If big-bang happened, why aren`t everything scorched?

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,162
16,006
Flyoverland
✟1,223,635.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
There is the alternate view. An infinite universe with no beginning or end.
That was the commonest view before the red shift was discovered. It's pretty well dead now. The newer one, with zero evidence is for a pulsating universe which bangs then contracts then bangs and contracts endlessly.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That was the commonest view before the red shift was discovered. It's pretty well dead now. The newer one, with zero evidence is for a pulsating universe which bangs then contracts then bangs and contracts endlessly.
Oh, there are a lot of newer theories to compete with the plain vanilla big bang/inflation model.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,517
9,486
✟236,266.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
When it comes to the creation of the universe I'll just keep an open mind and not to take all knowing mans word for it.
I apologise for lack of clarity in my posts. To be clear, I was not suggesting, would never suggest, never have suggested and abhor the suggestion that man is all knowing. The reverse is true. However man - with an intellect gifted by God, if you believe in God - has demonstrated the ability through commitment, logic, observation, hypothesis formation, experimentation and other forms of testing, to gain deep insights into the nature of the universe.

There are three broad categories associated with the Big Bang Theory

1. Big Bang Theory itself. A theory that has thus far passed every test, is acknowledged as by far the most probable explanation for a vast range of observations by thousands of scientists directly involved in such research, and by tens of thousands more with sufficient education to evaluate their findings.
2. There are handful of speculations and minor hypotheses that lack substantial support and are generally refuted, or at least contradicted by one or more established findings.
3. There are fanciful explanations lacking detail, evidence, support, logic or any form of validation, promoted by individuals with no training, or natural ability in the application of the scientific method.

Now which of these categories of explanation would make sense to you?

Let me put it another way. Imagine you have a serious medical condition that requires surgery. Do you
1. Go to an established surgeon at a well run, up-to date, professionally equipped hospital?
2. Go to a pre-med student who dropped out of college, but says he has some books on the subject.
3. Go to the neighbourhood car mechanic who says he is pretty sure there is nothing wrong with you.

It seems you favour Option 3 in at least the first instance.

Oh and thanks for calling my thoughts foolish, pointless and irrelevant. Very kind of you.
No. I said to reject the findings of thousands of scientists who have actually investigated the matter is foolish, pointless and irrelevant.

Irrelevant, because your rejection of Big Bang Theory will not change reality.
Pointless, because your rejection of Big Bang Theory will be ignored by those who are properly informed about the theory.
Foolish, because it is Option 3 in the examples presented above. Do you really want me to praise you for ignoring the work of thousands of intelligent, committed, sincere, hard working individuals just because it doesn't sit well with you? Do you really think I should say that such an action on your part is a sensible one? Do you truly want me to lie to you and pretend your rejection is sound? I don't do lies. Not on something this important.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,852
3,887
✟273,723.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Perhaps slightly off topic but of interest.
While cosmologists are primarily interested in the phenomenological or effects that have been observed in the Universe, it is the particle physicists that attempt to explain the causes including how the Universe evolved.
One major contribution made by particle physics is that we live in left handed Universe.

Parity.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Mantishand

Active Member
May 31, 2018
326
317
Murica
✟49,972.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I apologise for lack of clarity in my posts. To be clear, I was not suggesting, would never suggest, never have suggested and abhor the suggestion that man is all knowing. The reverse is true. However man - with an intellect gifted by God, if you believe in God - has demonstrated the ability through commitment, logic, observation, hypothesis formation, experimentation and other forms of testing, to gain deep insights into the nature of the universe.

There are three broad categories associated with the Big Bang Theory

1. Big Bang Theory itself. A theory that has thus far passed every test, is acknowledged as by far the most probable explanation for a vast range of observations by thousands of scientists directly involved in such research, and by tens of thousands more with sufficient education to evaluate their findings.
2. There are handful of speculations and minor hypotheses that lack substantial support and are generally refuted, or at least contradicted by one or more established findings.
3. There are fanciful explanations lacking detail, evidence, support, logic or any form of validation, promoted by individuals with no training, or natural ability in the application of the scientific method.

Now which of these categories of explanation would make sense to you?

Let me put it another way. Imagine you have a serious medical condition that requires surgery. Do you
1. Go to an established surgeon at a well run, up-to date, professionally equipped hospital?
2. Go to a pre-med student who dropped out of college, but says he has some books on the subject.
3. Go to the neighbourhood car mechanic who says he is pretty sure there is nothing wrong with you.

It seems you favour Option 3 in at least the first instance.

No. I said to reject the findings of thousands of scientists who have actually investigated the matter is foolish, pointless and irrelevant.

