions relative to the creation of the universe that science cannot answer, they have hypothesis, theories, beliefs, conjectures, speculations but no answers for much of how creation began and some contradictions.

Also, it seems like you are saying that the lack of an explanation for these questions somehow magically makes the big bang and natural evolution less likely. But, the lack of explanations for these questions in no way provides evidence for any god. That is nothing more than the god of the gaps fallacy ... an argument from ignorance. Just because we don't know what caused the big bang doesn't mean God did it. Just because we don't know how life originated doesn't mean that god did it. Right?

 

[Stanyon]

But then where the aliens (or god) come from?

From a galaxy far, far away

 

[Altfish]

I see nothing but your opinions and since it has been irrefutably proven that you cannot answer questions as they are asked, I see no reason to believe your assertions. I put my trust in people that answer questions when asked, not make excuses, you can understand that, correct?

This is known as "The god of the gaps" - and all the time as science discovers more and more the gaps are getting smaller.

 

[Polymath257]

IMO, it was obvious in my first post in this group what the intent was but I was very mistaken. No one seems to have grasped the intent or perhaps, just chose to ignore it. Therefore, I will state as clearly as I can the intent of this post.

I use, enjoy and believe in all science that can be proven as fact with empirical evidence. Civilization would not have advanced very far without science and I believe most honest people will agree that true science deserves respect and admiration. I even appreciate scientific hypothesis and scientific theories without which, there probably would not be a lot of scientific facts.

This is about cosmology creation and since, IMO, there could be no biological evolution without first having creation, I am posting in this category.

1) The entire focus is on “in the beginning”, IOW, before the BB that many, but not all believe in.

OK, not a question, but a statement.

2) For there to be a BB, there had to be certain elements, according to natural laws, space being one of them.

What empirical evidence do you have to support this statement?

3) When was space created? Some say at the BB so my questions would be for those.

Answer: we do not know. it may have been 'created' at the BB, but it may have existed infinitely into the past.

4) Some believe that all elements required to create the universe were contained in the BB, the Dot, the Singularity.

Yes, I am sure that some people believe this. This is not the current description of the BB scenario, however.

5) IF, that is true, could those exist without space and if so, can it be proven with empirical evidence?

Are you asking if the singularity could exist without space? Well, even figuring out what it means to say that a singularity 'exists' is problematic. But in whatever sense it exists, it exists without space.

I do not think so and for those that contend that space and time were created with the BB, that is a point that you cannot plausibly and logically explain.

A statement about your beliefs. OK.

6) Therefore, in order for the BB to exist, there had to be space, according to natural laws, to contain it before the “explosion/rapid expansion”, you cannot have it both ways, space was created before the BB or, there was no BB.

To properly use the word 'therefore', the rest of the sentence has to follow from what came before. That is not the case here. But, as you admit, in the typical BB scenario, space came to exist because of the BB. That is because space is an aspect of the universe, which came to exist because of the BB (in that scenario).

However, it is quite possible that there was space, time, etc around before the BB and that there was no singularity in the strict sense.

7) Which brings us back to where did space, time, energy and matter come from, in the beginning since it seems many, if not most, physicists believe the universe ihad a beginning.

Well, the BB seems, to a first approximation, to be the origin of space, time, matter, and energy. But it is quite possible that all could have existed prior to the BB.

At this point, we have no empirical evidence to be able to say one way or the other.

9) When and how did the laws of nature come into being?

To answer the question 'how' requires appealing to the laws of nature. So your question asks something that assumes what cannot happen.

10) Now the intent of the post, to demonstrate there are a plethora of questions relative to the creation of the universe that science cannot answer, they have hypothesis, theories, beliefs, conjectures, speculations but no answers for much of how creation began and some contradictions.

Well, your list isn't a good example of this, but it is certainly true that there are a great many questions for which scientists do not (yet) have answers. That is one reason we continue to research this stuff. But we have a LOT more answers now than we did 40 years ago: progress is being made.

Now, why do you think that the lack of answers to poorly formulated questions is relevant?

