The Big Bang as evidence for God

[Ben Dhyan]

Time is as real as space because it is really "spacetime".

Close but not quite right....space-persistence is real....time is a mental abstraction from the persistence of existence of space to measure the observed finite movements of objects within that space. To be more accurate, space and the persistence of that space are really not two things but an indivisible one...because space never ceases its existence...

 

[`mud]

How does anyone move into the 'space' that's coming from in front of them !
Describe the bearings of that direction, relative to 'space's' position in the Cosmos !
We don't know where we are, or what direction we're going into.
We know so little about what is really out there, even your heavens !
~
'mud

 

[idav]

The whole bending of the whole spacetime thing is general relativity. As such, it is based on the correctness of special relativity. Which includes relativity of simultaneity.

You seem to think that theory X, which assumes the correctness of Y, contradicts Y.

In other words, your attempt to salvage absolute simultaneity, by invoking a theory that assumes it, is self defeating.

Ciao

- viole

I gave sources and you still only say "your wrong", if you have evidence lets have it.

Close but not quite right....space-persistence is real....time is a mental abstraction from the persistence of existence of space to measure the observed finite movements of objects within that space. To be more accurate, space and the persistence of that space are really not two things but an indivisible one...because space never ceases its existence...

An eternity ago will never reach today.

 

[idav]

How does anyone move into the 'space' that's coming from in front of them !
Describe the bearings of that direction, relative to 'space's' position in the Cosmos !
We don't know where we are, or what direction we're going into.
We know so little about what is really out there, even your heavens !
~
'mud

So they invented calculus to explain curved spacetime but thats outside my paygrade.

 

[`mud]

And there's never a 'now'.
~
'mud

 

[`mud]

Curving to what ?
Away from what ?
Inflating to where ?
~
All without added inertia !
~
Why doesn't hydrogen and helium fall ?
~
Learn it before one says it, is smart.
~
NuffStuff
~
'mud

 

[idav]

Curving to what ?
Away from what ?
Inflating to where ?
~
All without added inertia !
~
Why doesn't hydrogen and helium fall ?
~
Learn it before one says it, is smart.
~
NuffStuff
~
'mud

It solves the falling moon problem, i can picture it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

An eternity ago will never reach today.

'Today' is an integral of eternity...not separate from it... 'Now' is an integral of eternity....now never ceases to be now.. What you imagine to be time is the merely now continuing to be now...iow...existence persisting to exist....reality continuing to be real....space never ceasing to be space...

 

[viole]

I gave sources and you still only say "your wrong", if you have evidence lets have it.

Your sources do not deny the relativity of simultaneity at all. They just say that relativity might be incomplete at certain regimes. Like all physical theories we know about.

An eternity ago will never reach today.

In the block universe interpretation of relativity, there is no flow of time. So, your argument involving "reaching' is not applicable from the start.

Ciao

- viole

 

[idav]

Your sources do not deny the relativity of simultaneity at all. They just say that relativity might be incomplete at certain regimes. Like all physical theories we know about.

Right so the physics just breaks down when you and divide infinite by zero. What do you think happens to time at the point it almost stops completely? Physics breaks down so what does time do? Just for discussion purposes, something other than time stops, becomes eternal, pauses or something similar? Are you arguing it never reaches zero?

In the block universe interpretation of relativity, there is no flow of time. So, your argument involving "reaching' is not applicable from the start.
- viole

Explain what you mean if you please, I don't know what your trying to get at here. Now can never be reached if an eternity is in the past, an infinite ago can't exist i don't think, unless infinite just represents a very large number.

 

[idav]

Your sources do not deny the relativity of simultaneity at all. They just say that relativity might be incomplete at certain regimes. Like all physical theories we know about.



In the block universe interpretation of relativity, there is no flow of time. So, your argument involving "reaching' is not applicable from the start.

Ciao

- viole

You have any idea why or how light photons get out of the bending space/time thing? In other words why isn't a photon timeless like the theory implies? Something to do with it having no mass, does it suddenly just get away with all the rules of physics because we can''t calculate the ramifications of something that small?

 

[ArtieE]

Now can never be reached if an eternity is in the past

What exactly is this supposed to mean?

 

[`mud]

Whether or not one believes that the singularity became the big bang,
whether or not the nothingness around the singularity had zero energy,
did the singularity have any direction to move to, before the inflation ?
Has the big bang of the singularity stopped generating new plasma ?
And where was the center of the start of the inflation, does hubble know ?
Non-answerable I know, but I like to ask !
~
'mud

 

[Ouroboros]

Whether or not one believes that the singularity became the big bang,
whether or not the nothingness around the singularity had zero energy,
did the singularity have any direction to move to, before the inflation ?

What's difficult to understand and accept with the big bang theory is that space-time itself is the bubble that "banged". It's not that energy exploded into space-time, but the actual fabric of space and time that expanded hastily. And the cool thing is, space-time can expand and move faster than the speed of light. The speed limit in vacuum is only within our actual space-time fabric, while the fabric doesn't have the limit. The universe "exploded" or rather expanded to some 70% of it's current size within a fraction of a second. That's trillions of times faster than speed of light. It's very strange to accept, but that's how the theory goes (as far as I learned it).

Has the big bang of the singularity stopped generating new plasma ?

My personal suspicion is that dark energy could be doing that. But I don't know if there's any scientist who claims this.

And where was the center of the start of the inflation, does hubble know ?

Since all expanded at the same time, everything is the center.

The problem we have is that the expansion might have been bigger than we know. It's possible that the universe is much larger and we're just limited to see what's possible based on the time from the start and the speed of light limitation making the farthest galaxies we can see restricted to those limits. But there could be more even farther out. So when we recreate the universe, it becomes a perfect bubble for us, with us in the center. But they made the same mistake when they first tried to place our solar system in the Milky Way. It seemed like we were in the center, but I think it was a certain kind of nebulas that helped pinpoint our location, at the edge of one of the spirals instead.

