|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The Big Bang - 10/31/2009 7:33:54 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 3045
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
How does this "save" big bang? Are you trying to say that BB _predicted_ that scientists would find "something"
I don't know what predictions BB specifically made about dark matter, if there were any at all. If I understand things correctly, the BBT as well as other actual observations (e.g. rotational characteristics of galaxies) require a minimum amount of matter. At first, some percentage of that matter appeared to be missing - i.e. it looked like there was less matter than was required in order for these things to be happening (not just BB, but also the aforementioned rotations). That, combined with evidence from gravitational lensing artifacts from areas that otherwise contained no "visible" matter caused scientists to hypothesize the existence of "dark" matter. Experiments are underway to figure out exactly what particles comprise dark matter.
quote:
Dan, can't you see that this is just another "fudge factor"? The evidence continues to surprise, BB has nothing to say about it, so they apply another band aid.
If, as you say, the BBT has nothing to say about dark matter, why would its discovery be any sort of mark against the BBT? The big bang is not some all-encompassing theory of everything.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 10/31/2009 7:59:19 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4637
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
The big bang is not some all-encompassing theory of everything. Oh no, of course not. Just the only way to explain the origin of everything without even hinting at the "G-word". That certainly doesn't sound all-encompassing to me... 
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 10/31/2009 10:39:30 PM
|
|
|
VoiceInTheDarkness
Posts: 34
Joined: 10/21/2009
Status: offline
|
Big Bang or Just A Stretch of God’s Imagination?
Looking to God as the creator, God is light, in him is no darkness at all. God is spirit, not created energy so we would not be able to detect his reality within our own reality, even though both realities coexist. The light of creation is a created light. God, who is infinite and eternal, exist within his own imagination “ for lack of a better word." God is pure thought, you can not measure the distance of him, he just is.
God created something new. God created a four dimensional reality. The forth dimension of time is an illusion created within reality, by the movement of light within reality. When God spoke reality into existence, his words are not as our words ( sound vibrating through air, ) his words spoke through time creating the pattern his created energies would follow throughout creation.
Instead of a big bang, beginning with all of the energy of the universe, condensed into a tinny singularity. My theory begins with a pure light that filled the entire universe.
Light began to separate from light. at the very beginning of this separation, when the two forms of light energy would touch, they became one energy again, this process created a tremendous amount of heat energy.
As the temperature cooled to the point of, what you call quark confinement, two types of energy was created, free energy and confined energy. The confined energy would be the energy that creates mater. The free energy would be the energy that pulls it all together, or gravity.
( So called quarks, became the confined energy, anti quarks the free energy. )
As the confined energy began to condense, the free energy began to stretch. The confined energy condensed at individual locations throughout the newly forming universe causing the free energy to stretch across the entire universe.
This stretching of the free energy caused the free energy to become a weak energy. This weak energy is detected as the faint background radiation that evenly fills the entire universe.
What you detect as electrons, is actually the point of concentration of this free energy attracted to the confined energy. This point of concentration of the free energy appears to be weak because it is stretched throughout the universe. this energy is actually equal to the amount of confined energy it surrounds.
It is imposable for the confined energy, or mater, to travel at the speed of light, instead it spins within itself at the speed of light. The free energy orbits the confined energy at the speed of light, producing what is observed as the electron ( cloud ) around the nucleus of atoms.
Free energy travels at the speed of light, therefore it is infinite in mass, therefore it fills the universe. This free energy is what creates gravity. Light gravitates toward light.
This would explain why different forms of light, which are waves, behaves as a particle when you observe it. The very act of observing it stops its motion, thus it is no longer infinite in mass.
This would also explain the red shift when observing the galaxies, the greater the distance, the greater the observed energy is stretched from the observed galaxy to the observer, thus the greater the red shift.
The condensing of the confined energy throughout the universe, condensed into great concentrations throughout the universe. The tremendous pressure of the condensing of the confined energy ( quarks ) caused this energy to compress into protons and neutrons to form the nucleus of atoms. These concentrations became so great it caused great explosions leaving behind the huge black wholes in the center of the galaxies.
The energy released in the explosions spiraled outward because of the rotation of the black holes. This energy condensing throughout the newly forming galaxies began the formation of stars. The condensing of energies and explosions of stars produced the matter for the formation of planets.
< Message edited by VoiceInTheDarkness -- 11/1/2009 7:11:24 PM >
_____________________________
Now is the time of the revealing of all things
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 11/2/2009 11:56:36 AM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 265
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
Dan, can't you see that this is just another "fudge factor"? The evidence continues to surprise, BB has nothing to say about it, so they apply another band aid.
If, as you say, the BBT has nothing to say about dark matter, why would its discovery be any sort of mark against the BBT? The big bang is not some all-encompassing theory of everything.
-Dan.
Well, okay Dan. You were the one that offered the link on dark matter as somehow a rebuttal to my post on how even secular scientists have a lot of issues with BB. I was just trying to ask you to clarify how that does so. I, and I guess like you too, don't see the relevance.
I know your a faithful Christian, and a former YEC too. Just curious, is it BB that convinced you to drop your YEC beliefs?
Do you not believe that adopting a belief system about origins designed by atheists to explain "everything" without God makes you a "house divided against itself"?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 11/2/2009 9:46:13 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 3045
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
Well, okay Dan. You were the one that offered the link on dark matter as somehow a rebuttal to my post on how even secular scientists have a lot of issues with BB. I was just trying to ask you to clarify how that does so. I, and I guess like you too, don't see the relevance.
Your link proposed that the undiscovered dark matter was an example of a fudge factor used to prop up the BBT. I provided links rebutting that, showing that in the years since that paper was published, new discoveries have been made solidifying at least the existence of dark matter, if not the identification of it.
quote:
I know your a faithful Christian, and a former YEC too. Just curious, is it BB that convinced you to drop your YEC beliefs?
It's part of it.
quote:
Do you not believe that adopting a belief system about origins designed by atheists to explain "everything" without God makes you a "house divided against itself"?
Broadly speaking, no. If a theory is correct, it's correct, regardless of who conceived it or why.
Specifically about BB, it wasn't "designed by atheists to explain 'everything' without God." One of the original founders of the Big Bang Theory was a catholic priest named Georges Lemaitre. He and others merely worked out Einstein's theory of general relativity in a cosmological context. A few years later, Edwin Hubble then provided observational evidence that their ideas were correct and that the universe was expanding.
IIRC, the BBT was actually met with skepticism at first, partly because it pointed towards a divine being, whereas an infinite universe didn't.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 11/3/2009 6:31:22 PM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 265
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Specifically about BB, it wasn't "designed by atheists to explain 'everything' without God." One of the original founders of the Big Bang Theory was a catholic priest named Georges Lemaitre. He and others merely worked out Einstein's theory of general relativity in a cosmological context. A few years later, Edwin Hubble then provided observational evidence that their ideas were correct and that the universe was expanding.
So you're reaching back to the initial, un-fudged up theory and the man behind it as proof that the whole theory is God-compatible? Did you know that the current taxinomic classification system was also created by a Christian, with the idea of identifying God's initial created kinds? I wonder how many evolutionists now will identify with that, as they have used and transformed his system over the years?
How would you explain this excerpt from Stephen Hawking's "Brief History of Time"
quote:
The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started - it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwood and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundaries or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?
Is Hawking just all wet about the implications of BB?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 11/3/2009 10:04:15 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4637
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Just looking for some input, instead of being totally ignored. As I said before, I think you should be posting in the Creative Writing folder...
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 11/4/2009 12:26:04 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 3045
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
So you're reaching back to the initial, un-fudged up theory and the man behind it as proof that the whole theory is God-compatible?
Aside from various details, I don't see how the theory is wholly different now from what it was then - the basics are still there: some billions of years ago, all of time and space started off as a tiny dot which rapidly expanded, ultimately winding up with you, me, and the earth.
quote:
How would you explain this excerpt from Stephen Hawking's "Brief History of Time"
quote:
The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started - it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwood and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundaries or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?
Is Hawking just all wet about the implications of BB?
Have we proven that time and space form a closed surface without boundary?
-Dan.
< Message edited by iluvatar -- 11/4/2009 12:36:59 AM >
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 11/4/2009 11:20:12 AM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 265
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Aside from various details, I don't see how the theory is wholly different now from what it was then - the basics are still there: some billions of years ago, all of time and space started off as a tiny dot which rapidly expanded, ultimately winding up with you, me, and the earth.
Right, with no place for God anwhere along the way except, perhaps, at the very beginning. I believe this is formally referred to as Deism, not Christianity.
quote:
Have we proven that time and space form a closed surface without boundary?
Before getting into that, what would your position be if "proven"? Would your faith in God as creator or faith in BB be critically examined?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 11/5/2009 6:28:06 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 3045
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
quote:
Aside from various details, I don't see how the theory is wholly different now from what it was then - the basics are still there: some billions of years ago, all of time and space started off as a tiny dot which rapidly expanded, ultimately winding up with you, me, and the earth.
Right, with no place for God anwhere along the way except, perhaps, at the very beginning. I believe this is formally referred to as Deism, not Christianity.
You could make the same argument against any scientific theory: germ theory, gravity, quantum mechanics, meteorology, etc. Name one scientific theory that relies on God to do the heavy lifting, or really take any active role at all. Why aren't you quibbling about the deist nature of gravity or how all of those uniformitarian naturalist weathermen try to remove God's judgment from being a factor in predicting the weather?
quote:
Before getting into that, what would your position be if "proven"? Would your faith in God as creator or faith in BB be critically examined?
Probably both, though I don't necessarily accept his conclusion. It could be that his/my/our concept of the nature of God is flawed.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 11/9/2009 8:50:23 PM
|
|
|
jjbird
Posts: 508
Joined: 5/20/2009
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: AnalystsAreUs
Some would have you believe that the word formed as part of a big bang, but a reliable eye witness gives a significantly different description:
Job 38:4
Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. 5 Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone...
Given the number of different systems and cycles on this planet, I favor the engineering description in Job.
"The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation. As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago), and continues to expand to this day."
Genesis 1:1-5
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Seems like the Big Bang theory goes hand in hand with the biblical account to me! 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 11/10/2009 5:07:31 AM
|
|
|
VoiceInTheDarkness
Posts: 34
Joined: 10/21/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
It didn't make any sense to me, VID. Sorry.
quote:
I believe my theory makes a whole lot more sense than the BB, and it answers more questions than it leaves.
Did you actually read it and give it some thought? Which part didn't make sense?
_____________________________
Now is the time of the revealing of all things
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 11/14/2009 2:44:39 PM
|
|
|
EaZiE
Posts: 44
Joined: 7/2/2007
Status: offline
|
Hey Voice, I thought your post was really good and interesting. It incorporates a lot of things. It does seem like light is at the center of all creation when you look at relativity theory, etc.
Is it true (verifiable) that matter spins within itself at the speed of light?
When you say that light filled the universe do you equate this with God or what he first created as sort of the base energy of all to follow?
What do you mean by light began to separate from light? Do you mean that is the directed evolution God has planned?
I have been thinking a little bit about all this stuff (probably too much). One thing i was thinking about was all the black in the sky really is the primitive nothing before there was something. We see the space as something in relationship to stars and galaxies, but if there were none of these it would be void (nothing relative to nothing). Obviously the void didn't create something but the transcendent (from our visible stance) God did. "He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him--the dark rain clouds of the sky." ps. 18:11
Also, it seems that we are only capable of worshiping one of two things/people, the creation or the Creator. The first where we make the creation the creator. The second the personal relational God.
_____________________________
In a word, the future is, of all things, the thing least like eternity. It is the most completely temporal part of time--for the past is frozen and no longer flows, and the Present is all lit up with eternal rays. -Screwtape Letters
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 11/14/2009 4:03:49 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 535
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EaZiE
Is it true (verifiable) that matter spins within itself at the speed of light?
It's worse than unverifiable. It's meaningless. The speed of light is a linear speed. Spin is not linear. A long-playing record spins at 33 1/3 revolutions per minute. It would be meaningless to say it spins at 15 feet per minute.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 11/17/2009 1:06:32 PM
|
|
|
EaZiE
Posts: 44
Joined: 7/2/2007
Status: offline
|
It does seem that the electron spins at about the speed of light. To me this does give ample evidence to its relationship to light. Voice's explanation also fits the biblical model of God speaking light into existence. It would make sense to have light be the starting substance.
When the bible speaks of God's creation it speaks of Him as forming in a process as opposed to a split second appearance. I believe any creation model has to take into account the process of creation. The big bang assumes something that caused an explosion. Anything created will have an appearance of age its just a matter of how far back you are willing to take it.
God is still creating today although he has a plan as to what His final creation will be. I believe the creation days to mean the modes of creation (Augustine) where God concentrated His power to fashion the various things we see.
Perhaps all of space is one big black hole where creation substance is pumped in as through a nozzle.
_____________________________
In a word, the future is, of all things, the thing least like eternity. It is the most completely temporal part of time--for the past is frozen and no longer flows, and the Present is all lit up with eternal rays. -Screwtape Letters
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Big Bang - 11/17/2009 1:30:11 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 535
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EaZiE
It does seem that the electron spins at about the speed of light. To me this does give ample evidence to its relationship to light.
Again: The speed of light is a linear speed, not an angular speed. It makes no sense to say that something spins at a linear speed.
quote:
The big bang assumes something that caused an explosion.
The Big Bang was NOT an explosion. The Big Bang is simply the expansion of space
quote:
Anything created will have an appearance of age its just a matter of how far back you are willing to take it.
This is simply false.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
