Ten arguments for intelligent design

rockytopva said:

Well... Inform me on how the Big Bang ignited and what slowed us down in the space travel from the point of origin.

Click to expand...

The person who came up with the big bang theory was a Catholic priest who thought it was a sure sign of creation by God.

Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia

And we seem to be accelerating, not slowing down...

rockytopva said:

Well... Inform me on how the Big Bang ignited and what slowed us down in the space travel from the point of origin.

Click to expand...

I have already explained that cosmologists do not know what initiated the Big Bang. Would you please take the time to explain why you are asking a question that has already been answered? Be aware that it is frustrating when that happens. In some quarters it would be considered discourteous.

Nothing "slowed us down". The Big Bang is not an explosion, it is an ongoing expansion of space. It seems that expansion is accelerating.

rockytopva said:

Then why call it a big bang?

Click to expand...

Because it's catchy and alliterative, even if it isn't quite accurate.

rockytopva said:

E = mc2 or m = E/c2

I work in a lab with spectrometers. I have set up and used AA (atomic absorption), OES (Optical Emmissions) and ICP (plasma) spectrometers. We will energize metallic samples and measure the emission or absorption of light.

I have often wondered that if light is released from an atom as it is energized, if the elements were not created with wavelengths of light along with the heat of energy. As the big bang turned to plasma did the wavelengths of light determine the elements what would freeze as it would cool?

Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of sub atomic particles?

rockytopva said:

Then why call it a big bang?

Click to expand...

Before the Big Bang was the generally accepted cosmological theory the other option was the Steady State universe, one of whose proponents was Sir Fred Hoyle. In a radio program on the BBC in the 1940s, discussing the two theories, Hoyle coined the phrase to help listeners grasp something of the idea. He has been accused of using the term to denigrate the theory, but he vigorously denied that this was the case.

The colourful nature of the phrase and its simplicity made it popular across a wide spectrum of interests and it became generally used.

Now would you please state why you were asking a question that was already answered?

rockytopva said:

It was not already answered.

Click to expand...

It was answered by me in post #91. I have emboldened the key words in a copy of the post, duplicated below.

Ophiolite said:

I don't say. I have philosophical objections to the Big Bang, but accept it because it is the best model, by far, to explain many observations in physics, chemistry, astronomy and cosmology. Until and unless a superior model is produced it would be obscene for me to discard it because of personal dislike.

As long as you understand that "ignited" is an inappropriate word, then I can say that cosmologists do not know what ignited it. There are various speculations, most of which - as I understand it - could not currently be tested and are therefore on the fringes of good science. Big Bang theory explores what happened a small fraction of a second after Time-Zero, until now.

Click to expand...

Your anticipated apology is accepted.

rockytopva said:

My feelings are that I am dealing more with the old British ego than with anything else.

Click to expand...

I think we are discussing cosmology and currently, specifically, the origin of the term "Big Bang". If you feel no apology was due then I apologise for the unwarranted assumption that you would wish to be courteous.
Meanwhile, back at the Big Bang, does my answer close this area of questioning to your satisfaction?

The Big Bang doesn’t involve explosions or ignitions.
First of all the confusion of when the Big Bang occurred needs to be addressed.

The Big Bang is commonly attributed as the first event in the creation of the Universe occurring at the cosmological time t=0.
The problem with this notion we have absolutely no idea of the state of the Universe when the cosmological time is t < 10⁻⁴³ s when the Universe was in perfect symmetry and all the fundamental forces were unified.
Our current knowledge of physics breaks down below this time scale and it is pointless of referring to a Big Bang at t=0.

There is another Big Bang that cosmologists are interested in which occurred around
t =10⁻³⁰ s.
This is the Hot Big Bang which can be explained with current physics in the form of Quantum Field theory (QFT).
In QFT there is no such thing as an empty vacuum, rather a true vacuum is a quantum field of the lowest energy level.
The quantum field in a true vacuum have been confirmed in the laboratory via the Casimir effect.
A false vacuum on the other hand behaves like a true vacuum except it exists at a higher energy level.
The transition of a false vacuum to a true vacuum releases energy while mathematically complicated can be explained by the Mexican hat potential.

The Hot Big Bang is believed to be the result of the Universe going from a false vacuum to a true vacuum.
In this case the field associated with the vacuum is the inflaton field Ф which causes an exponentially rapid inflation of the universe for a brief interval.

Like the ball in the Mexican hat potential, the universe can be visualized as a ball (slowly) rolling down the field; when it reaches the bottom into the true vacuum state it oscillates around the minimum and reheats the universe resulting in the Hot Big Bang.

rockytopva said:

To say the Big Bang occurred without the make-up of what instigated it turning to plasma energy (E/c2) is utter nonsense.

Click to expand...

…

'Kay.

Yttrium said:

…

'Kay.

Click to expand...

I have a bottle of Drambuie if it can help you get through it. I know it helps me.

rockytopva said:

Yes, and it is interesting that the photon is considered a massless particle, or electromagnetic radiation, or, what I imagine, as pure c2 as it does not have the E which, attached to it, would give weight, or M.

Click to expand...

E = MC^2 is a simplification of the real equation.
This simplification only applies to objects at rest (and of course "at rest" is relative to the observer)

With massless particles (photons and gluons - both classified as bosons) they always travel at the speed of light (in a vacuum) from the perspective of all observers.
So as you can understand, E = MC^2 doesn't apply to photons.

If you are applying the equation to photons you must use the proper equation
E^2 = (MC^2)^2 + (PC)^2
Where P is the momentum of the particle.
For massless particles (MC^2)^2 = 0 so the equation can be simplified as
E = PC
For photons P (momentum) is measured by its frequency = h/lambda h being planks constant, and lambda the wavelength.

So as you can see, photons do indeed have energy even though they are massless.