How Did Matter Evolve For The Big Bang?

[Guest Admin3]

This is a branch off of who created God. So, where did the matter come from that exploded?

 

For God explains that He is the Alpha and Omega. And has always been. But science has yet to explain how this matter came to be. How can you compress matter into something the size of a dot on this page, when it is well known that certain things cannot be compressed beyond a certain point.

 

Example: I'd like to see someone take the water in our ocean and compress it to the size of a dot (.) on this page. Anyone?

 

Maybe that should be the 250,000 dollar challenge.

[chance 1]

This is a branch off of who created God. So, where did the matter come from that exploded?

 

For God explains that He is the Alpha and Omega. And has always been. But science has yet to explain how this matter came to be. How can you compress matter into something the size of a dot on this page, when it is well known that certain things cannot be compressed beyond a certain point.

 

Example: I'd like to see someone take the water in our ocean and compress it to the size of a dot (.) on this page. Anyone?

 

Maybe that should be the 250,000 dollar challenge.

4757[/snapback]

Temperature is the key. If one winds back the clock towards the big bang one can make certain valid assumptions. I.e.

 

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, thus:

 

The more stuff in a smaller space will raise the average temperature.

 

Liquids then solids vanish first as the temperature rises (all matter is gas).

 

Keep going and even matter cannot exist as a gas and the electrons break free (much like inside the sun now)

 

Reduce the volume even further and the rising temperature breaks down the sub atomic fundamental partials then into radiation (all that is left is light).

 

That’s about as far as ‘normal’ physics will take you. Before this point, which is less than one second after the big bang (if memory serves), the rules of physics break down.

[Guest Admin3]

Temperature is the key.  If one winds back the clock towards the big bang one can make certain valid assumptions. I.e.

 

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, thus:

 

The more stuff in a smaller space will raise the average temperature.

 

Liquids then solids vanish first as the temperature rises (all matter is gas).

 

Keep going and even matter cannot exist as a gas and the electrons break free (much like inside the sun now)

 

Reduce the volume even further and the rising temperature breaks down the sub atomic fundamental partials then into radiation (all that is left is light).

 

That’s about as far as ‘normal’ physics will take you. Before this point, which is less than one second after the big bang (if memory serves), the rules of physics break down.

4760[/snapback]

Valid: well grounded in logic or truth or having legal force.

 

Assumption: An axiom or statement, not necessarily true but put forward and taken to be true to enable further analysis of a hypothesis.

 

The problem with the use of these two words is that one states some kind of truth that is only grounded in logic. The other is more or less a educated guess that requires further analyasis. So my question would be: How would you analize this?

 

The subject of the big bang is basically based on the observation that everything seems to be moving away from a center point of origin.

 

Something to ponder.

Some would try and date the universe according to light years. How long it takes light to travel from an object to the earth. Problem is, with big bang, this won't work. If everything had a starting point. How long did it take for each object to get that far out?

 

Example:

 

@ big bang--->objects being thrown into space----->where objects are now.

 

Objects light------->reaches earth.

 

But unless the speed is known of how fast the objects moved to where they are now, then measuring the universe's age cannot be done this way, as so many have done.

 

Redshifts cannot determine speed of object. Only that said object is moving away.

 

Redshift: When the light an object emits is displaced toward the red end of the spectrum it is said to be redshifted. In general, photons of light that are emitted at a source at one energy and detected by an observer at a lower energy are redshifted. Often, the redshift of an object can be measured by examining atomic absorption or emission lines in its spectrum. Redshifts can be caused by the motion of a source away from an observer. For distant objects, redshifts can be caused by the expansion of the Universe.

 

 

And the question of where such matter for the big bang came from, will remain a mystery as much as the question: Who created God?

[chance 1]

Valid: well grounded in logic or truth or having legal force.

 

Assumption: An axiom or statement, not necessarily true but put forward and taken to be true to enable further analysis of a hypothesis.

 

The problem with the use of these two words is that one states some kind of truth that is only grounded in logic. The other is more or less a educated guess that requires further analyasis. So my question would be: How would you analize this?

