Jump to content


Photo

Beginning Of The Universe/big Bang Discussion


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
62 replies to this topic

#1 ManhattanProject

ManhattanProject

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Age: 14
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • San Jose, CA

Posted 25 April 2005 - 11:40 AM

Hey everyone!
Its been a while since I have been on this because I have been very busy and you guys probably dont remember me, but I am going to start a topic on the beginning of the universe. To start this off, what does evolution about the beginning of the universe and why is it valid?

#2 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 25 April 2005 - 02:12 PM

Hey everyone!
        Its been a while since I have been on this because I have been very busy and you guys probably dont remember me, but I am going to start a topic on the beginning of the universe. To start this off, what does evolution about the beginning of the universe and why is it valid?

View Post



Welcome back

IMO ‘Cosmic’ evolution has been inferred by the expanding universe and the background microwave radiation. Mathematically science can wind the clock back I believe to a few fractions of a second before the Big bang.

A very general cosmic evolution present below can be inferred:

Big bang (expansion)
Radiation
Subatomic partials
Atoms
First universe (primly composed of hydrogen and helium)
First universe stars produce heavy elements in super nova.
Current universe is composed of heavy elements and remaining hydrogen.

#3 ManhattanProject

ManhattanProject

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Age: 14
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • San Jose, CA

Posted 26 April 2005 - 08:30 AM

Where did the matter that caused the Big Bang come from?



Welcome back

IMO ‘Cosmic’ evolution has been inferred by the expanding universe and the background microwave radiation.  Mathematically science can wind the clock back I believe to a few fractions of a second before the Big bang.

A very general cosmic evolution present below can be inferred:

Big bang (expansion)
Radiation
Subatomic partials
Atoms
First universe (primly composed of hydrogen and helium)
First universe stars produce heavy elements in super nova.
Current universe is composed of heavy elements and remaining hydrogen.

View Post



#4 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 April 2005 - 01:42 PM

Where did the matter that caused the Big Bang come from?

View Post


Matter could not form during the early phase of the expansion due to the intense heat. As the universe expanded past a certain threshold matter could from the radiation (inline with E=MC2.

As for where did the radiation came from, it is unknown at this point in time, I believe there are various ideas on the subject but I do not pretend to understand them (e.g. string theory).

#5 ManhattanProject

ManhattanProject

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Age: 14
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • San Jose, CA

Posted 26 April 2005 - 05:04 PM

Thats all fine, but where did the matter that started the big bang come from?

#6 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 April 2005 - 06:58 PM

Thats all fine, but where did the matter that started the big bang come from?

View Post


Huh? I have answered that (there is non), can you re-phrase the question.

#7 geni

geni

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • uk

Posted 26 April 2005 - 07:01 PM

Thats all fine, but where did the matter that started the big bang come from?

View Post



There are various hypothosises. The negative energy of gravity is one.

#8 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 27 April 2005 - 01:23 PM

Thats all fine, but where did the matter that started the big bang come from?

View Post


There was no matter when the universe first formed. Matter formed later on through the condensation of energy.

A better question is where the energy came from. It seems that this energy came about through a large quantum fluctuation, a process that can be observed today on a smaller scale. Even now energy and matter are popping in and out, creating equal amounts of matter and antimatter.

If gravity is considered to be negative energy, then the total amount of energy in the universe is zero, so conservation of energy and mass is still obeyed. As an analogy, the equations 0+0=0 and 10000-10000=0 are equivalent, so you can have large amounts of positive energy, and matter from that energy, as long as there is an equivalent amount of negative energy in the form of gravity.

#9 ManhattanProject

ManhattanProject

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Age: 14
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • San Jose, CA

Posted 27 April 2005 - 07:29 PM

So, chance, an explosion was caused by nothing? That is physically impossible.

Method, the energy came from a quantum fluctuation. Okay, you still have to answer the question. There was nothing.......then something(a big bang) The supposed matter and antimatter collided and created the explosion, but where did the matter and antimatter come from? It OBVIOUSLY could not have existed forever, so it must have had a starting point if it existed. What created it?

#10 ManhattanProject

ManhattanProject

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Age: 14
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • San Jose, CA

Posted 27 April 2005 - 07:33 PM

Whats odd is that you cannot both agree on how the universe was first formed.....

#11 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 27 April 2005 - 07:52 PM

So, chance, an explosion was caused by nothing? That is physically impossible.

