Some thoughts about the Big Bang...

[Jet Black]

I don't think you are quite (clearly) understanding what Hawking is saying, though I do disagree with him slightly

I think it would have been better if he said "according to some interpretations of the book of Genesis" rather than "according to the book of Genesis"

all he is saying, is that if we look at the universe as it is now, there is no dynamical reason (i.e. no reason when one looks at the simple mechanics of the universe) why it should have begun at some date such as 4004 BC, which many people do indeed say, however there is a very good dynamical reason for (our) time beginning at the Big Bang. This is what is unique about this kind of beginning of the universe; there is a dynamical reason for it, whereas there never was before. I hope that makes things a little clearer.

 

[DayAge]

MartinM,
I e-mailed your reply to Dr. Ross, just in case you do not call or e-mail him.

I also did some research on my own and I believe I found the answer to your 1st response:

"Sounds like he's invoking Hawking-Penrose, as I suspected. As I already pointed out, it doesn't neccesarily apply. If the strong energy condition is violated, as it is in inflation, his entire argument collapses. Not that it's much of an argument in any case."
If I understand your argument, the answer is scalar fields (there are different ones).
This allows for an inflationary Big Bang from a singularity. Of course this would do away with much of your later arguments.

"the Universe we can detect is made out of what we cannot detected", or words to that effect. Ross claims that GR would support that. Cobblers. There's nothing in GR which cannot be detected.
This is a reference to Hebrews 11:3. It is refering to God bringing everything into existance from nothing, but His word and will. Since GR pionts to a singular begining there is no problem. The singularity came into existance from nothing.
Aargh! He just said that E = mc^2 is SR, not GR. SR is a part of GR. And he said that SR can't handle acceleration! That's an undergrad mistake.

I found this will studying your above accusation:
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/GenRelativity.html
Einstein's 1905 theory is referred to as the "special" theory because it is limited to bodies moving in the absence of a gravitational field. It took Einstein eleven more years to formulate a set of general laws that took account of gravity.

This is a basic postulate of the Theory of General Relativity. It states that a uniform gravitational field (like that near the Earth) is equivalent to a uniform acceleration.
SR has been incorporated into GR, but SR does not deal with acceleration (which equals gravitational fields). Dr. Ross was right.

Are you basing your arguments on Redouane Fakir?
http://www.geog.ubc.ca/crpoints/papers/crisisnobeg.pdf
He even admits there are a lot of problems in his model. He admits the fine-tuning and other conditions that Ross refers to. Not to mention he has an oscillating universe, which is contradicted by the discovery that the universe is exponitially increasing in acceleration.
Dr. Ross also deals with this paper in The Creator and the Cosmos.
I'll be listening tomorrow.

God Bless!

 

[DayAge]

jet black,
Since he was lumping creationists into one catagory, I decide to refute that part accordingly.

God Bless!

 

[Jet Black]

jet black,
Since he was lumping creationists into one catagory, I decide to refute that part accordingly.

God Bless!

looking at it in context, it is clear enough who he is talking about. though his choice of words could have been better, the point about the dynamical necessity for a beginning still stands. perhaps he hasn't been exposed to such a wide variety of creationists.... you know it is awfully hard discussing things with "creationists", since there seem to be dozens of literal interpretations of the bible, and even more other versions.

 

[fungle]

Expotentially increasing in acceleration. where did this come from. Science fiction

 

[MartinM]

I also did some research on my own

Good for you. I'm sure that a quick Google will make a perfectly good substitute for actually studying physics

I believe I found the answer to your 1st response:

"Sounds like he's invoking Hawking-Penrose, as I suspected. As I already pointed out, it doesn't neccesarily apply. If the strong energy condition is violated, as it is in inflation, his entire argument collapses. Not that it's much of an argument in any case."
If I understand your argument, the answer is scalar fields (there are different ones).
This allows for an inflationary Big Bang from a singularity. Of course this would do away with much of your later arguments

<sigh>

Firstly, any scalar field capable of producing inflation violates the strong energy condition. Secondly, I never said that inflation couldn't start from a singularity, merely that it didn't have to. There are other singularity theorems besides Hawking-Penrose, and they all have their problems. The question of whether or not the Universe had a beginning is still open, as anyone without an agenda will tell you.

SR has been incorporated into GR

SR is the weak-gravitation limit of GR.

but SR does not deal with acceleration (which equals gravitational fields). Dr. Ross was right

No, he is wrong. In GR, acceleration is relative because it is equivalent to gravitational fields. In SR, acceleration is absolute.

You can find some SR acceleration calculations here.

Are you basing your arguments on Redouane Fakir?

Who?

He even admits there are a lot of problems in his model. He admits the fine-tuning and other conditions that Ross refers to. Not to mention he has an oscillating universe, which is contradicted by the discovery that the universe is exponitially increasing in acceleration

I've never seen his model before. I'm not making reference to any specific model at all. I'm merely pointing out that every singularity theorem in existence breaks down under certain conditions. You think you can find a more general singularity theorem, feel free.

 

[Mike Flynn]

Firstly, any scalar field capable of producing inflation violates the strong energy condition. Secondly, I never said that inflation couldn't start from a singularity, merely that it didn't have to. There are other singularity theorems besides Hawking-Penrose, and they all have their problems. The question of whether or not the Universe had a beginning is still open, as anyone without an agenda will tell you.

And thus when Ross says things like *in the strongest possible terms of sciecne* the BB had a 'supernatural cause', he exposes his agenda. In so doing, he indicates that we know *far more* than we actually do. Isn't that propaganda?

Its too bad Ross can't dispense with the completely unscientific 'supernatural' and 'natural' cause dichotomy...I think its a flawed apprach.

No, he is wrong. In GR, acceleration is relative because it is equivalent to gravitational fields. In SR, acceleration is absolute.

And thats why all frames of reference are symmetric in GR...by equating accerated frames with gravitational fields. It also dissolves the twin paradox of SR.

I've never seen his model before. I'm not making reference to any specific model at all. I'm merely pointing out that every singularity theorem in existence breaks down under certain conditions. You think you can find a more general singularity theorem, feel free.

It would be nothing short of a stunning accomplishment!

 

[DayAge]

Hi MartinM,
I have been doing my best to understand the problems here, but as you probably guessed I have not studied GR.
As I listened to Dr. Ross' 10/14/03 program I see that he qualified acceleration as acceleration caused by the force of gravity. From what I have read, this is correct.
Ross does not hide his beliefs. The Bible talks of a universe that has a singular begining and continually expands. Ross has dealt many times on his program with multi-universes and oscillating universes etc.

Of course the program starts in just 3 hours. Call, I want to know how he asnwers your challenges. I'm sure we all would.

God Bless!

 

[MartinM]

And thus when Ross says things like *in the strongest possible terms of sciecne* the BB had a 'supernatural cause', he exposes his agenda. In so doing, he indicates that we know *far more* than we actually do. Isn't that propaganda?

Yes, indeed. Textbook case, pretty much. It's not so very different to what Hovind and his ilk do. They're simply more blatant.

And thats why all frames of reference are symmetric in GR...by equating accerated frames with gravitational fields. It also dissolves the twin paradox of SR

Actually, you don't need GR to handle the twin paradox. The resolution lies in the relativity of simultaneity.

It would be nothing short of a stunning accomplishment!

Worthy of a PhD, certainly. Although I don't know how significant even the most general singularity theorem possible to date would be. After all, it could only deal with the semiclassical case at best. Quantum gravity might still knock it on the head.

Hrmm. If all DayAge sent to Ross was my comments on the show, I can tell you right now what his response will be. He'll simply shift his argument from Hawking-Penrose to the more general theorems I mentioned earlier. Never mind the fact that they break down also.

 

[DayAge]

MartinM,
Ross answers the question could the universe come into existance without a cause here (4/09/02). 40 min. into the program. If you use realplayer you can grab the dot and fast forward to 40 min.:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/multimedia/rtbradio/cu_archives/200201-06archives.shtml?main

Still trying,
God Bless!

 

[DayAge]

MartinM,
Are you going to call?

 

[MartinM]

Hi MartinM,
I have been doing my best to understand the problems here, but as you probably guessed I have not studied GR

No problem. If you have any questions, just ask.

As I listened to Dr. Ross' 10/14/03 program I see that he qualified acceleration as acceleration caused by the force of gravity. From what I have read, this is correct

I just reviewed the relevant section. Here's the exact quote:

That's SR, which is limited to velocities. GR is a theory that describes velocites and accelerations - accelerations due to the force of gravity

Somewhat ambiguous, but the statement 'SR...is limited to velocities' is flat-out wrong. Could be that the last part indicates that it was just sloppy wording on his part. Or it could be that he was alluding to the equivalence principle, and meant the first part exactly as it reads.

 

[DayAge]

MartinM,
If it cost to much calling from Scotland, maybe you could type out your 2 most important concerns and I will call.

If not I will call him about his SR comment and the strong energy violation of inflation.

The program starts in 30 min., but I have time to call for about 1.5 hrs. Then I have to leave.

God Bless!

 

[MartinM]

If not I will call him about his SR comment and the strong energy violation of inflation

No point - he'll simply switch to some other singularity theorem. Just ask him why he thinks he can make solid conclusions on this without a theory of quantum gravity.

You might ask him to clarify his statement on SR and accelerations, too.

 

[Mike Flynn]

MartinM has already made the point *very effectively* but I would like to put it in more general terms.

YECs who have felt the full force of science for too long often find OEC and Ross very pallatable. In fact, I suspect that the greatest number of people that are 'won over' by OEC are actually former YECs. I don't think Ross will get all that much support from the science community itself...although I'm sure the RTB website will list *every single PHD* that throws their hat into the OEC basket...whether they produce noteworthy research or not.

There are actually 2 problems with OEC and RTB's appoach:

1. They impose an agenda on science. Whether they like it or not, they cannot possibly be objective about the research papers they are sifting through. They pile the supporting papers on one side, the contradictory ones on the other under the assumption that their Biblical formulation *must* be right. Will we ever see new research *supporting a different formulation of the BB* on the RTB site? This is proof that they have a severe scientific bias.

2. They impose an agenda on the Bible. With reference to the BB "the Bible described it first", etc. I have found that they pick and choose scripture that agrees with the cosmological formulation we have today. For example, they like 'stretch out the heavens', but don't give any significance to 'spreads out the earth'? There is a passage that says the earth was formed 'from water'. I see no reference to that one on the RTB website. Indeed, most of the passages concerning 'the heavens' indicate that the writer is talking about 'the sky'...where rain falls, birds fly, etc.

When you put #1 and #2 together, Ross and his supporters find themselves in the unhappy position of refuting every theological and scientific formulation that doesn't agree with the rigid philosophy of OEC. Its like building a house of cards. If you pull on just one of them, the whole house crumbles. Bad news for anyone who is 'won over' by these arguments. Sadly, OEC's have *too much to lose* if their science is wrong. I wish someone could show me the theology that is compelling these people to base faith on such things.

 

[DayAge]

Well Mike,
This is more my department. Tonight I will answer at least point #2.

God Bless!

 

[Mike Flynn]

No point - he'll simply switch to some other singularity theorem. Just ask him why he thinks he can make solid conclusions on this without a theory of quantum gravity.

You might ask him to clarify his statement on SR and accelerations, too.

You first question is the most poignant...well done!

I hope we get an answer from him on this. I'd *love* to hear it.

 

[DayAge]

Mike,
I will have to takle your pionts tomorrow. Dr. Ross did answer the 2 points from MartinM. It is around the first 30 min. point of the program (10/28/03).
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/creation_update/

God Bless!

 

[Mike Flynn]

Mike,
I will have to takle your pionts tomorrow. Dr. Ross did answer the 2 points from MartinM. It is around the first 30 min. point of the program (10/28/03).
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/creation_update/

God Bless!

I'll put this here for MartinM. I listened to the part of the webcast where Dr. Ross discusses the quantum gravity question: Here are his points:

He claims that his conclusions are based on a generalization of various possible formulations of quantum gravity.

He also says that the RTB model will work because, whatever quantum gravity model is inserted, the formulation can't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Based on this, he maintains that any BB model would support his supernatural cause argument. (I'm paraphrasing, but I think this represents his point)

He brushed off the high energy condition (regarding inflation) saying that it doesn't factor in to his supernatural cause formulation of the big bang anyway. He says that the Bible language is general enough to support inflation, or non-inflationary models. (so I suppose it makes sense to brush it off)

What do you think? Personally I have reservations about his first answer. Is it not true that some formulations of quantum gravity would indicate a non-singular BB and yet still respect the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

BTW...nice to hear your voice out there DayAge.

 

[Mike Flynn]

He claims that his conclusions are based on a generalization of various possible formulations of quantum gravity.

Let me edit this: Ross says the formulation of GR has been generalized enough that they can draw conclusions without a specific formulation quantum gravity. Sorry about that!

Of course MartinM, you could get it from Ross himself if you follow DayAge's link.