 

[ChristineM]

IMO, it was obvious in my first post in this group what the intent was but I was very mistaken. No one seems to have grasped the intent or perhaps, just chose to ignore it. Therefore, I will state as clearly as I can the intent of this post.

I use, enjoy and believe in all science that can be proven as fact with empirical evidence. Civilization would not have advanced very far without science and I believe most honest people will agree that true science deserves respect and admiration. I even appreciate scientific hypothesis and scientific theories without which, there probably would not be a lot of scientific facts.

This is about cosmology creation and since, IMO, there could be no biological evolution without first having creation, I am posting in this category.

1) The entire focus is on “in the beginning”, IOW, before the BB that many, but not all believe in.

2) For there to be a BB, there had to be certain elements, according to natural laws, space being one of them.

3) When was space created? Some say at the BB so my questions would be for those.

4) Some believe that all elements required to create the universe were contained in the BB, the Dot, the Singularity.

5) IF, that is true, could those exist without space and if so, can it be proven with empirical evidence? I do not think so and for those that contend that space and time were created with the BB, that is a point that you cannot plausibly and logically explain.

6) Therefore, in order for the BB to exist, there had to be space, according to natural laws, to contain it before the “explosion/rapid expansion”, you cannot have it both ways, space was created before the BB or, there was no BB.

7) Which brings us back to where did space, time, energy and matter come from, in the beginning since it seems many, if not most, physicists believe the universe ihad a beginning.

9) When and how did the laws of nature come into being?


10) Now the intent of the post, to demonstrate there are a plethora of questions relative to the creation of the universe that science cannot answer, they have hypothesis, theories, beliefs, conjectures, speculations but no answers for much of how creation began and some contradictions.

All your questions/statements (except 9 and perhaps the invisible 8) rely on the laws of physics ( thermodynamics etc) being fully formed and functional prior to the bb. This is not so, they did not begin to coalesce until the after of the Planck epoch. Which incidentally is half the answer to question 9. The other half, supercooling temperature gave the conditions to enable the laws to form

10 so you are filling the gaps in knowledge with god magic

 

[Ted Evans]

So you see yourself as a hypocrite for not answering the questions posed to you?

No, it is not unilateral, anyone that will agree to answer every question that I may ask them with plausible verifiable answers, when appropriate, I will answer every question they ask in the same manner. How about you, care to test me?

 

[sayak83]

IMO, it was obvious in my first post in this group what the intent was but I was very mistaken. No one seems to have grasped the intent or perhaps, just chose to ignore it. Therefore, I will state as clearly as I can the intent of this post.

I use, enjoy and believe in all science that can be proven as fact with empirical evidence. Civilization would not have advanced very far without science and I believe most honest people will agree that true science deserves respect and admiration. I even appreciate scientific hypothesis and scientific theories without which, there probably would not be a lot of scientific facts.

This is about cosmology creation and since, IMO, there could be no biological evolution without first having creation, I am posting in this category.

1) The entire focus is on “in the beginning”, IOW, before the BB that many, but not all believe in.

2) For there to be a BB, there had to be certain elements, according to natural laws, space being one of them.

3) When was space created? Some say at the BB so my questions would be for those.

4) Some believe that all elements required to create the universe were contained in the BB, the Dot, the Singularity.

5) IF, that is true, could those exist without space and if so, can it be proven with empirical evidence? I do not think so and for those that contend that space and time were created with the BB, that is a point that you cannot plausibly and logically explain.

6) Therefore, in order for the BB to exist, there had to be space, according to natural laws, to contain it before the “explosion/rapid expansion”, you cannot have it both ways, space was created before the BB or, there was no BB.

7) Which brings us back to where did space, time, energy and matter come from, in the beginning since it seems many, if not most, physicists believe the universe ihad a beginning.

9) When and how did the laws of nature come into being?


10) Now the intent of the post, to demonstrate there are a plethora of questions relative to the creation of the universe that science cannot answer, they have hypothesis, theories, beliefs, conjectures, speculations but no answers for much of how creation began and some contradictions.

Let's make it as simple as possible.
The Big Bang, which is the name for the rapid expansion of the universe from an initially very hot dense state 13.8 billion years ago, is empirically highly established with lots of evidence.
What existed before the Big Bang is as yet not well understood in science.