View Post


It would be impossible if the big bang were a chemical, fusion, or fission form of explosion, as I know of none who makes such a claim the question is moot.

I have a question for you – If we don’t know the precise cause of the big bang, yet the evidence that a big bang happened is all around, does not knowing the cause discount the fact?

Or to put it a somewhat different perspective: If I don’t know the precise cause of a headache, yet taking aspirin cures the headache, does not knowing how aspirin works prove that headaches are impossible?

#12 ManhattanProject

ManhattanProject

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Age: 14
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • San Jose, CA

Posted 27 April 2005 - 08:01 PM

It would be impossible if the big bang were a chemical, fusion, or fission form of explosion, as I know of none who makes such a claim the question is moot.

I have a question for you – If we don’t know the precise cause of the big bang, yet the evidence that a big bang happened is all around, does not knowing the cause discount the fact?

View Post


You give me no reason to believe in a Big Bang. Therefore why should I believe that the Big Bang happened? It could have happened some other way.....

Also, what other evidence is there that the Big Bang happened?

#13 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 27 April 2005 - 08:08 PM

You give me no reason to believe in a Big Bang. Therefore why should I believe that the Big Bang happened? It could have happened some other way.....

Also, what other evidence is there that the Big Bang happened?

View Post


As I stated in my first post

IMO ‘Cosmic’ evolution has been inferred by the expanding universe and the background microwave radiation. Mathematically science can wind the clock back I believe to a few fractions of a second before the Big bang.


We can see and measure the expansion, plug that into computer, wind the clock back and you get 3.5 billion years! Same sort of principle as discovering the orbital parameters of a comet, watch what is doing in the present by plotting it’s course, then just reverse the equation in time to see where it came from.

#14 ManhattanProject

ManhattanProject

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Age: 14
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • San Jose, CA

Posted 27 April 2005 - 08:40 PM

IMO ‘Cosmic’ evolution has been inferred by the expanding universe and the background microwave radiation. Mathematically science can wind the clock back I believe to a few fractions of a second before the Big bang.


I would like you to read this.
Recent Cosmic Microwave Background Data Supports Creationist Cosmologies

Also, about the Universe Expanding, I found an article that I am still researching, but I will post it here for you to read.


"Red shifts
However, there is another set of awkward, uncomfortable observations which have loomed in the background for around 20 years now, which, if correct, have been said to have awesome implications, even to the extent of being the deathknell for any big bang concept. The observation is the ‘quantization of red shifts’, and has even been said to undermine the very idea that the universe is expanding.

What is it about? Astronomer William Tifft of the University of Arizona was the first to claim that the red shifts (the degree to which the light from stars is shifted to the red end of the spectrum, which is supposed to measure the speed at which the star is moving away, and hence how far away it is) of galaxies fall into distinct packets or quanta, like the rungs of a ladder. This would be like saying that if you measured the speed of particles coming out of an explosion, instead of being evenly distributed across a range of velocities, they fell into groups, for example, 100 kilometers an hour, 200 km/in, 300 km/in and so on.

Tifft was ignored at first, but continued to amass data for many years, most showing the same effect. Now, in a major study of more than 200 galaxies, using very sensitive equipment, two UK astronomers, Oxford’s Bill Napier and Bruce Guthrie from Edinburgh, claim to have ‘the best evidence yet’ that the phenomenon is real.5

This time, even some former skeptics of the claim are taking it seriously enough to warrant getting involved in the debate, suggesting proposals to test it further, and so on.

Mike Disney of Cardiff’s University of Wales says that if it keeps on holding up, it might turn standard cosmology ‘on its ear’. He says, ‘it would mean abandoning a great deal of present research’. All attempts to try to explain it within conventional models are, to put it mildly, ‘highly unorthodox’, and it is stated that if it does survive the next round of tests, ‘theorists will have a sticky problem trying to explain it’.

James Peebles of Princeton, whose pet big bang cosmology is the big loser if this is right, says he treats the claims with ‘extreme caution’ for this very reason, saying that he is ‘not being dogmatic and saying it can’t happen, but if it does, it‘s a real shocker’.

However, the data are already very impressive. According to Bill Napier they tried hard to avoid concluding that the red shifts were quantized, but failed.

