Explain the Big Bang

@Michael
You really don't understand my analogies.
Ok, explain to me why those 3 evidences aren't evidences for the Big Bang.
I can't see no point on answering the rest without you explaining that to me, because only if you're right on this point you'll be right on the others, only then that a analogy you used is valid. If the observations and interpretation we have of that data are wrong, i think we can agree on the rest.

And i see you comparing Big Bang theory to God theory. Both are faith according to you, and you don't trust big bang theory, why do you believe in god then?

Imagine me pilfering your formulas, changing the terms and claiming "If there is Godflation, the you can easily see why the red shift and the Godflation is explained by the God energy. Don't you expect me to empirically demonstrate that Godflation has a material effect on matter? Don't you expect me to demonstrate that 'God energy' is somehow related to the acceleration of material objects or the 'expansion of space'?

Click to expand...

I answered you, you can relate those 3 things. It is a fact, you can. If you can prove them is another question. You said you couldn't relate them and i'm saying to you that you can.

See my comment above. How do you know Godflation and God energy and God matter do not exist? I used exactly the same formulas to produce exactly the same "predictions" as mainstream theory. Now what?

Click to expand...

Now what? Do you think because you put god in the name i won't believe it? xD we do have the god particle and we built LHC to test his existence. Names don't mean anything didn't really get your point here.

SPACE however doesn't do anything, it's just empty space.

Click to expand...

AH! you're wrong there...quantum mechanics contradicts that. See "the universe from nothing" documentary if you want to learn more about that. You also learn the theoreticall basis for dark energy and dark matter (there those, you're wrong on that too).

impblack said:

@Michael
You really don't understand my analogies.
Ok, explain to me why those 3 evidences aren't evidences for the Big Bang.

Click to expand...

For starters, you need to show a cause/effect link between photon patterns and your mythical impotent sky entities *BEFORE* you start pointing at the sky and claiming your invisible friends did it. In other words, I can demonstrate that gravity has an effect on photons, that movement of material objects has an effect on photons, etc. If you can't empirically establish any real "cause/effect" relationships between real photons and your mythical mathical sky gods, the relationship is simply ASSUMED!

I think you'd understand my position better if I tried to justify "Godflation", "God energy" and "God matter" using those exact same "observations". Would you believe in God suddenly too?

And i see you comparing Big Bang theory to God theory. Both are faith according to you, and you don't trust big bang theory, why do you believe in god then?

Click to expand...

I have a personal, and very real relationship with God in the present moment. Inflation is presumably dead now and can NEVER influence me, and 'dark energy' has never and cannot ever (according to theory) have any tangible effect on me personally. Why do you believe in dead sky stuff again?

Imagine me pilfering your formulas, changing the terms and claiming "If there is Godflation, the you can easily see why the red shift and the Godflation is explained by the God energy. Don't you expect me to empirically demonstrate that Godflation has a material effect on matter? Don't you expect me to demonstrate that 'God energy' is somehow related to the acceleration of material objects or the 'expansion of space'?See my comment above. How do you know Godflation and God energy and God matter do not exist? I used exactly the same formulas to produce exactly the same "predictions" as mainstream theory. Now what?SPACE however doesn't do anything, it's just empty space.

AH! you're wrong there...quantum mechanics contradicts that. See "the universe from nothing" documentary if you want to learn more about that. You also learn the theoreticall basis for dark energy and dark matter (there those, you're wrong on that too).

Click to expand...

IMO you sort of side stepped my point and missed the fact that QM is all about the movement of PARTICLES (like photons and neutrinos and stuff). Nobody disputes that particle movements can occur. What I dispute is that 'space' (physically undefined at the moment) somehow magically expands. PARTICLES can move and expand, but they cannot move faster than light.

Click to expand...

faith guardian said:

Sure. But there is such a thing as arrogance, and bearing false witness. And that is not good. In fact, both are sinful.

Click to expand...

It's only a sinful act as you put it, if you KNOW FOR A FACT that what you're claiming is a lie. If you BELIEVE what your saying is true, is it actually a conscious "sin"?

Can you show me any empirical experiment where "space" actually expanded rather than the objects themselves moved? Can you tell me where "dark energy' comes from?

The claim was there is NO evidence supporting BB. That is false.

Click to expand...

In pure empirical terms (as an atheist would apply to the topic of God), there isn't any empirical supporting evidence. It's false that matter can move faster than light, and no human has ever demonstrated that "space" can expand. Without these "assumptions", there's no supporting evidence for a BANG that can't also be interpreted in terms of TIRED LIGHT THEORIES.

arXiv.org Search

You can argue that the evidence has problems, and then we can discuss that. But you cannot say there is no evidence.

Click to expand...

Well, OK, I suppose that's fair as long as you're also willing to acknowledge the "problems" associated with your preferred, very *SUBJECTIVE* interpretation of the data.

That would be either a flat out lie, or making an untrue claim without sufficient knowledge.

Click to expand...

Again, I think a lot depends on one's actual intent and how strongly one believes in the value of empirical physics. I personally see *NO* data that ultimately supports *ONLY* a bang theory. IMO it's a flat out lie to state that the data *ONLY* supports a bang theory. Tired light/static universe theories are still a viable option. I guess it depends on one's subjective interpretation of the data.

Neither of which is good. In fact I would say that neither is acceptable. We are called to a high standard of integrity and humility both. Do I fall short of that? Yes. We all do. But that does not excuse it, does it?

Click to expand...

I actually understand what you're saying, and I can see where you're coming from. On the other hand, I personally tend to believe that there is little or no actual evidence to support a "bang' theory, and no supporting evidence to support a bang occurred only 13.7 billion years ago, because the universe is much physically larger than 27.4 billion light years wide. That size factor PRECLUDES their creation date from serious consideration IMO. I'll be the first to admit that it's a very subjective opinion on my part, but it's a valid and justifiable scientific opinion based on pure empirical physics.

So my attack is not upon having different opinions. Not at all. It's about making claims without support, and attacking that which one does not have competence to attack. Especially if said attack is done in the name of Christ. Now that - which is a common creationist behavior pattern - I have a HUGE problem with.

Click to expand...

I would have to believe that I'm one of *THE* most vocal critics of Lambda-magic theory on the internet. I've never once attacked mainstream theory "in the name of Christ", I've just attacked it based on strict empirical criteria. I see nothing "sinful' about that.

oriel36 said:

This makes me laugh,the relativity ideology as an extension of Newton's toxic strain of empiricism naturally ends in the no center/no circumference ideologies of 'big bangers' and 'black holers' but unfortunately none of you are good enough at present to start at the right place and untangle this mess,after all, there are people out there who firmly believe that they can see the evolutionary timeline of the Universe directly.

Click to expand...

FYI, for starters, you're railing against the wrong 'empiricists'. Most BB theories are NOT based on Newton's theories, they are based on a highly suspect brand of Einstein's "blunder" theory.

You poor people will always lose as the empirical ideology is based on question begging so that all you do is chase an empiricist around a cage like a squirrel running around one of those wheels.

Click to expand...

I suppose there MIGHT be some truth to the concept that not all things can be empirically validated in a lab (like God, or inflation). Is that the point/claim that you're ultimately trying to make here?

Albert was merely a shill for something that was going to happen anyway and if you believe that humans can control time by moving faster you can forget time as we live our lives as Christians within the Divine sense of Time or Eternal Life as Jesus made it known.

Click to expand...

Actually the relationship between matter and the passage of time *HAS* been validated to a great degree. I suggest you get used to it.

As it is a matter of forensics,the first question should be how the human race ended up believing in 'time travel' or 'time dilation' as the empiricists formally called it.

Click to expand...

For most folks, its probably related to the value and accurate functionality of their GPS devices.

Michael said:

For starters, you need to show a cause/effect link between photon patterns and your mythical impotent sky entities *BEFORE* you start pointing at the sky and claiming your invisible friends did it. In other words, I can demonstrate that gravity has an effect on photons, that movement of material objects has an effect on photons, etc. If you can't empirically establish any real "cause/effect" relationships between real photons and your mythical mathical sky gods, the relationship is simply ASSUMED!

Click to expand...

What? I'm sorry i didn't understood what you were trying to say. Please, forget we have different ideias. Explain me your point like if you were my teacher. What do you want me to prove. That photons are related to what?

Michael said:

I have a personal, and very real relationship with God in the present moment. Inflation is presumably dead now and can NEVER influence me, and 'dark energy' has never and cannot ever (according to theory) have any tangible effect on me personally. Why do you believe in dead sky stuff again?

Click to expand...

Well, quote above, you prove to me that the evidence is wrong and i wont (maybe not now but it wont take to long) believe on that "dead stuff".
So...ahm personal? You talk to him? xD

Michael said:

IMO you sort of side stepped my point and missed the fact that QM is all about the movement of PARTICLES (like photons and neutrinos and stuff). Nobody disputes that particle movements can occur. What I dispute is that 'space' (physically undefined at the moment) somehow magically expands. PARTICLES can move and expand, but they cannot move faster than light.

Click to expand...

You totally missed my point here. I wasn't interpretating QM to prove you're wrong (i don't have that kind of knowledge yet), QM actually says you're wrong on that point, it actually does. If you say i'm wrong you're saying physics is wrong. But hey, go watch that documentary i told you about

'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009 - YouTube

it's actually on the "ask anything to a physicist" thread, but i don't remember o posted it.

roach said:

This is as tiresome as it is unoriginal. But, I just thought this post was funny. The reason why the big bang is 'science' and the existence of god is not, is because one is derived from empirical evidence and the other is derived from faith. (you figure out which is which). I hope this will cause you to re-think your misinformed conception of what science is. (As long as you got that the big bang is the one based on empirical evidence. Otherwise, I just reinforced your prior conception and I'm really sorry)

Click to expand...

I think you are a little un-informed...

Empirical evidence is evidence that is found by a direct observation, experience, or situation.

The big bang has not been empirically proven. Scientists are working on it with some machines, but until they create something from it, they can not have direct observation, experience, or situation.

P.S. Many people have shared their personal experiences with God, but the science community writes it off. We will all see when we get there

impblack said:

What? I'm sorry i didn't understood what you were trying to say. Please, forget we have different ideias. Explain me your point like if you were my teacher. What do you want me to prove. That photons are related to what?

Click to expand...

I would like you to demonstrate *PHYSICALLY* that space expands for starters. Without that, your theory is pretty much "dead in the water".

Well, quote above, you prove to me that the evidence is wrong

Click to expand...

That's easy. Space never expands in the lab, only objects expand and move.

and i wont (maybe not now but it wont take to long) believe on that "dead stuff".

Click to expand...

Guth not only dreamed up his mythical inflation genie in his head, he killed it off instantly so that nobody can ever falsify the concept, and you're guaranteed to never experience it in your lifetime.

So...ahm personal? You talk to him? xD

Click to expand...

Yep.

You totally missed my point here. I wasn't interpretating QM to prove you're wrong (i don't have that kind of knowledge yet), QM actually says you're wrong on that point, it actually does.

Click to expand...

Well, it technically proves that 'space' is full of energy, but it's composed of PARTICLE KINETIC ENERGY like photons and neutrinos, not "dark energy". The PARTICLES can move and expand, but they can never expand faster than light.

If you say i'm wrong you're saying physics is wrong. But hey, go watch that documentary i told you about

'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009 - YouTube

Click to expand...

Been there, done that video already. Evidently Lawrence has a strong emotional need as an atheist for the universe to be "flat" in order for him to justify his belief that the universe is a giant example of "something from nothing". I'm afraid he's just parroting "party line dogma'. He can't personally demonstrate "space expansion" in a lab anymore than anyone else can. It's "DOGMA" he's describing, not empirical facts.

omegadk1 said:

I think you are a little un-informed...

Empirical evidence is evidence that is found by a direct observation, experience, or situation.

The big bang has not been empirically proven. Scientists are working on it with some machines, but until they create something from it, they can not have direct observation, experience, or situation.

P.S. Many people have shared their personal experiences with God, but the science community writes it off. We will all see when we get there

Click to expand...

I should point out that the only empirical observation we have is an observation of redshifted photons and some background radiation at 2.7K. The *INTERPRETATION* of that redshift pattern and that background radiation is very different from the observation itself.

Michael said:

Can you show me any empirical experiment where "space" actually expanded rather than the objects themselves moved? Can you tell me where "dark energy' comes from?

Click to expand...

Can you show me your God? Can you show me where heaven is? can you show me where hell is? can you prove all the claims of the Bible?

Mind you; I expect you NOT to use Empirical methods and or means in order to show me the proofs!

mzungu said:

Can you show me your God?

Click to expand...

Sure, look up on any cloudless night.

Can you show me where heaven is?

Click to expand...

According to Jesus (and also in my experience) the kingdom of heaven is within you. I suggest meditation personally.

can you show me where hell is?

Click to expand...

I think you should study the teachings of early church fathers like Origen. He taught early Christian's Universal Salvation (Jesus saves all), not "eternal torment for the sake of torment".

and can you prove all the claims of the Bible?

Click to expand...

FYI, IMO Jesus is the "Word of God". The Bible is just another book IMO, albeit an important historical document, arguably the world's most important historical document. I don't worship books, and I don't believe the Bible to be "infallible" in any sense of the word.

Mind you; I expect you NOT to use Empirical methods and or means in order to show me the proofs!

Click to expand...

That's all fine by me. Shall we sit you down inside of a Brain Scanning machine while you meditate, and look for 'heaven' within you? I'll bet we'll see some interesting patterns in the data.

Michael said:

Sure, look up on any cloudless night.

Click to expand...

God is the stars

According to Jesus (and also in my experience) the kingdom of heaven is within you. I suggest meditation personally.

Click to expand...

I agree but what happens when you die

I think you should study the teachings of early church fathers like Origen. He taught early Christian's Universal Salvation (Jesus saves all), not "eternal torment for the sake of torment".

Click to expand...

The early Christians or ProtoChristians did not believe in the trinity and thus did not believe Jesus was God himself. Would you care to clarify your position on this?

FYI, IMO Jesus is the "Word of God". The Bible is just another book IMO, albeit an important historical document, arguably the world's most important historical document. I don't worship books, and I don't believe the Bible to be "infallible" in any sense of the word.

Click to expand...

I agree but it can hardly be considered in its entirety as an historical book

That's all fine by me. Shall we sit you down inside of a Brain Scanning machine while you meditate, and look for 'heaven' within you? I'll bet we'll see some interesting patterns in the data.

Click to expand...

Done that and they discovered I had suffered a stroke! Ah these horrid empiricists and their demonic machines

mzungu said:

God is the stars

Click to expand...

It's a long story.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

The first post will give you a pretty good overview of the theory.

I agree but what happens when you die

Click to expand...

I don't know but if you look up Near Death Experiences, a lot of folks report meeting someone they call "God".

The early Christians or ProtoChristians did not believe in the trinity and thus did not believe Jesus was God himself. Would you care to clarify your position on this?

Click to expand...

Is it somehow related to this thread?

I believe that Jesus was "unified with" something he referred to as the "Father" through the presence of the Holy Spirit. According to Jesus in John 17, we are all capable of this same union with the Father.

I agree but it can hardly be considered in its entirety as an historical book

Click to expand...

Maybe not, but some of it certainly has enormous historical value.
Hezekiah's Tunnel: The Gihon Springs to the Pool of Siloam

Done that and they discovered I had suffered a stroke! Ah these horrid empiricists and their demonic machines

Click to expand...

At least you didn't lose your sense of humor in the stroke.

norswede said:

An entity made of energy (as science says we are made of ),

Click to expand...

Lost me here. Energy is physical. God is spiritual.

norswede said:

Since you seem to think that God couldn't possibly exist without solid evidence and that Creationism is an invalid theory because it is unproven, prove to me that the Big Bang took place and how. If these cannot be explained in the same sense that you wish for us to explain God and Creationism then I'm afraid that it can't be considered "Science" any more than God and Creationism can and if you believe in it without understanding it, you live by just as much faith as theists do.

Click to expand...

The Big Bang Theory is just as the name suggests, a theory. There are many theories as to the origin of the Universe e.g. Steinhardt and Turok are currently working on a theory tackling what happened Before the Big Bang.

The Big Bang Theory is the dominant and most supported theory of the origin of the Universe. Alexander Friedman had already done some work on an expanding universe in 1922.

In 1927, Catholic Priest and physicist Fr Georges Lemaitre independently calculated the Friedman solution and again suggested that the universe must be expanding. This theory was supported by Hubble when, in 1929, he found that there was a correlation between the distance of the galaxies and the amount of redshift in that galaxy's light.

The distant galaxies were moving away faster, which was exactly what was predicted by Lemaitre's solutions.

In 1931, Lemaitre went further with his predictions, extrapolating backwards in time find that the matter of the universe would reach an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This means the universe must have begun in an incredibly small, dense point of matter - a "primeval atom."

This discovery did not dent Fr LeMaitre's faith that God created the universe. He was just trying to figure out how God did it.

At that time, many scientists including Einstein believed the universe had always existed, whereas the Big Bang Theory presented a definite moment of "creation" to the universe

The fact that he was a Priest was concerning to some. Ironically, many scientists of the period never doubted that their lack of faith in God would affect their scientific discoveries, however, they were reluctant to afford a Priest who also happened to be a brilliant scientist the same benefit of the doubt precisely because of his faith.

There is no need for Christians to be afraid of science. It offers plausible theories that explain the 'hows' of human evolution and the mysteries of the universe. It sometimes provides a window into the 'mind of God'. It is always evolving and making new discoveries, it is exciting.

The only thing science cannot do is explain the 'whys' of our existence and that is primarily what religion and philosophy provides.

Blessings

LOCO said:

The Big Bang Theory is just as the name suggests, a theory.

Click to expand...

The term Theory when used in Science means: A theory explains the facts which are based on the evidences. By relegating the scientific meaning of the word to the common meaning of "speculation" is wrong! What we know so far is that the Big bang stands as fact. What we have yet to explain is what happened from time zero and backwards. The theory may be and surely will be refined and changed to reflect more accurate evidences but the fundamental fact of a non static universe that is 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years old stands.

Universe clock is diffrent from ours, remeber time derives from a solar or moon calendear, and every body in space moves diffrent from earth!

I would dare to say, in space time doesn't exist! But thats my theory, Time is a man made invention!

mzungu said:

The term Theory when used in Science means: A theory explains the facts which are based on the evidences. By relegating the scientific meaning of the word to the common meaning of "speculation" is wrong! What we know so far is that the Big bang stands as fact. What we have yet to explain is what happened from time zero and backwards. The theory may be and surely will be refined and changed to reflect more accurate evidences but the fundamental fact of a non static universe that is 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years old stands.

Click to expand...

Actually, no, it's just a 'theory'. In the lab "space" never does any sort of exotic expanding, just objects. Objects in the lab cannot travel faster than light and the universe is much larger than 27.5 billion light years wide. It's just a "theory" that it's even expanding, since that is simply an 'interpretation' of the redshift phenomenon. That same redshift phenomenon has also been associated with 'tired light' theories since it was first observed. In other words, there might be no "expansion" process at all, photons may simply interact with the intergalactic plasmas in a way that causes them to loose a little bit of energy over distance.

Lillen said:

I would dare to say, in space time doesn't exist! But thats my theory, Time is a man made invention!

Click to expand...

Are inches and millimeters man made inventions, or are they measurements of real things? Time is a measurement of physical change.

ivebeenshown said:

Lost me here. Energy is physical. God is spiritual.

Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, how do you know that "spiritual" isn't ultimately "physical" in some way?

ivebeenshown said:

Are inches and millimeters man made inventions, or are they measurements of real things? Time is a measurement of physical change.

Click to expand...

True, but time itself moves at "relative" speeds depending on local conditions, so your sense of time and mine may vary. We therefore might "measure" things quite differently depending on our relative points of view.