Now what is your point?

 

[whirlingmerc]

The big bang actually has time space and matter all coming from nothing, no where and no place.... imagine that

Like pulling rabbit out of a hat without a hat... without a rabbit... without a magician

Takes quite a bit of faith

 

[Skwim]

The big bang actually has time space and matter all coming from nothing, no where and no place.... imagine that

Like pulling rabbit out of a hat without a hat... without a rabbit... without a magician

Takes quite a bit of faith

Not faith at all, simply a hypothesis. If you're stuck, both words can be found in the dictionary.

.

 

[Desert Snake]

IMO, it was obvious in my first post in this group what the intent was but I was very mistaken. No one seems to have grasped the intent or perhaps, just chose to ignore it. Therefore, I will state as clearly as I can the intent of this post.

I use, enjoy and believe in all science that can be proven as fact with empirical evidence. Civilization would not have advanced very far without science and I believe most honest people will agree that true science deserves respect and admiration. I even appreciate scientific hypothesis and scientific theories without which, there probably would not be a lot of scientific facts.

This is about cosmology creation and since, IMO, there could be no biological evolution without first having creation, I am posting in this category.

1) The entire focus is on “in the beginning”, IOW, before the BB that many, but not all believe in.

2) For there to be a BB, there had to be certain elements, according to natural laws, space being one of them.

3) When was space created? Some say at the BB so my questions would be for those.

4) Some believe that all elements required to create the universe were contained in the BB, the Dot, the Singularity.

5) IF, that is true, could those exist without space and if so, can it be proven with empirical evidence? I do not think so and for those that contend that space and time were created with the BB, that is a point that you cannot plausibly and logically explain.

6) Therefore, in order for the BB to exist, there had to be space, according to natural laws, to contain it before the “explosion/rapid expansion”, you cannot have it both ways, space was created before the BB or, there was no BB.

7) Which brings us back to where did space, time, energy and matter come from, in the beginning since it seems many, if not most, physicists believe the universe ihad a beginning.

9) When and how did the laws of nature come into being?


10) Now the intent of the post, to demonstrate there are a plethora of questions relative to the creation of the universe that science cannot answer, they have hypothesis, theories, beliefs, conjectures, speculations but no answers for much of how creation began and some contradictions.

I'm not a big bang theory adherent.

 

[gnostic]

This is about cosmology creation and since, IMO, there could be no biological evolution without first having creation, I am posting in this category.

1) The entire focus is on “in the beginning”, IOW, before the BB that many, but not all believe in.

2) For there to be a BB, there had to be certain elements, according to natural laws, space being one of them.

3) When was space created? Some say at the BB so my questions would be for those.

4) Some believe that all elements required to create the universe were contained in the BB, the Dot, the Singularity.

5) IF, that is true, could those exist without space and if so, can it be proven with empirical evidence? I do not think so and for those that contend that space and time were created with the BB, that is a point that you cannot plausibly and logically explain.

6) Therefore, in order for the BB to exist, there had to be space, according to natural laws, to contain it before the “explosion/rapid expansion”, you cannot have it both ways, space was created before the BB or, there was no BB.

7) Which brings us back to where did space, time, energy and matter come from, in the beginning since it seems many, if not most, physicists believe the universe ihad a beginning.

9) When and how did the laws of nature come into being?


10) Now the intent of the post, to demonstrate there are a plethora of questions relative to the creation of the universe that science cannot answer, they have hypothesis, theories, beliefs, conjectures, speculations but no answers for much of how creation began and some contradictions.

Not to be so fussy, but did you notice that you are missing point 8?

My reply is that you don't understand the Big Bang model.

With points 1, 2, 3 & 4.

The Big Bang theory has no official stance on the "singularity". It has no official explanation as to what happened before the very INSTANCE of the Big Bang, before t = 0 second.

The Big Bang only cover the evolution of the empirical and observable universe, from present to the start of Recombination epoch (when the universe was 377,000 years old, and only theoretical and hypothetical explanation for the earlier epochs, from 377,000 years to zero second.

But the hypothetical section of the Big Bang can be predicted by our knowledge of the energies, the fundamental interactions (or forces), particle physics and how they formed atoms.

You have to understand that the universe before the Recombination epoch was in a plasma state, so it is difficult to detect or measure anything at this stage.

The Big Bang theory only covered the earliest epoch, the Planck epoch, (from t=0 to t=10^-43 seconds) which they don't fully understand. But the theory doesn't cover the singularity.

So anything about the singularity is actually outside the Big Bang theory.

 

[Ted Evans]

Not to be so fussy, but did you notice that you are missing point 8?

Obviously, I did not notice that fact when I posted the comments, I confess, I make mistakes and that was one of them and in this case, there is an explanation for the mistake but it does not matter, it was a mistake. IMO, it is sad that we all cannot admit when we make mistakes rather than trying to spin them or simply ignore them, would you agree?

 

[Ted Evans]

There are no absolutes in science.

Really, are you absolutely sure of that?

Even gravity is a scientific theory.

I am aware that many who post in this group believe their word has no need for evidence verifying their assertions but I disagree with your dogmatic statement as fact. An excerpt....

[But, when we do this experiment, should we be talking about the Law of Gravity or the Theory of Gravity?

Actually, we should be talking about both. To understand why, we need to understand the scientific meaning of the words "law" and "theory."

In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us:

"Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses."

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about WHY it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.]

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. So, what are you referring to when you say "scientific facts"? And, what kind of science are you applauding here?

Things that can be observed, tested, duplicated. Can gravity be observed, tested and duplicated? If it can and IMO, it is a fact. Can the BB be observed, tested, duplicated, IMO, it cannot.

 

[Ted Evans]

Now what is your point?

The BB theory is not a proven fact and there are other models that differ from the BB model. An excerpt....

[There are several alternative models that attempt to explain the development of the universe, though none of them have as wide an acceptance as the big bang theory:

· The steady-state model

· The Ekpyrotic model

· The big bounce theory

· Plasma cosmology

• There are several other models as well. Could one of these theories (or other ones we haven't even thought of) one day replace the big bang theory as the accepted model of the universe? It's quite possible.]

That is my point.

 

[Ted Evans]

Just because we don't know what caused the big bang doesn't mean God did it. Just because we don't know how life originated doesn't mean that god did it. Right?

Right. However, apparently, you and many others, "believe" that "something" other than an intelligent, supernatural being created the universe but you cannot prove that can you? Therefore it is your "belief". It cannot be proven, with empirical science, that God created the universe either, it is a "belief".

Bottom line, do not ridicule my belief which I cannot irrefutably prove and I will not ridicule your belief which you cannot irrefutably prove, is that not fair?

 

[sayak83]

The BB theory is not a proven fact and there are other models that differ from the BB model. An excerpt....

[There are several alternative models that attempt to explain the development of the universe, though none of them have as wide an acceptance as the big bang theory:

· The steady-state model

· The Ekpyrotic model

· The big bounce theory

· Plasma cosmology

• There are several other models as well. Could one of these theories (or other ones we haven't even thought of) one day replace the big bang theory as the accepted model of the universe? It's quite possible.]

That is my point.

Observations have comprehensively ruled out steady state theory. Ekyroptic and big bounce models incorporate Big Bang in them and extend it to periods before the Big Bang. Plasma cosmology has no evidence going for it whatsoever.

 

[Ted Evans]

10 so you are filling the gaps in knowledge with god magic

Is that like you stating something as a fact that you cannot prove? You have your belief and I have my belief. Speaking of magic, in the beginning, there was nothing, then nothing exploded and over billlllions and billllions of years, the universe was created, that certainly sounds like magic to me.

 

[Ted Evans]

Takes quite a bit of faith

It would be awesome if ALL Christians had that much faith. I am speaking of the ones that claim to be Christian but they do not have faith that God knew what He was talking about in Genesis, in essence, man is smarter.

 

[Ted Evans]

Observations have comprehensively ruled out steady state theory.

So you say, I do not believe a word of it.