Irrelevant, because your rejection of Big Bang Theory will not change reality.
Pointless, because your rejection of Big Bang Theory will be ignored by those who are properly informed about the theory.
Foolish, because it is Option 3 in the examples presented above. Do you really want me to praise you for ignoring the work of thousands of intelligent, committed, sincere, hard working individuals just because it doesn't sit well with you? Do you really think I should say that such an action on your part is a sensible one? Do you truly want me to lie to you and pretend your rejection is sound? I don't do lies. Not on something this important.

Meh, my mechanic is pretty good. I'll have him change the battery in my spinal cord stimulator. Probably cheaper than my nero-surgeon. Because I'm that stupid. I'm bowing out of this thread, tired of insults.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,517
9,486
✟236,266.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Can you elaborate on these grounds? Thanks
Calling them philosophical reasons was probably rather pompous. It's more a case that I just don't like the concept; it doesn't appeal to me. This viewpoint is indistinguishable from the rejection of the theory by @Mantishand , with one exception: I acknowledge that the rejection of the idea, because I don't like it, is foolish, pointless and irrelevant. Consequently I accept that Big Bang Theory is the best current explanation for our observations.

Why doesn't it appeal to me? I'm not sure. Why do I like avocado, but not cucumber? It's just the way things are.
I think the discarded Steady State Theory, favoured by Hoyle and others has more elegance and internal beauty, but why I think that is beyond my power to discern.

Meh, my mechanic is pretty good. I'll have him change the battery in my spinal cord stimulator. Probably cheaper than my nero-surgeon. Because I'm that stupid. I'm bowing out of this thread, tired of insults.
I am sorry you have chosen to leave. You lose the opportunity to add to your knowledge.
I'm sorry you feel insulted. I'll put it down to my lack of skill at communicating accurate, but unwelcome information in an acceptable manner.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Larniavc
Upvote 0

DennisTate

Newbie
Supporter
Mar 31, 2012
10,742
1,664
Nova Scotia, Canada
Visit site
✟379,864.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Hello, I`ve been thinking a little about it, when everything cooled afte the big-bang, shouldn`t everything look kinda scorched after the explosion to begin With, I find it a little strange, is there any other theory out there than this one?

A version of a Theistic Cyclic Model of the universe was shown to near death experiencer and former Atheist Mellen Benedict.

What he reports being shown fits amazingly well with chapter thirteen of Stephen Hawking's Universe..... (except that Dr. Hawking worded his version for an audience of mostly Agnostics or Atheists).

Mellen-Thomas Benedict's Near-Death Experience


At this point of my near-death experience, I found myself in a profound stillness, beyond all silence. I could see or perceive FOREVER, beyond Infinity. I was in the Void.



I was in pre creation, before the Big Bang. I had crossed over the beginning of time / the First Word / the First vibration. I was in the Eye of Creation. I felt as if I was touching the Face of God. It was not a religious feeling. Simply, I was at one with Absolute Life and Consciousness. When I say that I could see or perceive forever, I mean that I could experience all of creation generating itself. It was without beginning and without end. That’s a mind-expanding thought, isn’t it? Scientists perceive the Big Bang as a single event that created the Universe. I saw during my life after death experience that the Big Bang is only one of an infinite number of Big Bangs creating Universes endlessly and simultaneously. The only images that even come close in human terms would be those created by super computers using fractal geometry equations.

The ancients knew of this. They said God had periodically created new Universes by breathing out, and recreated other Universes by breathing in. These epochs were called Yugas. Modern science called this the Big Bang. I was in absolute, pure consciousness. I could see or perceive all the Big Bangs or Yugas creating and recreating themselves. Instantly I entered into them all simultaneously. I saw that each and every little piece of creation has the power to create. It is very difficult to try to explain this. I am still speechless about this.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Hello, I`ve been thinking a little about it, when everything cooled afte the big-bang, shouldn`t everything look kinda scorched after the explosion to begin With, I find it a little strange, is there any other theory out there than this one?

Yes, there are other cosmology theories out there worth studying. You might check out electric universe theory sometime. Plasma cosmology theory/electric universe theory are *at least* as viable as any other cosmology theory, including the big bang model.

In fairness to the big bang model however, the big bang model wouldn't 'predict' that everything here on Earth or in our current universe would be "scorched" (as you put it) today. The big bang universe would have been scorching hot for the first few hundred thousand years, but it's supposedly been cooling off for billions of years and it's had plenty of time to cool, and to support life as we know it.

In short, your argument doesn't really apply to big bang theory since it would have had plenty of time to cool off by now.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
I apologise for lack of clarity in my posts. To be clear, I was not suggesting, would never suggest, never have suggested and abhor the suggestion that man is all knowing. The reverse is true. However man - with an intellect gifted by God, if you believe in God - has demonstrated the ability through commitment, logic, observation, hypothesis formation, experimentation and other forms of testing, to gain deep insights into the nature of the universe.

