Jump to content


Photo

Problems With Big Bang.


  • Please log in to reply
180 replies to this topic

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 July 2009 - 04:34 AM

Origins of the universe. Where did it come from?

Creation by a Creator is one explanation.

Explosion is another (Big Bang).

The problems with Big Bang are many.

1) Where did the matter come from (solid, liquid, and gas)?
2) How do you create energy when energy cannot be created or destroyed?
What energy?
a) The "spin" of all the matter.
B) The "explosion" that expanded space.
Two things where energy had to come from a source. If there is no source (no empirical answer), then it has to be created.
3) How does one break all known laws to compress all known matter in the universe?
Attached File  stars_planets1.jpg   11.36KB   44 downloads
Which includes stars planets and galaxies, and all three types of matter, into a dot?
Posted Image
When science cannot even take a glass of water and compress it into a dot. But yet it is believed that all the liquid and solids in the universe was compressed in a dot?

Example: Gas, when compressed, goes through a phase transition. It will either phase into a solid, semi-solid, or liquid. When it phases it cannot be compressed anymore.

Science however, claims that it can, even though it cannot be proven, shown, or observed.

This is what I call: Breaking all known laws to "make" a theory work. Which by the way is cheating.

Example: If while trying to prove you could compress a glass of water into a dot. What laws would you have to break to do so? And then ask yourself how would you actually break a law that cannot be broken? It's like saying you can make water boil at different temps. without changing any of the conditions of the test. How would you accomplish this?

4) Another problem with Big Bang, is what causes order in chaos? Laws do. So where did the laws come from and how did they balance themselves between one another to be able to work together?

http://en.wikipedia....ed_after_people
http://en.wikipedia....laws_in_science

Without laws, the Big Bang would be in chaos even today. But because the origins of laws cannot be empirically answered, the only answer available is a law giver. But again, like the eternal universe where matter comes from, an intelligent Creator is taboo in science. So the question is: What are the origins of the laws of the universe, and how did they adjust themselves to work together?

#2 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 28 July 2009 - 05:31 AM

Without laws, the Big Bang would be in chaos even today.


Who's saying it isn't?

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 July 2009 - 07:04 AM

So life can exist in chaos?

And why only address one porblem?

#4 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 28 July 2009 - 07:40 AM

Who's saying it isn't?

View Post

Can you observe, test and demonstrate chaos? Please show us the scientific method that can repeat and verify the principles of chaos. ;)

To believe we are in chaos is to reject reality willfully.

#5 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 28 July 2009 - 09:23 AM

Origins of the universe. Where did it come from?

Creation by a Creator is one explanation.

Explosion is another (Big Bang).

View Post


The big bang wasn't an explosion. At least, not in the conventional sense of the word anyway.

The problems with Big Bang are many.

1) Where did the matter come from (solid, liquid, and gas)?

View Post


Matter came into existence about 379,000 years after the formation of the universe when it had cooled to the point that electrons could combine with the baryons that were around to form hydrogen, deuterium, helium and a little bit of lithium. There were no liquids or solids around at that time.

2) How do you create energy when energy cannot be created or destroyed?

View Post


I don't know. I would have thought that would have been more of a problem for creationists that it would be for cosmologists.

What energy?
a) The "spin" of all the matter.
B) The "explosion" that expanded space.
Two things where energy had to come from a source. If there is no source (no empirical answer), then it has to be created.

View Post


A) Are you talking about angular momentum here?

B) Are you refering to inflation theory here?

3) How does one break all known laws to compress all known matter in the universe?

View Post


I don't know. During the Planck epoch it's highly probably that the effects of quantum gravity need to be included into the theory to make accurate predictions there.

Which includes stars planets and galaxies, and all three types of matter, into a dot?
Posted Image
When science cannot even take a glass of water and compress it into a dot. But yet it is believed that all the liquid and solids in the universe was compressed in a dot?

Example: Gas, when compressed, goes through a phase transition. It will either phase into a solid, semi-solid, or liquid. When it phases it cannot be compressed anymore.

Science however, claims that it can, even though it cannot be proven, shown, or observed.

View Post


Have you seen any of the research into black holes? What phase would you say the hydrogen gas is in there?

This is what I call: Breaking all known laws to "make" a theory work. Which by the way is cheating.

Example: If while trying to prove you could compress a glass of water into a dot. What laws would you have to break to do so? And then ask yourself how would you actually break a law that cannot be broken? It's like saying you can make water boil at different temps. without changing any of the conditions of the test. How would you accomplish this?

4) Another problem with Big Bang, is what causes order in chaos? Laws do. So where did the laws come from and how did they balance themselves between one another to be able to work together?

http://en.wikipedia....ed_after_people
http://en.wikipedia....laws_in_science

Without laws, the Big Bang would be in chaos even today. But because the origins of laws cannot be empirically answered, the only answer available is a law giver. But again, like the eternal universe where matter comes from, an intelligent Creator is taboo in science. So the question is: What are the origins of the laws of the universe, and how did they adjust themselves to work together?

View Post


I don't know where the laws came from. Saying they came from a "law giver" doesn't really help answer how the laws of physics came into existence.

#6 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 28 July 2009 - 10:26 AM

Who's saying it isn't?

View Post


Seeing that chaos is the state of complete disorder and confusion, I’ll take a stab and say “I say it isn’t”!

#7 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 28 July 2009 - 10:41 AM

The big bang wasn't an explosion.  At least, not in the conventional sense of the word anyway.

View Post


Is this a supposition or a fact Jason? If you’re claiming it’s a fact, may I see the pictures please? If you can provide pictures then we can end the debate now, and you win!

Matter came into existence about 379,000 years after the formation of the universe when it had cooled to the point that electrons could combine with the baryons that were around to form hydrogen, deuterium, helium and a little bit of lithium.  There were no liquids or solids around at that time.

View Post


379,000 years? Where did that number come from Jason? I’d like to see some evidence of these concrete assertions you’re making.

Have you seen any of the research into black holes?  What phase would you say the hydrogen gas is in there?

View Post


Have you ever seen a black hole and taken the opportunity to test it Jason?

I don't know where the laws came from.  Saying they came from a "law giver" doesn't really help answer how the laws of physics came into existence.

View Post


All laws come from a law giver Jason. Are there any laws that you know of that you can prove didn’t come from a law giver?

#8 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 28 July 2009 - 11:48 AM

I have big problems with black holes, because people like to say they've been tested, and that we know tons about them. So people make models of black holes, and test them... then they claim they actually tested a black hole. The problem is they've NEVER been close enough to one to even BEGIN to make a model that's even accurate enough to be called a black hole.

You can't test something that isn't available for someone to lay hands on and test. Anything but is just guessing and assuming. Same goes for any model of any real thing that exist. The MAJOR problem with a black hole is that NO ONE has EVER been close enough to one to even begin to know what it truly is to even BEGIN to create an accuate testable model of one.

#9 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 28 July 2009 - 05:22 PM

So life can exist in chaos?

View Post


I don't see why not. Perhaps things would be clearer if you defined what you think chaos is. Dee has given an okay example, do you agree?

chaos is the state of complete disorder and confusion


And why only address one porblem?

View Post


Honestly? Because the rest of your post showed such a lack of understanding about the Big Bang I didn't think it was worth the time. Sorry, I know that's harsh but you asked.

I also thought it was the biggest assumption you made, and I wanted to know why.

Regards,

Arch.

#10 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 28 July 2009 - 05:32 PM

Is this a supposition or a fact Jason? If you’re claiming it’s a fact, may I see the pictures please? If you can provide pictures then we can end the debate now, and you win!
...
Have you ever seen a black hole and taken the opportunity to test it Jason?

View Post


Ah, the good old "if you didn't see it you can't know it" argument. I'm rather amazed how you always say "science doesn't need direct observation", until it suits your purposes to return to the former one. At least your consistently inconsistent ;)

All laws come from a law giver Jason. Are there any laws that you know of that you can prove didn’t come from a law giver?

View Post


And a similar appeal. The "you can't prove it didn't come from God, therefore it must have come from God" argument. No, we can't prove laws didn't come from a law giver, but a lack of evidence is no reason to assume they did.

Regards,

Arch.

#11 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 July 2009 - 05:39 AM

The big bang wasn't an explosion.  At least, not in the conventional sense of the word anyway.


It would seem from a search that science cannot make up it's mind about the subject. The reason it's being changed from an explosion to an absolute expansion is because of the problem of creating energy. Well motion requires energy as well. So the expansion is not a good work around, just an attempt to confuse people and try to make others look stupid for disagreeing.

http://www.google.co... bang explosion

Matter came into existence about 379,000 years after the formation of the universe when it had cooled to the point that electrons could combine with the baryons that were around to form hydrogen, deuterium, helium and a little bit of lithium.  There were no liquids or solids around at that time.


Regardless of what you claim there was to work around the most common problem, there has to be a source. Science has yet to prove something can come from nothing so until they do. The problem remains regardless of how it is rewritten.

I don't know.  I would have thought that would have been more of a problem for creationists that it would be for cosmologists.


Then the real reason the law was written is revealed. To deny creation, correct?

A)  Are you talking about angular momentum here?

B)  Are you refering to inflation theory here?
I don't know.  During the Planck epoch it's highly probably that the effects of quantum gravity need to be included into the theory to make accurate predictions there.


a) Nope. Never referred to spinning in a certain direction of objects is as same as the source. Motion requires energy therefore an energy source. What was that source?

B) How much plainer do I need to be?

Have you seen any of the research into black holes?  What phase would you say the hydrogen gas is in there?


How many phases are there?

I don't know where the laws came from.  Saying they came from a "law giver" doesn't really help answer how the laws of physics came into existence.

View Post


Not being able to explain a physical source does not help either. This is because balanced laws are not random laws. Just like an experiment cannot be random to get a specific result. You can dodge intelligence all you like. It is the only answer. But you deem no answer as better?

So nothing is better than something? At least we have an idea, you guys got zip.

#12 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 29 July 2009 - 07:10 AM

I don't see why not. Perhaps things would be clearer if you defined what you think chaos is. Dee has given an okay example, do you agree?
Honestly? Because the rest of your post showed such a lack of understanding about the Big Bang I didn't think it was worth the time. Sorry, I know that's harsh but you asked.

I also thought it was the biggest assumption you made, and I wanted to know why.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Arch, the "big bang" theory itself is an assumption, therefore to diminish the lack of direct physical evidence for it by saying someone else lacks understanding of it, is itself admitting a lack of understanding of it.


You can say, “based on my belief in support of the Big Bang theory, I find your opinion incorrect”. But, to accuse someone else of lacking understanding just because they disagree with your perception of a theory, is as much an an assumption.

#13 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 29 July 2009 - 11:43 AM

It would seem from a search that science cannot make up it's mind about the subject. The reason it's being changed from an explosion to an absolute expansion is because of the problem of creating energy. Well motion requires energy as well. So the expansion is not a good work around, just an attempt to confuse people and try to make others look stupid for disagreeing.

http://www.google.co... bang explosion

View Post


The first two results I got from that link you posted were

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang - Cached - Similar -

and

Was the Big Bang an Explosion? A look at how the universe was ...
The "Big Bang" is commonly described as an explosion, but this is not really a good analogy. In fact, the universe was created through an expansion of ...
astrophysics.suite101.com/.../the_universe_and_the_big_bang - Cached - Similar -

Regardless of what you claim there was to work around the most common problem, there has to be a source. Science has yet to prove something can come from nothing so until they do. The problem remains regardless of how it is rewritten.

View Post


There might be a definite source. However, we can both agree that the universe that scientists are gathering data from exists can't we?

I'm sure that scientists will eventually figure out what happened just before 10^-43 seconds after the universe started.

Then the real reason the law was written is revealed. To deny creation, correct?

View Post


I don't think that is correct. The law of conservation of mass and energy exists because the maths supports it.

a) Nope. Never referred to spinning in a certain direction of objects is as same as the source. Motion requires energy therefore an energy source. What was that source?

View Post


Is this your round about way of asking where the energy for the big bang came from? If it is, I don't know.

B) How much plainer do I need to be?

View Post


I'm not asking you to speak plainly. I'm asking you to be more specific here.

How many phases are there?

View Post


At least four. Solid, Liquid, Gas, and Plasma. That's not counting any of the really weird states of matter like Bose-Einstein condensates and the degenerate matter that makes up mass of white dwarf stars and neutron stars.

Not being able to explain a physical source does not help either. This is because balanced laws are not random laws. Just like an experiment cannot be random to get a specific result. You can dodge intelligence all you like. It is the only answer. But you deem no answer as better?

View Post


Not knowing how physical laws arise does not mean that we will never know how physical laws arise. Just guessing that they are the result of an intelligence does nothing to further our knowledge on the subject.

If scientists had just decided that the four fundamental forces had been designed just so, they would never have found out that the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force are actually the same force at high energies.

#14 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 July 2009 - 08:24 PM

The first two results I got from that link you posted were

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang - Cached - Similar -

and

Was the Big Bang an Explosion? A look at how the universe was ...
The "Big Bang" is commonly described as an explosion, but this is not really a good analogy. In fact, the universe was created through an expansion of ...
astrophysics.suite101.com/.../the_universe_and_the_big_bang - Cached - Similar -


Funny though you ignored the rest of the results. Which makes me curious. With all due respect, does ignoring something make a new reality? The reason I ask is because there were other sites that claimed big bang was an explosion.

When you define Big Bang, some of the definitions include an explosion.
http://www.google.co...efiner&ct=&cd=1

Then if you do a search and make Google use explosion in every result you get this:
http://www.google.co...4..."explosion"

What this means is that Big Bang has always been taught as an explosion. But because there is a law that says: matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Rather admit to being wrong, the theory is changed quietly and anyone who was taught the old one is made to look stupid so that science does not get degraced.

So let's take a look at what is taught through scientific videos. Was the Big Bang and expansion, or an explosion?

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HpFbUI7T6Yk&hl=en&fs=1&%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HpFbUI7T6Yk&hl=en&fs=1& type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7n2r0qOxJ6k&hl=en&fs=1&%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7n2r0qOxJ6k&hl=en&fs=1& type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

There might be a definite source.  However, we can both agree that the universe that scientists are gathering data from exists can't we?

I'm sure that scientists will eventually figure out what happened just before 10^-43 seconds after the universe started. 


Sounds like to me you would rather equivocate than answer anything on this subject.

I don't think that is correct.  The law of conservation of mass and energy exists because the maths supports it. 


Something not being able to be created or destroyed would require observation, testing, etc...

Is this your round about way of asking where the energy for the big bang came from?  If it is, I don't know.


Glad we got beyond that.

I'm not asking you to speak plainly.  I'm asking you to be more specific here.
At least four.  Solid, Liquid, Gas, and Plasma.  That's not counting any of the really weird states of matter like Bose-Einstein condensates and the degenerate matter that makes up mass of white dwarf stars and neutron stars.


So is plasma a different phase than solid liquid or gas?

Not knowing how physical laws arise does not mean that we will never know how physical laws arise.  Just guessing that they are the result of an intelligence does nothing to further our knowledge on the subject.


When one uses elimination to rid all things until one answer is left. The only one I can come up with that makes any sense, and answers all questions in this is: matter is eternal, and has an eternal source. This is because:

1) Non-eternal things have to have a source. Why? Science has not been able to prove or demonstrate that something can come from nothing. So either there is a source or we have to go with number 2.

2) That matter is eternal and the source is eternal. Which would mean there is a eternal parallel universe where all substance for this universe comes from.

If scientists had just decided that the four fundamental forces had been designed just so, they would never have found out that the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force are actually the same force at high energies.

View Post


So no laws are balanced, are all laws random chance? If you were to make a atom bomb, would it be by chance that it would work, or would the laws that govern such things "make" it work? And how would one change or break such laws?

#15 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 29 July 2009 - 08:38 PM

The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang - Cached - Similar -


Time and space has to exist to start with before it can be compressed,Jason.

#16 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 29 July 2009 - 08:52 PM

Not knowing how physical laws arise does not mean that we will never know how physical laws arise. Just guessing that they are the result of an intelligence does nothing to further our knowledge on the subject.


Rejecting the obvious conclusion that laws need a law giver until you have answers and die,is spirtual suicide.