There seems little doubt that if these observations did not conflict with the big bang, they would have been taken much more seriously a long time ago. The problem seems to be, as prominent astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge put it (Burbidge is Professor of Physics at the University of California, San Diego):

‘Big bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilization. It rests, however, on many untested, and [in] many cases, untestable assumptions. Indeed, big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth.’6

Unfortunately, some of those who promote the alleged big bang as an article of faith are Christians. They claim it is a fact of nature, which must therefore be accepted, and Genesis must be reinterpreted to suit this and other concepts held by evolutionists.

Such ‘facts of nature’, in their view, are a source of revelation on a par with the Bible. For example, Dr Hugh Ross writes, ‘The facts of nature may be likened to a sixty-seventh book of the Bible’.7

The problem with this idea, now being enthusiastically embraced by many leading evangelicals, comes when one has to face up to the reality that all such ‘facts’ can only ever be the interpretations and conclusions of fallible, finite people, biased by nature against their Maker.

Many who have been swayed by such attempts to harmonize the Bible with evolutionism will have to hunt around for a new ‘interpretation’ of Genesis if (or perhaps one should say when) the big bang is discarded by the secular world in their lifetime. Of course, such abandonment would only be undertaken once an alternative concept had been thought up, one which fitted the data at least well enough to continue to assist an unbelieving world in its vain attempt to try to explain the origin of the world without God.8"
(Taken from AnswersinGenesis.com)

#15 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 27 April 2005 - 10:46 PM

I would like you to read this.
Recent Cosmic Microwave Background Data Supports Creationist Cosmologies

<snip>
(Taken from AnswersinGenesis.com)

View Post


Ok It will take a bit of time to read, in the meanwhile see if you can find the same article in the scientific mainstream and post that also, we can then do a comparison.

#16 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 27 April 2005 - 11:19 PM

So, chance, an explosion was caused by nothing? That is physically impossible.

View Post



An explosion being caused by nothing may be impossible. However, we do not know if a rapid expansion of space/time needs a cause or not. Before tackling Big Bang theory you're going to need to get your head around the fact that it is extremely likely that there might not necessarily be a needed cause-effect relationship. Effects can and do happen with no cause.

Radioactive decay...there may be an underlying reason why something is undergoing radioactive decay, there is no reason why any given nucleus will decay. We know that there is a 50% chance it will have decayed within a day (its halflife), but as to why it does or does not decay in that period....there is no reason. It just happens.

When I first heard about this, I rejected it outright as being absurd. Surely, I reasoned, it is simply because we do not have complete information. If we had fuller understanding, we would know the reason why that nucleus decayed, and we would be able to predict it. Unfortunately, further investigation reveals this might be a false hope.

Either way, some effects might not have causes...and effects that occur that bring into existence time itself (and thus the linearity needed for cause-effect) are an excellent candidate for not having a cause. If you can make the mental leap to accept that 'God not only plays dice with the universe, but sometimes He throws them where they cannot be seen' then you can start to comprehend the extremely complicated topic of the beginning of space and time.

#17 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 28 April 2005 - 12:54 AM

Quantised redshifts. Your first clue about this should be the dates. This was first proposed 30 years ago, the last significant research done on it was 14 years ago. The Big Bang theory hasn't been thrown out yet - so what gives?

To start with, this phenomenon only seems to apply to certain types of galaxies in certain conditions. It looks like it might be a measurement issue. Here is a page with a map of the universe:

Universe

Data from surveys of galaxies show the universe to be clumpy and uneven.



From your post:

. Now, in a major study of more than 200 galaxies, using very sensitive equipment


200 galaxies is not a major study. Its an absolutely tiny, insignificant study using an amazlingly small sample size (the diagram I linked to demonstrated 11,000 galaxies). If you look at this pHD thesis (With a sample size of 220,000 galaxies (1,000 times more than the 'major study' cited)), which concludes:

. Recent works have reported such an effect in small samples. No such periodicity is found in the largest, most well defined sample tested to date.


Hope that helps, I'll look into it a little more, and then I'll examine the link that you posted.

#18 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 28 April 2005 - 07:33 AM

In my previous phd link, I forgot to add the primary source which is This survey (221,414 galaxies).

Anyway, onto the AiG article Recent Cosmic Microwave Background data supports creationist cosmologies. This is a bit of a heavy read at first, but as I started it, I noticed the same kind of writing as I have begun to predict from Creationists. To be fair, I haven't fully read through it all and digested it, but here is an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about:

These CMB observations are consistent with the general relativistic creationist models of Humphreys8 and Gentry,9 which explain the current state of the universe within a creationist timeframe. However, they are inconsistent with all big bang cosmologies.


First of all - it proclaims that the observations (which appear to be older than The 2dFGRS survey), are consistent with creationist models without explaining what they are or how they are consistent. Then it says that they are all inconsistent with all big bang cosmologies without explaining how. This is a style of writing I see a lot, especially at AiG, where the author proclaims something as is, doesn't explain themselves, and then goes onto some other thing. Maybe I'm being unfair, but its hard to read these papers when they are written like this...I like my conclusions to come at the end not at the beginning - a summary is OK, but the two shouldn't be confused with one another. Anyway, that's a rant in its own right.

In both creationist models the matter distribution is bounded, while space may or may not be. The red-shift, too, may show we are in a preferred frame of reference. The Cosmological Principle, which assumes that the universe is unbounded, is an evolutionary assumption—an untestable hypothesis. Gentry's model explains red-shifts, CMB and the paucity of quasars past red-shift, z = 4, in a static space-time.9 It is a finite universe model consistent with all observational data.



The Cosmological Principle is a little more complicated than that. What is amusing is that the CP is empircally based. Creationists often get upset because there isn't empirical evidence for this or that, but CP is an empirical principle. Have a look at the Principle here. The whole unbounded thing is pretty much a definition issue, rather than an untestable hypothesis. To quote from the page I just linked:

By definition, all discussion of the characteristics of the Universe must face the fact that the Universe has to contain the properties of everything. Thus, the term `edge' of the Universe assumes that there exists something that is not contained in the Universe. Invoking an outside property the the Universe (an edge or outside to the Universe) is logically inconsistent since, by definition, the Universe must contain everything....the Universe must be boundless. This does not necessary mean that the Universe is infinite, although this is the simplest solution. Notice also that space is not a receptacle for the Universe, space is physical and is contained with the Universe.


Anyway - I'm currently not impressed with the article, but I will continue digging into it to see if they have anything to say. I think the biggest problem with it might just be the data is out of date now.

#19 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 28 April 2005 - 01:48 PM

ManhattanProject Well and truly beaten to the punch by Modulous on Quantised redshifts or redshift Periodicities (fist time I have actually heard of this argument). Anyhow, here is another article that dismisses the claimed effect, 2 Degree Field of View survey, please have a read and post your conclusion.

As for the linked article you posted I must admit that I am having a tough time understanding it, as it seems to be an intermediate document missing a proper introduction and conclusion, just leaps into math without much explanation of why this or that is or is not appropriate. Do you have an opinion on the link you posted? What do you think it is claiming.

#20 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 28 April 2005 - 07:24 PM

I am sorry, I copied the wrong link. Here is the correct one. Our Galaxy is the center of the universe, 'quantized' red shifts show

View Post


From the ‘Our galaxy is the centre of the universe’ link

Today, most cosmologists think that the trend line in Figures 3 and 4 represents such an expansion redshift, not a Doppler shift.5,6 However, astronomers still find it convenient to describe redshifts with ‘equivalent velocities’, as if they were caused by a Doppler shift. Unfortunately, that practice has confused the public, the media, and even undergraduate astronomy students into thinking of the redshifts as being caused mainly by velocities.


I don’t understand the argument above. The Doppler effect is observed when there is relative motion between observer and target, if the universe is expanding there is relative motion, thus an observed Doppler effect. Yes? (Note gravitation can also cause redshift, but this is not being addressed in this chapter).

Figure 4 shows more recent data on the redshift-distance relation out to much greater distances.7 Deviations from the trend line would be caused not by expansion, but by other phenomena, such as the Doppler effect. For example, galaxy M31 in Andromeda appears to be moving toward our galaxy with a ‘local’ velocity of about 100 km/s,8 producing a Doppler blue shift larger than the small expansion redshift we would expect from such a nearby object, only about 2 million light years away.


Russell Humphreys, is confusing and mixing terms, galaxies that are edge-on (or some significant angle) have both blue and red shifted spiral arms (or red and less red) depending on the spiral arm being measured, this is how galactic rotational can be measured by the way. In addition M31 along with other dwarf galaxies and our own milky way form part of the ‘local group’. The local group is gravitationally locked bunch of galaxies rotating about one another thus the whole local group is unaffected by the universe expanding. This is really basic stuff that should not have got past what ever qualified for peer review by AiG.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users