There are three broad categories associated with the Big Bang Theory

1. Big Bang Theory itself. A theory that has thus far passed every test,

Um, no. Thus far it's *failed* more so called "tests" than it's ever actually "passed". The last major fail of the big bang model brought us 'dark energy' and that claim has also failed another recent "test".

https://phys.org/news/2020-01-evidence-key-assumption-discovery-dark.html

Dark matter models have failed every single laboratory "test" to date.

It's also failed lots of observational tests. The universe is far more "mature" in the distant universe than the BB model predicts.

Mature Galaxies in Young Universe At Odds with Theory

The big bang model is even internally self conflicted, with different "measurements" providing different results.

https://phys.org/news/2019-10-crisis-cosmology-universe-rapidly-believed.html

In reality, the BB models the single *least* successful theory in physics when it comes to passing any "tests".

is acknowledged as by far the most probable explanation for a vast range of observations by thousands of scientists directly involved in such research, and by tens of thousands more with sufficient education to evaluate their findings.

Except for the aforementioned *glaring* problems.

 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,517
9,486
✟236,266.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Um, no. Thus far it's *failed* more so called "tests" than it's ever actually "passed". The last major fail of the big bang model brought us 'dark energy' and that claim has also failed another recent "test".

https://phys.org/news/2020-01-evidence-key-assumption-discovery-dark.html

Dark matter models have failed every single laboratory "test" to date.

It's also failed lots of observational tests. The universe is far more "mature" in the distant universe than the BB model predicts.

Mature Galaxies in Young Universe At Odds with Theory

The big bang model is even internally self conflicted, with different "measurements" providing different results.

https://phys.org/news/2019-10-crisis-cosmology-universe-rapidly-believed.html

In reality, the BB models the single *least* successful theory in physics when it comes to passing any "tests".



Except for the aforementioned *glaring* problems.

Michael, I shall readily concede that this is one of the few threads in which your injection of your views on the errors of Big Bang Theory (BBT) is actually on topic. However, I have zero interest of continuing a dialogue with you on the topic, unless and until:
  • You stop polluting other members' threads with your views on BBT
  • You concede that this pollution is against the spirit, if not the letter of forum rules
  • You acknowledge that it is most certainly discourteous and a breach of internet etiquette
If you choose to respond to this post with anything other than an agreement to each of these points I shall understand that you have no intention of introducing courtesy to your forum posts and shall remove those posts from my sight.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Michael, I shall readily concede that this is one of the few threads in which your injection of your views on the errors of Big Bang Theory (BBT) is actually on topic. However, I have zero interest of continuing a dialogue with you on the topic, unless and until:
  • You stop polluting other members' threads with your views on BBT
  • You concede that this pollution is against the spirit, if not the letter of forum rules
  • You acknowledge that it is most certainly discourteous and a breach of internet etiquette
If you choose to respond to this post with anything other than an agreement to each of these points I shall understand that you have no intention of introducing courtesy to your forum posts and shall remove those posts from my sight.

I've hardly even posted to this forum for the past several months, and I've mostly just started my own threads on cosmology topics here recently.

I think a lot atheists/agnostics take offense at any sort of comparison between the concept of "evidence" as it applies to the topic of God to the concept of "evidence" as it's applied to cosmology theory or science in general. That's unfortunate IMO, but it's hardly my fault. There are times where its entirely valid and very useful to point out that not all scientific theories are necessarily "falsifiable", nor do all scientific theories (plural) enjoy empirical cause/effect support in the lab. It just so happens that cosmology theory in particular is one of those areas of "science" where the rules of "evidence" tend to be "loosey-goosey" and far less stringent than other branches of physics.

No. I said to reject the findings of thousands of scientists who have actually investigated the matter is foolish, pointless and irrelevant.

It's irrational comments like this that make me wonder if some people even understand the concept of "science" and how "science" differs from "religion". Science should *always* welcome skepticism and open debate. It's not "foolish" to debate areas of science, nor is it pointless or irrelevant.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
I acknowledge that the rejection of the idea, because I don't like it, is foolish, pointless and irrelevant. Consequently I accept that Big Bang Theory is the best current explanation for our observations.

Have you even read "Physics of the Plasma Universe", or "Cosmic Plasma" for yourself? How would you even know which contemporary cosmology theory is the 'best" current explanation in the first place?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I saw some burnt tree trunks on my bike ride. Thought it might have been from the big bang, but then I found out there had been a forest fire.
Just missed!
 
Upvote 0

SLP

Senior Member
May 29, 2002
2,369
660
✟21,532.00
Faith
Atheist
Hello, I`ve been thinking a little about it, when everything cooled afte the big-bang, shouldn`t everything look kinda scorched after the explosion to begin With, I find it a little strange, is there any other theory out there than this one?
Surely you cannot be serious?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums