Jump to content


Photo

Big Bang...


  • Please log in to reply
194 replies to this topic

#21 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 16 November 2007 - 02:54 AM

Can energy be created or destroyed? The universe does not contain much matter, so dark energy and dark matter have recently been created.


Only if it proves evolution.

#22 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 November 2009 - 12:48 AM

"What scientific law works here to allow this? Maybe it poof the compression god"
General relativity.

"This theory has not been observed."
It has, in as much as that the universe has been shown to be expanding. But then, you say, that only shows that it's expanding now, not billions of years ago! And that's quite true, except that you could say that at any time. If I could somehow demonstrate to you that the universe was expanding at t=10s, you could very well say that it was only expanding at t=10s, and that I know nothing of, say, t=5s! If i could demonstrate to you that the universe was expanding at t=5s, you could say that it was only expanding at t=5s, and that I've done nothing to show expansion at earlier times. Et cetera. Of course, you would be right. But general relativity predicts the expansion that we see today, and has been verified by a number of other observations, and the expansion is a direct consequence of relativity. So we can say that it's a very good guess that spacetime was compressed a very long time ago.

"It cannot be repeated, even on a small scale."
Dunno how that's relevant. If you're referring to replicability for good science, that doesn't mean that we need to be able to replicate any natural phenomena. We only need to be able to repeat observations, which we've very well done in the case of the big bang.

"Science cannot even compress a glass of water into a dot."
Dunno how that's relevant. The particles that comprise water didn't exist at the early times near the singularity, so no such compression was needed.

#23 Guest_FrankH_*

Guest_FrankH_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 November 2009 - 08:34 AM

(snip)

"Science cannot even compress a glass of water into a dot."
Dunno how that's relevant.  The particles that comprise water didn't exist at the early times near the singularity, so no such compression was needed.

View Post

Actually, we can. Does anyone wish to volunteer to watch what happens to a glass of water on the surface of a white dwarf?

#24 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 November 2009 - 10:29 AM

Actually, we can.  Does anyone wish to volunteer to watch what happens to a glass of water on the surface of a white dwarf?

View Post


Sure, lead the way. And while you're there, roast a couple hotdogs... Its lunchtime here!

#25 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 November 2009 - 10:41 AM

Actually, we can.  Does anyone wish to volunteer to watch what happens to a glass of water on the surface of a white dwarf?

View Post

Yeah, but still, it's irrelevant to the big bang.

#26 Mirrordin

Mirrordin

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Interests:Biology, biochemistry, the bible proclaimings its message and loving God
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • San Diego California

Posted 24 November 2009 - 02:11 AM

Poof the compression god I laughed very hard

#27 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 December 2009 - 05:33 AM

Yeah, but still, it's irrelevant to the big bang.

View Post


The problem he has here martimus, has nothing to do with gravity, as much as it does have to do with extreme heat. The water and glass would evaporate long before gravity would have a chance to draw it anywhere near to the fictitious "infinite density".

And that is the point, I think, he was attempting to argue to. This would lead to one of the promulgated origins of the big bang, which is not an irrelevant point (but for its lack of evidentiary empiricism).

#28 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • NYC

Posted 11 February 2010 - 02:22 AM

I'm guessing creationists have never heard of a singularity before. Please consult Albert Einstein for that. Oh and there was nothing spinning during the Big Bang. Where did you get that from?

I noticed that no evolutionist has replied to your post I believe it is because they have no evidence. You could also add the question of where all the matter, liquid, and gases came from? How did they come into existence?


Maybe the reason no evolutionists replied to this post is because the Big Bang has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution?

#29 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 11 February 2010 - 03:50 AM

I'm guessing creationists have never heard of a singularity before.  Please consult Albert Einstein for that.  Oh and there was nothing spinning during the Big Bang.  Where did you get that from?
Maybe the reason no evolutionists replied to this post is because the Big Bang has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution?

View Post


I think you need to study the Bib Bang a little more. Even though some say it exploded. The original idea was that the compressed matter spun so fast it broke apart.

2.If the big bang were an explosion, we would expect different spins. When something explodes, pieces fly out spinning in all directions.

http://www.talkorigi...CE/CE260_1.html



#30 skeptic

skeptic

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Heidelberg, Germany

Posted 11 February 2010 - 05:23 AM

I think you need to study the Bib Bang a little more. Even though some say it exploded. The original idea was that the compressed matter spun so fast it broke apart.

View Post


Thats a big misconception. It´s explained in your link why. Nothing spinned and if you think about it, how could it spin? compared to what? If the whole universe spins, would we recognize it? why?

And then, at the beginning of the big bang (after planck time), there was no matter. Matter condensed a few seconds later out of the energy. There was never any kind of explosion and no scientist said it that way (maybe a few to mock it).

#31 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • NYC

Posted 11 February 2010 - 10:52 PM

I think you need to study the Bib Bang a little more. Even though some say it exploded. The original idea was that the compressed matter spun so fast it broke apart.

View Post

Spinning is relative. Something can only spin relative to something. If the entire universe was spinning, what was it spinning relative to?

Singularities also can't break apart no matter how fast they spin. Please read up on what a singularity is

http://en.wikipedia....nal_singularity

Btw, if you knew anything about the Big Bang you would've known that it wasn't an explosion.

#32 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 February 2010 - 04:32 AM

Spinning is relative.  Something can only spin relative to something.  If the entire universe was spinning, what was it spinning relative to? 

View Post

Excellent point, which then begs the question, what is the Big Bang relative to? The Big Bang can only have happened relative to something. If the Big Bang happened, what it its origin relative to?

Singularities also can't break apart no matter how fast they spin.  Please read up on what a singularity is

View Post

Nice hypothesis, but have you ever seen a singularity, and experimented on it to test your hypothesis?

Btw, if you knew anything about the Big Bang you would've known that it wasn't an explosion.

View Post

And, if you did, you would be able to do better than to just spew hypothetical posits.

#33 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 12 February 2010 - 05:09 AM

Excellent point, which then begs the question, what is the Big Bang relative to? The Big Bang can only have happened relative to something. If the Big Bang happened, what it its origin relative to?


With regards to expansion, the Big Bang would be relative to it's own center...this involves the relationship of internal particle sizes and distance measurements.

As far as spin is concerned, it would be impossible without an external reference.


Peace

#34 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 February 2010 - 05:17 AM

With regards to expansion, the Big Bang would be relative to it's own center...this involves the relationship of internal particle sizes and distance measurements.

View Post


In which case, this begs the question “What is the center of the Big Bang relative to”?

#35 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 12 February 2010 - 05:26 AM

In which case, this begs the question “What is the center of the Big Bang relative to”?

View Post


The center of the Big Bang is relative to its' expansion horizon.

What is the center of an inflating balloon relative to?

If one were to put marks at certain points on the balloon of a specific size, these marks would grow farther apart from each other along with the distance between theirselves and the center of the balloon....thus marking expansion

Peace

#36 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 February 2010 - 05:34 AM

The center of the Big Bang is relative to its' expansion horizon.

View Post

Which begs the question, what is the Big Bang and it’s expansion horizon relative to?


What is the center of an inflating balloon relative to?

View Post

The one who created it, and therefore put it in the hands of the one who inflated it.

If one were to put marks at certain points on the balloon of a specific size, these marks would grow farther apart from each other along with the distance between theirselves and the center of the balloon....thus marking expansion

View Post

Which still misses the question; What are the marks relative to? What are the sizes relative to? What is the expansion relative to? Carry it back and back to the causation of said effect.

Peace

View Post

WORD up…

#37 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • NYC

Posted 12 February 2010 - 01:29 PM

Excellent point, which then begs the question, what is the Big Bang relative to?

View Post


The Big Bang is non-relativistic and does not need to be relative to anything. Please consult Einstein and the Theory of Relativity.

Nice hypothesis, but have you ever seen a singularity, and experimented on it to test your hypothesis?


The singularity is a prediction of Einstein's Theory of Relativity and they have been proven to exist.

And, if you did, you would be able to do better than to just spew hypothetical posits.


What hypothetical posits?

#38 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 February 2010 - 03:59 PM

The Big Bang is non-relativistic and does not need to be relative to anything.  Please consult Einstein and the Theory of Relativity.

View Post


You may want to consult Einstein's Theory of Relativity. As it stands, according Einstein time space and matter had a beginning. And, everything that had a beginning had a beginner. Therefore your “non-relativistic” analogy is illogical and unscientific.

The singularity is a prediction of Einstein's Theory of Relativity and they have been proven to exist.

View Post

Really, can you show me one?

What hypothetical posits?

View Post

You whole analogy…

#39 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 13 February 2010 - 03:20 AM

Which begs the question, what is the Big Bang and it’s expansion horizon relative to?
The one who created it, and therefore put it in the hands of the one who inflated it.
Which still misses the question; What are the marks relative to? What are the sizes relative to? What is the expansion relative to? Carry it back and back to the causation of said effect.

WORD up…

View Post


Maybe we are talking about two different things here.

I was talking about relationship and reference points in order to mark position and movement (i.e.expansion).

If you were to move away from an object that is expanding in all directions at the same rate as your motion, it mght be difficult to tell that you are moving at all.
This is why I elaborated to mention marks of specific sizes on the expanding balloon example.

Peace

#40 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 February 2010 - 11:43 AM

Maybe we are talking about two different things here.

I was talking about relationship and reference points in order to mark position and movement (i.e.expansion).

If you were to move away from an object that is expanding in all directions at the same rate as your motion, it mght be difficult to tell that you are moving at all.
This is why I elaborated to mention marks of specific sizes on the expanding balloon example.

Peace

View Post


If you go back to my reply to Flatlands assertion, you would see the cause and effect inference. You would then also see the fallacy in his argumentation towards relativism due to acceptance of the whole and not just to cover his viewpoint alone.

In other words, if one want's to use that argument, they have to extend it out-and-out to it's logical conclusion.


WORD up…




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users