Non-answerable I know, but I like to ask !

Not now. But perhaps some of those things can be answered in the future.

 

[viole]

Right so the physics just breaks down when you and divide infinite by zero. What do you think happens to time at the point it almost stops completely? Physics breaks down so what does time do? Just for discussion purposes, something other than time stops, becomes eternal, pauses or something similar? Are you arguing it never reaches zero?

Explain what you mean if you please, I don't know what your trying to get at here. Now can never be reached if an eternity is in the past, an infinite ago can't exist i don't think, unless infinite just represents a very large number.

I am telling you that spacetime, seen as 4 dimensional block, does not change, if we take relativity at face value.
It cannot possibly change because there is no external reference frame that can be used to make sense of change, or dynamics, by definition. Ask yourself the question: at what rate does time flow?

Because of that, all your arguments invoking an eternity of time are moot. They assume an absolute ontology of time that transcends the existence of the physical Universe. That is what Newton thought, and he was wrong, if Einstein is right.

Spacetime is what the Universe is made of and therefore it is meaningless to speak of a time beyond its existence, or to use tensed verbes to discuss about its origins. There are no origins of the Universe. The word origin itself requires also a time context in order to make sense, ergo a Universe already in place.

Therefore, I suggest to whomever still sticks to the views of Newton about an absolute time, to resynchronize their epistemological clocks to modern science. Pun intended

Ciao

- viole

 

[idav]

I am telling you that spacetime, seen as 4 dimensional block, does not change, if we take relativity at face value.
It cannot possibly change because there is no external reference frame that can be used to make sense of change, or dynamics, by definition. Ask yourself the question: at what rate does time flow?

Because of that, all your arguments invoking an eternity of time are moot. They assume an absolute ontology of time that transcends the existence of the physical Universe. That is what Newton thought, and he was wrong, if Einstein is right.

Spacetime is what the Universe is made of and therefore it is meaningless to speak of a time beyond its existence, or to use tensed verbes to discuss about its origins. There are no origins of the Universe. The word origin itself requires also a time context in order to make sense, ergo a Universe already in place.

Therefore, I suggest to whomever still sticks to the views of Newton about an absolute time, to resynchronize their epistemological clocks to modern science. Pun intended

Ciao

- viole

You didn't answer my question and then further impose positions I don't assume.

Let's go back to the basics. You throw a clock into a black hole, why would you see it slow down but never stop? I am not married to the idea that the clock has to stop, it's just what the theory alludes to. Obviously I've never seen this clock approaching a black hole.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What's difficult to understand and accept with the big bang theory is that space-time itself is the bubble that "banged". It's not that energy exploded into space-time, but the actual fabric of space and time that expanded hastily. And the cool thing is, space-time can expand and move faster than the speed of light. The speed limit in vacuum is only within our actual space-time fabric, while the fabric doesn't have the limit. The universe "exploded" or rather expanded to some 70% of it's current size within a fraction of a second. That's trillions of times faster than speed of light. It's very strange to accept, but that's how the theory goes (as far as I learned it).

So what is the spacetime bubble like when it is not "banged"?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I’ve often found here and elsewhere that the big bang theory is somehow evidence of a creator. To be fair, many scientists (including Hoyle, who coined the term “big bang” derisively) objected to the idea that the universe ever “began” for precisely this reason (or at least something similar). The origins of the infamous cosmological constant began with Einstein’s attempt to make the universe static rather than having originated.

So let’s grant, for the sake of argument, that the universe isn’t eternal (as basically all physics suggests). Here’s a problem with the “then necessarily god created it” argument that is based upon the idea of a “first cause” or the idea that there are no uncaused events or that everything must have a cause and so on: In all of these arguments, it is assumed that cause is some (rather simplistic, naïve) “linear” processes whereby we can assert that causes MUST precede effects.

With this EXTREMELY minimal causal assumption (causes precede effects) we cannot say anything about the “cause” of the universe. The SAME PHYSICS which suggest the universe is not eternal but originated with the big bang suggests that time’s origins are the same: the big bang. The point is this:

If causes precede effect, then there is no time in which ANYTHING could have PRECEDED the big bang, because there was no TIME for such a process to “happen”. In short, no “cause” can precede an “effect” when there is no “time” for it to precede in.

So whatever evidence the big bang may be for “god” or deism or whatever, it can’t be based on arguments from causality.

Well put.

But the notion of how words have multiple meanings will perhaps be the limiting factor on the debate.
We can identify 2 distinct types of processes which have the same word-label: causality.
1) Linear physical causality. (eg one billiard ball hits another with a necessary result)
2) Branching non-linear causality. (egs free artistic will or the Heisenberg uncertainty principle)

The 1st is common sense.
Many will try to convince us that the 2nd is just a more complex variation of the first.
Which is a rich debate on its own.

However, the point I am making is simply that there are 2 different concepts using the same word.

So your conclusion:
"So whatever evidence the big bang may be for “god” or deism or whatever, it can’t be based on arguments from causality"

Only holds true if you already assume that there is only one type of causality.
If there is only one type of causality, then the entire universe is predetermined.

If the world was purely causal then it would be impossible for people to conclude anything else
like free conscious indeterminate will or creativity.

So this debate could not exist in a determinate universe because there could be no indeterminate belief systems in a deterministic universe.

 

[Ouroboros]

So what is the spacetime bubble like when it is not "banged"?

Don't know. Not so banged up, I guess.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Don't know. Not so banged up, I guess.

So that raises another question...who is it that bangs her up to give birth to this child? ..