Lets not over analyse how I write my sentences in this forum, I’m sure we are all guilty of a bit of poetic licence. Needless to say I attempt to do my best.

 

 

The subject of the big bang is basically based on the observation that everything seems to be moving away from a center point of origin.

No quite, the centre is not known, all objects move away from the earth from every direction, the further away in distance the faster that ‘relative’ motion away from. The big bang is not an explosion that we are familiar with on earth, it’s an expansion of space/time.

 

Something to ponder.

Some would try and date the universe according to light years. How long it takes light to travel from an object to the earth. Problem is, with big bang, this won't work. If everything had a starting point. How long did it take for each object to get that far out? Example:

 

@ big bang--->objects being thrown into space----->where objects are now.

 

Objects light------->reaches earth.

We see the universe how it was, not how it is, when astronomers look into deep space they are literally looking back in time also, so if one measures the distance to a distant galaxy using redshift, that measurement will be respective to the same period in time also, e.g. 1000 light years, but 1000 years ago.

 

 

 

But unless the speed is known of how fast the objects moved to where they are now, then measuring the universe's age cannot be done this way, as so many have done.

Speed, as Einstein has shown is relative, there is no ‘static’ point of reference where one can calculate some universal speed, all ‘speeds’ are relative to the observer (the earth).

 

Redshifts cannot determine speed of object. Only that said object is moving away.

correct.

 

Redshift: When the light an object emits is displaced toward the red end of the spectrum it is said to be redshifted. In general, photons of light that are emitted at a source at one energy and detected by an observer at a lower energy are redshifted. Often, the redshift of an object can be measured by examining atomic absorption or emission lines in its spectrum. Redshifts can be caused by the motion of a source away from an observer. For distant objects, redshifts can be caused by the expansion of the Universe.

correct.

 

 

And the question of where such matter for the big bang came from, will remain a mystery as much as the question: Who created God?

That’s an assumption, a discovery tomorrow or next decade could through new light on the nature of the big bang. Science can’t investigate God.

[Guest Admin3]

Lets not over analyse how I write my sentences in this forum, I’m sure we are all guilty of a bit of poetic licence. Needless to say I attempt to do my best.

I was not making fun of what you wrote, I was trying to understand why you used certain words that come close to being a oxymoron. Besides, I'm worse then most people in english. Was not my favorite subject .

[xdisciplex 0]

Example: I'd like to see someone take the water in our ocean and compress it to the size of a dot (.) on this page. Anyone?

 

 

Do they really believe everything was compressed to the size of a dot?

[Guest Admin3]

Do they really believe everything was compressed to the size of a dot? 

4856[/snapback]

Yep. In fact, anything compressed to that becomes back to solid. Also known as lattice, even all type of gases.

[xdisciplex 0]

Are these people nuts? I mean seriously. This is nothing but a bad joke. I don't understand how people can even take this theory seriously. It's so absurd. If it wasn't in our books and if it wasn't taught then everybody would laugh about it.

[Springer 5]

The "big bang" theory is a major embarrassment to science. To think that a hypothesis based on such flimsy evidence could be embraced so readily by so many seemingly educated people completely boggles my mind.

[xdisciplex 0]

I also don't really understand it. I guess people only pay so much attention to these theories because they assume that those scientists which come up with them know what they do.

What I noticed is that many atheists, I don't know if this is one of their tactics, are trying to make it look like evolutionists are simply too dumb to really understand the evolutionary theory and this is the reason why they think it's silly.

[chance 1]

Do they really believe everything was compressed to the size of a dot? 

4856[/snapback]

Any matter that falls into a black hole or say the surface of a neutron star would be compressed beyond that which the normal atoms can maintain their structure. The electrons are stripped off and the nucleuses are forced together. Indeed as an atom is mostly made up of empty space an ocean could indeed be reduced to the size of a dot in a black hole (i.e the singularity), while on a neutron star I suspect the ocean would take up more space than a dot.