-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Some thoughts about the Big Bang...
- Thread starter ObbiQuiet
- Start date
Bump.MartinM said:
OK...now that we have a few more saavy cosmologists types:
What's the verdict on Ross and his 'by the strongest possible terms in science the big bang points to a supernatural cause' statement?
Upvote
0
Just a word of caution.
Hugh Ross is not exactly a paragon of physics knowledge. I have read things from him in the past and his knowledge of physics seems vague (to clueless) at times.
By the way, no problem using SR for accelerating bodies as long as gravitational effects are not important such as accelerating bodies producing gravitational radiation.
Hugh Ross is not exactly a paragon of physics knowledge. I have read things from him in the past and his knowledge of physics seems vague (to clueless) at times.
By the way, no problem using SR for accelerating bodies as long as gravitational effects are not important such as accelerating bodies producing gravitational radiation.
Upvote
0
This is what I remember:MartinM said:
Question: How can you draw difinitive conclusions about the initial conditions of the BB without a theory of quantum gravity?
Answer (paraphrased):
1. The formulation of general relativity has been generalized enough to allow for various forms of quantum gravity without changing the supernatural cause argument.
2. Any BB formulation must obey the 2nd law of thermodynamics. He claims that this points to a supernatural cause.
BTW, elsewhere I have read (from him) that by 'supernatural cause' he means that some force outside the physical space of the universe as we know it initiated the first cause of the BB.
Upvote
0
Somehow I'm not surprised to hear you say that.Chi_Cygni said:
I'd love to hear your thoughts on his supernatural cause argument if you get a chance.
Upvote
0
MartinM
GondolierAce
Thanks, Mike. I've got a partial transcript down. Some paraphrased, some exact. I'll post it here intact, then respond in my next post.Mike Flynn said:
K: How can you make solid conclusions about the Universe - and I'm going to assume he means how it came into existence - without a theory of quantum gravity?
R: OK, well, you have the spacetime theorems of GR. The first (1970) was classical GR, without attention to quantum gravity effects. Those theorems have been generalised for a wide variety of QG and inflationary considerations (book plug). They're robust enough now that we can claim that they apply to any cosmic model that's subject to 2LoT. In the patent office, they throw you out if you come in with a perpetual motion machine, because it violates 2LoT. It's also a principle which operates throughout all the sciences. It's the one thing that we do not have any freedom to speculate about are models of physics that would entertain a violation of 2LoT. That's a big no-no in all of the sciences. If that's the only way we can escape the consequences of the spacetime theorems of GR, then we can securely conclude that there must be a causal agent...which is responsible for bringing the Universe into existence.
K: It was unclear whether or not you were saying that SR can or cannot handle acceleration.
R: All I was saying is that SR is limited to discussing velocities. Need to generalise to consider not only velocities but also accelerations. SR is in the context of velocities only, GR considers accelerations also...I think that's semantics. SR was never intended to be a general theory. SR can accomodate accelerations. It is in no way in conflict with GR. But it is a limited application of GR.
K: Inflationary models violate the strong energy condition.
R: Not sure what he's talking about there. What does he mean by the SEC?
I've edited out some irrelevancies, but other than that it's intact. I believe it to be a fair, accurate representation of what was said.
Upvote
0
J
Jet Black
Guest
I know what the acronym is.... oh I will stop being lazy and go and check googleMike Flynn said:It says in the post: Strong Energy Condition.
Upvote
0
bump
OK MartinM and Chi, what do you think of Ross's comments? Personally, I have found no conclusive support for it...but the two of you have a better grasp on cosmolgy than a QM and string theory hack like me.
OK MartinM and Chi, what do you think of Ross's comments? Personally, I have found no conclusive support for it...but the two of you have a better grasp on cosmolgy than a QM and string theory hack like me.
