Big bang

[mitch4fun]

Do ya think that the big bang and the reason scientists can think of anythink substantial before then is becouse that particular event was god just saying "let there be light"?

 

[Pats]

woa.. I've tried to read up on the theory of the Big Bang before.

It's a lot of heavy physics. But, I thought the gist of it was more centered on the idea that the universe is ever expanding than the idea that existance began with a literal big bang. I think that's a misconception? But I'm sure some one who knows more about this will come along and post.

In the mean time, here's a good link I got on the Big Bang from a physacist who said it was a good place for laymen to read about it.

 

[shernren]

The reason scientists find it very difficult to probe beyond the Big Bang's "t = 0" moment is because the physics simply won't let them. Right now we simply don't know enough about how the universe and spacetime behave on very, very small scales to predict what could have led to a Big Bang or what could have happened before that.

Pats you're right in that the Big Bang really flows directly out of the idea that the universe is expanding. Google "Hubble's Law" and consider its logical implications.

 

[Pats]

Pats you're right in that the Big Bang really flows directly out of the idea that the universe is expanding. Google "Hubble's Law" and consider its logical implications.

Will check into that. Thnx, Shernren

 

[mitch4fun]

Universe expanding from what? Big bang sparked by what? when will the expanding stop? we can't explain these things becouse we can't comprehend them becouse that's gods domain not ours, ie how can we comprehend whats before creation when we diddn't ceate it and we can after it? If we fiddled with things like that we could end up in any mess

 

[chaoschristian]

Universe expanding from what? Big bang sparked by what? when will the expanding stop? we can't explain these things becouse we can't comprehend them becouse that's gods domain not ours, ie how can we comprehend whats before creation when we diddn't ceate it and we can after it? If we fiddled with things like that we could end up in any mess

The purpose of Big Bang theory within the field of physics is not to explain First Cause, but to describe and explain how and why the expansion of space-time is taking place.

As shernren point out at t=0 modern physics fails.

When will space time stop expanding? IIRC the latest dominant notion is that it won't.

And while all of Creation is God's domain, do not forget that God appointed us stewards of Creation. In order to fulfill that responsibility we must seek to understand Creation through the gifts God has given us: reason and science.

 

[stumpjumper]

Hmm.

I remember reading something about the inexplicable low entropy at the beginning of the universe and how it was part of a cosmological argument...

Also, there are a few interesting findings from the Wilkinson Microwave probe and how that relates to universal origins... I find that the intelligence, beauty, purpose, and comprehensibity of the universe are good arguments for God too...

 

[LoG]

Universe expanding from what? Big bang sparked by what? when will the expanding stop? we can't explain these things becouse we can't comprehend them becouse that's gods domain not ours, ie how can we comprehend whats before creation when we diddn't ceate it and we can after it? If we fiddled with things like that we could end up in any mess

God did tell us about it though:

Who alone stretches out the heavens, And tramples down the waves of the sea; (Job 9:8)
Covering Thyself with light as with a cloak, Stretching out heaven like a tent curtain. (Psalms 104:2)
It is He who sits above the vault of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. (Isaiah 40:22)
Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk in it, (Isaiah 42:5)

It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom; And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens. (Jeremiah 10:12)
It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom, And by His understanding He stretched out the heavens. (Jeremiah 51:15)
The burden of the word of the Lord concerning Israel. Thus declares the Lord who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him, (Zechariah 12:1)

He didn't leave any doubt as to who the First Cause was.

 

[shernren]

Also, there are a few interesting findings from the Wilkinson Microwave probe and how that relates to universal origins... I find that the intelligence, beauty, purpose, and comprehensibity of the universe are good arguments for God too...

Yes, but the sheer size of the universe alone is a pretty good argument against God having started it all a mere 6,000 years ago.

 

[stumpjumper]

Yeah well that and creation then would have been during some obscure Chinese dynasty

 

[jereth]

woa.. I've tried to read up on the theory of the Big Bang before.

It's a lot of heavy physics. But, I thought the gist of it was more centered on the idea that the universe is ever expanding than the idea that existance began with a literal big bang. I think that's a misconception? But I'm sure some one who knows more about this will come along and post.

In the mean time, here's a good link I got on the Big Bang from a physacist who said it was a good place for laymen to read about it.

As I understand it, Big bang is an inevitable consequence of Einstein's General theory of Relativity (formulated 1915). If GR is wrong, Big Bang is wrong -- simple as that.

 

[mitch4fun]

Einstein also said hat there must be an equel, oposite reaction to evry action, so if you follow just einstein on this the universe can't expnad forever can it?