How many millions have waited for a natural explanation,but now it's too late?

#17 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 30 July 2009 - 04:56 AM

Not knowing how physical laws arise does not mean that we will never know how physical laws arise.  Just guessing that they are the result of an intelligence does nothing to further our knowledge on the subject.

View Post


Is there evidence out there somewhere of a Law that wasn't given by a "Law Giver" Jason?

#18 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 30 July 2009 - 09:27 AM

Funny though you ignored the rest of the results. Which makes me curious. With all due respect, does ignoring something make a new reality? The reason I ask is because there were other sites that claimed big bang was an explosion.

When you define Big Bang, some of the definitions include an explosion.
http://www.google.co...efiner&ct=&cd=1

Then if you do a search and make Google use explosion in every result you get this:
http://www.google.co...4..."explosion"

What this means is that Big Bang has always been taught as an explosion. But because there is a law that says: matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Rather admit to being wrong, the theory is changed quietly and anyone who was taught the old one is made to look stupid so that science does not get degraced.

So let's take a look at what is taught through scientific videos. Was the Big Bang and expansion, or an explosion?

View Post


Like I said, it's not an explosion in the conventional sense. Explosion is a word used to convey a simplified version of the idea across.

Sounds like to me you would rather equivocate than answer anything on this subject.

View Post


I'm quite happy to answer any questions you have. Are you willing to listen?

Something not being able to be created or destroyed would require observation, testing, etc...

View Post


There's been quite a bit of observation and testing in that area. I could tell you about lab experiments or even show you the math. But visual aids are so much more impressive.

hfEMnx-Nz-w

Glad we got beyond that.

View Post


Me too ;)

So is plasma a different phase than solid liquid or gas?

View Post


Yes it is. In a plasma electrons are free to move about indepentantly of atoms they are normally bound to. Plasmas are electrically conductive and very different from the other phases of matter.

When one uses elimination to rid all things until one answer is left. The only one I can come up with that makes any sense, and answers all questions in this is: matter is eternal, and has an eternal source. This is because:

1) Non-eternal things have to have a source. Why? Science has not been able to prove or demonstrate that something can come from nothing. So either there is a source or we have to go with number 2.

2) That matter is eternal and the source is eternal. Which would mean there is a eternal parallel universe where all substance for this universe comes from.
So no laws are balanced, are all laws random chance? If you were to make a atom bomb, would it be by chance that it would work, or would the laws that govern such things "make" it work? And how would one change or break such laws?

View Post


Matter is not eternal. It can be transformed into energy (see the atom bomb video above) and vice versa (see Pair Production).

#19 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 30 July 2009 - 07:36 PM

Like I said, it's not an explosion in the conventional sense.  Explosion is a word used to convey a simplified version of the idea across.


Why must it be simplified? Expansion is just as easy to convey as an explosion. Here again I think this is science not wanting to admit they ignored a major basic law. And would rather make everyone else look stupid for their mistake.

I'm quite happy to answer any questions you have.  Are you willing to listen?


Listening is not the problem.

There's been quite a bit of observation and testing in that area.  I could tell you about lab experiments or even show you the math.  But visual aids are so much more impressive.


What was created?

Yes it is.  In a plasma electrons are free to move about indepentantly of atoms they are normally bound to.  Plasmas are electrically conductive and very different from the other phases of matter.


Is it solid, liquid, or gas? Falling into one of these categories makes it matter whether it's energy or not.

Matter is not eternal.  It can be transformed into energy (see the atom bomb video above) and vice versa (see Pair Production).

View Post


Then is it's not eternal, then it has to have a source at the beginning. What was that source? Did it just poof itself by the matter fairy? I say this because you are dodging the question.

#20 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 July 2009 - 12:56 AM

Is there evidence out there somewhere of a Law that wasn't given by a "Law Giver" Jason?

View Post


Yeah, the laws aren't given. They describe observations in the universe and exist at all times. Why didn't God give Moses Newton's laws when he gave him the 10 commandments???

Is it solid, liquid, or gas? Falling into one of these categories makes it matter whether it's energy or not.


It's plasma. It has it's own set of properties different from any other phase. When atoms making up a gas become ionized and you no longer have a gas.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users