Upvote
0
MartinM
GondolierAce
Hmph. Well, I've been checking out the literature and there seem to be consistent models which slide neatly round even the most general singularity theorem. Ross insists that they violate second law. I assume that he bases this on the fact that they do funny things with the arrow of time. The two concepts are, of course, very intimately related. Problem is, exactly why the arrow of time points in the direction it does is an open question - possibly one of the biggest in cosmology. Why is it a cosmological question? Because the laws of physics are, by and large, time-symmetric. So the suggestion is that the time-asymmetric behaviour of the second law actually comes from cosmological boundary conditions. Therefore cosmological models are allowed to do funny things with the arrow of time. Such as this one, which has no global arrow of time at all.
His response to the second question was, yet again, unclear. It's not entirely fair for me to say this since all you guys have to go on is a partial transcript, but it sounded to me like Ross was saying again that SR can't handle acceleration, until Kenny said that he'd seen websites saying that this was a common misconception, at which point Ross seemed to backpedal somewhat. That's just my opinion, of course.
It's not an issue of semantics, however. SR can handle acceleration, and that's all there is to it.
The third question was unneccesary, as it was simply a special case of the first. I find it rather disturbing that someone who wants to invoke singularity theorems has never heard of the strong energy condition, though.
His response to the second question was, yet again, unclear. It's not entirely fair for me to say this since all you guys have to go on is a partial transcript, but it sounded to me like Ross was saying again that SR can't handle acceleration, until Kenny said that he'd seen websites saying that this was a common misconception, at which point Ross seemed to backpedal somewhat. That's just my opinion, of course.
It's not an issue of semantics, however. SR can handle acceleration, and that's all there is to it.
The third question was unneccesary, as it was simply a special case of the first. I find it rather disturbing that someone who wants to invoke singularity theorems has never heard of the strong energy condition, though.
Upvote
0
This is why I wish Ross would shut up.
If you haven't heard of the Strong Energy Condition then you have never calculated null curves or messed around with singularity theorems.
Also you should be default know that the SEC is violated by even a cosmological constant. The SEC can be expressed in a simply cosmological model manner as
Pressure >= -density/3. A lambda with w=-1 violates SEC.
Inflation violates this too.
Ross should know this.
As I warned earlier, Ross' knowledge is questionable and allows morons like Hovind to trip him up, even though i doubt Hovind can solve a quadratic.
The SR statement is an embarassment as well.
If you haven't heard of the Strong Energy Condition then you have never calculated null curves or messed around with singularity theorems.
Also you should be default know that the SEC is violated by even a cosmological constant. The SEC can be expressed in a simply cosmological model manner as
Pressure >= -density/3. A lambda with w=-1 violates SEC.
Inflation violates this too.
Ross should know this.
As I warned earlier, Ross' knowledge is questionable and allows morons like Hovind to trip him up, even though i doubt Hovind can solve a quadratic.
The SR statement is an embarassment as well.
Upvote
0
Hey Chi,
I'm just a layman here, but if this definition that I found on the web is accurate,
"Strong Energy Condition
Assumption that gravitational forces are always attractive (and not repulsive). Antimatter is believed to obey SEC. A matter that would violate SEC is nicknamed "exotic matter." and is required to build a stable traversable wormhole."then I do not see how the SEC is violated. Gravity can be just as attractive as it wants, but since Dark Matter makes up ~25% of the universe (and is not affected) and Dark Energy ~70% is pushing everything apart, SEC (gravity attracts normal matter ~5%) is not violated. It would be like 2 magnets being close to each other. There magnetic poles attracting, but then someone blows them apart. Was the fact that their N. and S. poles attract each other violated? NO! Another force acted to separate them.
Here is a confirmation of dark energy:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994314
God Bless!
P.S. Chi are you in the U.S.? If so why don't you call Dr. Ross and ask him your questions? Live every Tuesday at:
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/creation_update
I'll be listening.
I'm just a layman here, but if this definition that I found on the web is accurate,
"Strong Energy Condition
Assumption that gravitational forces are always attractive (and not repulsive). Antimatter is believed to obey SEC. A matter that would violate SEC is nicknamed "exotic matter." and is required to build a stable traversable wormhole."then I do not see how the SEC is violated. Gravity can be just as attractive as it wants, but since Dark Matter makes up ~25% of the universe (and is not affected) and Dark Energy ~70% is pushing everything apart, SEC (gravity attracts normal matter ~5%) is not violated. It would be like 2 magnets being close to each other. There magnetic poles attracting, but then someone blows them apart. Was the fact that their N. and S. poles attract each other violated? NO! Another force acted to separate them.
Here is a confirmation of dark energy:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994314
God Bless!
P.S. Chi are you in the U.S.? If so why don't you call Dr. Ross and ask him your questions? Live every Tuesday at:
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/creation_update
I'll be listening.
Upvote
0
I don't understand the 'dark matter (and is not affected)' part. Dark matter is postulated precisely because of it's gravitational effects.
Upvote
0
Chi,
I was puzzling over that myself after I wrote it. I was assuming that "Dark Matter" and "Exotic Matter" were the same, and they are. So the definition above is either wrong on that point or it is refering to a specific type of other "Exotic Matter."
I began questioning it last night when I thought about some of the evidence for "Dark Matter." Namely it's ability to keep galaxies together. I decided to go to bed instead.
I think my analogy about "Dark Energy," using magnets and someones breath' still shows that there is no violation of SEC. There is just a second force acting on the matter. I could be wrong!
God Bless!
I was puzzling over that myself after I wrote it. I was assuming that "Dark Matter" and "Exotic Matter" were the same, and they are. So the definition above is either wrong on that point or it is refering to a specific type of other "Exotic Matter."
I began questioning it last night when I thought about some of the evidence for "Dark Matter." Namely it's ability to keep galaxies together. I decided to go to bed instead.
I think my analogy about "Dark Energy," using magnets and someones breath' still shows that there is no violation of SEC. There is just a second force acting on the matter. I could be wrong!
God Bless!
Upvote
0
Here is a somewhat dated biography about Dr. Ross.
http://www.reasons.org/about/staff/ross.shtml?main
On his website you can find Interviews (NOT DEBATES) that they do every quarter. These are usually indivduals with a different perspective than his own. He and his staff do these so that others can here another sides. Examples:
Dr. Eugenie Scott - Physical Anthropologist - National Center for Science Education - Darwinian Evolutionist
Dr. Duane Gish - Bio-chemist - ICR - Young Earth
Dr. Keith Miller - Geology - Professor at Kansas St. -Theistic Evolutionist
MDiv. Rev. Lee Irons - Othodox Presbyterian Church -Framework View
Dr. Robert Shapiro - Organic Chemist - Professor at NewYork Univesity - Origin of life researcher
Dr. Danny Faulkner - Astronomer - ICR and Professor at Univesity of S. Carolina Lancaster - Young Earth
etc, etc...
God Bless!
http://www.reasons.org/about/staff/ross.shtml?main
On his website you can find Interviews (NOT DEBATES) that they do every quarter. These are usually indivduals with a different perspective than his own. He and his staff do these so that others can here another sides. Examples:
Dr. Eugenie Scott - Physical Anthropologist - National Center for Science Education - Darwinian Evolutionist
Dr. Duane Gish - Bio-chemist - ICR - Young Earth
Dr. Keith Miller - Geology - Professor at Kansas St. -Theistic Evolutionist
MDiv. Rev. Lee Irons - Othodox Presbyterian Church -Framework View
Dr. Robert Shapiro - Organic Chemist - Professor at NewYork Univesity - Origin of life researcher
Dr. Danny Faulkner - Astronomer - ICR and Professor at Univesity of S. Carolina Lancaster - Young Earth
etc, etc...
God Bless!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