 

[shernren]

Einstein also said hat there must be an equel, oposite reaction to evry action, so if you follow just einstein on this the universe can't expnad forever can it?

Uhh, that's Newton, his Third Law talks about equal and opposing forces. I'm not sure why you raise this. It is true that within a Newtonian universe it would be next to impossible to engineer a "forever" expansion, given the way gravity works. I might be wrong though, and I doubt that's what you mean.

As I understand it, Big bang is an inevitable consequence of Einstein's General theory of Relativity (formulated 1915). If GR is wrong, Big Bang is wrong -- simple as that.

Not really ... like I said, the Big Bang is fundamentally an observation. Find out what "Hubble's Law" is and see for yourself why the truth of Hubble's Law all but demands a Big Bang.

The role of GR is that it provides a mechanism for the Big Bang to have occurred. GR is the "how" of the Big Bang, not the "why". GR basically prescribes a set of equations (difficult ones, too) which dictate how the arrangement of matter affects the structure of space-time and vice-versa. Within that set of equations there is a large family of solutions (the Robertson-Walker solutions? OTOH) which describe a universe which starts from a singluarity and then expands outwards. Or, the Big Bang can satisfy the requirements of GR. But those aren't the only solutions, for example Godel found a solution with a finite, static universe which is slowly revolving where one can travel back in time simply by traveling around the universe. AFAIK, GR explains what we see, instead of predicting it. To predict our universe from first principles would require extremely heavy quantum physics and a detailed knowledge of the structure of the Big Bang at t=0, something science has not yet achieved (and may never achieve).

 

[jereth]

So we can say that Big Bang is the inevitable child of the marriage between Hubble's Law and GR. If Big Bang is wrong (as creationists insist), then either Hubble's Law or GR must be in error. But GR has been experimentally proven over and over, so the problem must be with Hubble's Law.

I guess there are conceivable reasons why distant galaxies could be redshifted apart from expansion. But nothing that astronomers would take seriously.

 

[Smurfboy]

Here's the major problem for Big Bang theory. The Big Bang produce only three of the lightest chemical elements: Hydrogen, Helium, and Lithium. According to study, lot of stars, (especially Supernova), containing heavy chemical elements such as Carbon, Iron, oxygen, lead (pb), etc. If the Big Bang is true, then where does heavy chemical elements come from? And how/where did it began? It cannot be in early first generation of the Stars, as Evolutionists might suggest, because heavy elements required extremely high temperatures, i.e. Supernova, to occurred. Furthermore, the lights won't start to transmit toward the Earth unless heavy elements are available. Marcus Chown, a Scientist from other site, explains, "…according to theory, the ‘big bang’ made mainly hydrogen, with a little helium—the other elements supposedly formed inside stars. Helium can't form molecules at all, so the only molecule that could be formed would be molecular hydrogen (H2). Even this is easily destroyed by ultraviolet light, and usually needs dust grains to form—and dust grains require heavier elements. So the only coolant left is atomic hydrogen, and this would leave gas clouds over a hundred times too hot to collapse.”

So to say that the universe is about 14 billions may be inaccurate because Evolutionists doesn't know how long does it takes nor when did it start for heavy elements (hence the light) to appear as soon as supposedly Big Bang starts. Under the Laws of Thermodynamics, everything is dying. Everything has it own cause and effect. Since everything is dying, I would assume that light must be included. Perhaps, the word “dying” is inappropriate term to use for light, however I will replace it with the words “slowing down”. Couple of research indicated that light used to travel thousand of times faster in the past than today. It may seem constant to us now, however for more than 200+ years of study and observes, the data has showed that the light did, indeed, travel faster in the past. If that’s true, then I’d imagine that the light could have been nearly infinity from the very beginning, making a long light-years of billions into only several thousand years. (I'm a follower of Young-Earth Creationists and I support Answer In Genesis completely). There are a lot of flaws in the theory of Big Bang and should be dismiss completely.

 

[Melethiel]

Under the Laws of Thermodynamics, everything is dying.

That's not what the Laws of Thermodynamics state. According to the second law, which is what I assume you're referring to, everything tends to go to a state of greater overall disorder (entropy) in a closed system.

 

[Silent Bob]

Furthermore, the lights won't start to transmit toward the Earth unless heavy elements are available.

Why?

So the only coolant left is atomic hydrogen, and this would leave gas clouds over a hundred times too hot to collapse.”

Stars emit their energy which is transferred to the surface by plasma. So plasma IS the coolant.

Under the Laws of Thermodynamics,

99.9% the appearance of the word "Thermodynamics" in this forum means trouble!

everything is dying.

And this is not the exception.

Since everything is dying, I would assume that light must be included.

You mean the particles that carry light or electromagnetism in general?

Perhaps, the word “dying” is inappropriate term to use for light, however I will replace it with the words “slowing down”.

Perhaps you should state the law you are referring to and explain where you found "dying" or slowing down in the first place.

Couple of research indicated that light used to travel thousand of times faster in the past than today.

Author's name, title, date and ISBN (if available) please.

It may seem constant to us now, however for more than 200+ years of study and observes, the data has showed that the light did, indeed, travel faster in the past. If that’s true, then I’d imagine that the light could have been nearly infinity from the very beginning, making a long light-years of billions into only several thousand years.

If that was true then the implications would be more far reaching than you can imagine.

(I'm a follower of Young-Earth Creationists and I support Answer In Genesis completely).

I had my doubts but the first sentence of the second paragraph made it clear. It could be worst you could be a Hovind believer.

There are a lot of flaws in the theory of Big Bang and should be dismiss completely.

You might want to do a better job explaining the flaws before applying for the Nobel.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

then where does heavy chemical elements come from?

take a few moments (after all the people you are critisizing took years to study these things) to google:
then where does heavy chemical elements come from
and you would find:

We'll start with oxygen. This is the heaviest of the three CNO elements, but the one whose site of birth is probably best understood. Most of the oxygen in the present-day Universe was produced in nuclear reactions just before or during the spectacular stellar explosions known as Type II supernovae. These occur at the end of the life of stars that began with about eight times or more mass than the Sun. The amount of energy that can flow through a star, from its nuclear generation in the star's hot core and up to the surface, is strongly dependent on the mass of the star.

from: http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/14/article1/article1.html

and you would know that the heavy elements form in supernovas.

There are a lot of flaws in the theory of Big Bang and should be dismiss completely.


i suspect that it is ignorance driving your desire to dismiss this science completely, not a deep understanding of it that resulted in a knowledgable critic of it, given the elementary mistaken idea i referred to above.

 

[Jadis40]

One of the best classes I ever took was astronomy when I was in high school - we went more in depth than I did in the introductory class in college.

My teacher explained the proton-proton chain - this is what powers a star like our sun:


The main branch of the PP chain consists of the following reactions:

1. Two mass-1 isotopes of hydrogen undergo a simultaneous fusion and beta decay to produce a positron, a neutrino, and a mass-2 isotope of hydrogen (deuterium).
2. The deuterium reacts with another mass-1 isotope of hydrogen to produce Helium-3 and a gamma-ray.
3. Two helium-3 isotopes produced in separate implementations of steps (1) and (2) fuse to form a Helium-4 nucleus plus two protons.

The net effect is to convert hydrogen to helium, with the energy released going into the particles and gamma-rays produced at each step of the sequence.
Rates for the PP Chain

The average time required for a nucleus to undergo each step of this sequence in a typical stellar interior is indicated in the figure shown above. Thus, for example, a hydrogen nucleus waits on the average 1 billion years before it undergoes an interaction with another hydrogen nucleus to initiate the sequence! Since all other steps require much less time than this, it is this initial step that controls the rate of the reaction.
This incredibly small rate nevertheless accounts for the luminosities of normal stars because there are so many hydrogen atoms in the core of a star that at any one instant many are undergoing the reactions of the PP chain.

A star, like our sun, is estimated to be 5 billion years old...so it's in the mid-point of it's life when the process is the most stable.

Links:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/energy/ppchain.html

Basically what powers our sun is nuclear fusion on a massive scale.

I also would recommend checking out study into the Cosmic Microwave Background - it's the most studied and documented proof of the big bang out there.

http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/cmb_intro.html

 

[shernren]

If that’s true, then I’d imagine that the light could have been nearly infinity from the very beginning, making a long light-years of billions into only several thousand years. (I'm a follower of Young-Earth Creationists and I support Answer In Genesis completely).

If you support AiG completely, you should know that their resident astrophysicist Dr. Russell Humphreys has completely abandoned and rejected the c-decay theory proposed by Barry Setterfield (which you are supporting) in favour of his own white-hole cosmology. C-decay is only substantiated by older measurements which can be attributed to high systematic and random error within earlier experimental setups.

Also, all that Second Law stuff is quite nonsense - even calling it "entropy tends to increase towards a fixed maximum in a closed system" as Melethiel did is quite problematic because creationists have done an excellent job at making people believe that entropy is simply any sort of chaos (so that even a mutation is called an "increase in entropy", which strictly it probably is, but in a very different way than normally assumed). The easiest way to state the Second Law (AFAIK) is that "moving heat from a colder object to a hotter object requires an energy input", which makes it abundantly clear that it has nothing to do with ideas like c-decay or biological complexity.