The Universe Is a Miracle

[98cwitr]

MOD HAT ON

Thread has been cleaned. The Staff at Christian Forums would like to encourage and remind you that our site rules call you to address one another with respect. I am posting the rule for everyone's review

Flaming and Harassment
Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue. Refrain from insulting, inflammatory, or goading remarks. When you disagree, remember to address the content of the post and not the poster personally.
If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.
Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian is not allowed.
Be considerate and do not make another member's experience on this site miserable. This includes making false accusations or persistently attacking them in the open forums.
Respect another member's request to cease personal contact.


Statement of Purpose and Off-Topic
Read and abide by each forum's Statement of Purpose; Statement of Purpose threads are sticky threads located at the top of the forum's page. Not all forums have a Statement of Purpose thread. Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose. Submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion.

If your post is missing, it is due to a violation of the above rule or because you quoted a post containing this violation.

Again, please be kind to one another, as Christ has called us to do; and only address content and not the poster(s) themselves.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[RealityCheck01]

You will however find me correcting people who claimed it was Hubble that predicted expansion by showing it was a priest that did so, and also a priest that wrote your Big bang theory.

That is incorrect, Justatruthseeker.
No one interested in and reading about the history of cosmology would claim that Edwin Hubble predicated expansion. They know that Hubble was an observational astronomer. Edwin Hubble collected data. His 1929 paper presented that data and what we call Hubble's law with no mention of an expanding universe. He suggests a possibility of the de Sitter effect ("an apparent slowing down of atomic vibrations and a general tendency of material particles to scatter.").

As you sort of state, the physical consequences of an expanding universe were predicted by Georges Lemaitre in 1927 in French in an less known Belgian journal and even supported by some evidence. The theory had already been done by Alexander Friedmann in 1925 in German in a German journal.

It is an exaggeration to state that he "wrote your Big bang theory". He wrote a couple of papers that introduced the concept of the universe once being in a hot dense state (a "Primeval Atom" or "cosmic egg") that expanded. Other people took that concept and wrote the actual Big Bang theory. The Wikipedia article has a sparse bibliography hinting that he did not publish on cosmology past 1931 other than an essay.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You wont find me supporting the Big Bang in any post..... You will however find me correcting people who claimed it was Hubble that predicted expansion by showing it was a priest that did so, and also a priest that wrote your Big bang theory.

I made that mistake in response to you stumping your chest that it was a priest (and cosmologist, which you consistently leave out) that came up with it and that it was in the bible all along.

You're lying again.

While ignoring that the Bible predicted expansion long before scientists ever dreamed the reality.......
Oh wait, that's how you got expansion wasn't it, a priest had to tell you and describe creation for you.....

​

 

[tas8831]

Fact: No scientist has explained how the universe came into being.

There are only two options.

1. It came from nothing.
2. It always existed.

Scientists admit that the first option is impossible. It defies logic.

The second option also defies logic. Some believe in it still. They believe the past is infinite.

Yet you cannot cross an infinite amount of time or distance. And for the PRESENT to exist then the universe would have had to cross an infinite amount of time to get to now.

The two options are illogical. Therefore the universe came about illogically. A miracle.

Some will say "God made it". I do not include this option as it does not solve the problem. We then have to ask how God came about. Like the universe there are only two options, the same options as I list above.

So one miracle happened, so why not others?

So...

Why do scientists have to explain things, and religious pontificators need only say so?

 

[tas8831]

3. GOD created it (it came from GOD who by definition always exists / existed / will exist).

That does not match my definition for 'God.' Where did you get that definition?

 

[Colter]

"The realms of the finite exist by virtue of the eternal purpose of God. Finite creatures, high and low, may propound theories, and have done so, as to the necessity of the finite in the cosmic economy, but in the last analysis it exists because God so willed. The universe cannot be explained, neither can a finite creature offer a rational reason for his own individual existence without appealing to the prior acts and pre-existent volition of ancestral beings, Creators or procreators." UB 1955

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I made that mistake in response to you stumping your chest that it was a priest (and cosmologist, which you consistently leave out) that came up with it and that it was in the bible all along.

You're lying again.

​

What, you think because someone points out to you that a priest wrote your theory that this automatically means that person supports that theory as well?

Let me reiterate, the Big Bang is pseudoscience!!!!!

The universe did expand, but is not currently expanding at an increasing rate.

That is simply a flawed interpretation of cosmological redshift.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

An explosion (in modern mythology) would not “continue” to increase. Once the initial energy is released an object no longer gains speed. This is supported by every observation and laboratory experiment ever performed.

Creation of energy defies all known laws of physics. Therefore it is astonishing that they not only propose such, but that you buy into it instead of accepting what Hubble thought.

 

[sjastro]

Creation of energy defies all known laws of physics. Therefore it is astonishing that they not only propose such, but that you buy into it instead of accepting what Hubble thought.

Since you are an expert on Cosmology then demonstrate why the conservation of energy must occur in expanding Universes such as the Big Bang and Steady State models given the metric coefficients are time dependant and therefore time-translation is not invariant.
Given your expertise you will have no difficulty in comprehending the terminology.

 

[Colter]

To God nothing is a miracle. What he does is real.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Since you are an expert on Cosmology then demonstrate why the conservation of energy must occur in expanding Universes such as the Big Bang and Steady State models given the metric coefficients are time dependant and therefore time-translation is not invariant.
Given your expertise you will have no difficulty in comprehending the terminology.

I've seen nothing from you that would justify aboloshing the law of conservation of energy except double-talk.

Why don't you show us some laboratory justification?????

Ahhh, you got none, right? just more Fairie Dust?????

 

[sjastro]

I've seen nothing from you that would justify aboloshing the law of conservation of energy except double-talk.

My post might as well have been written in Swahili given your zero understanding of the topic; yet you boldly respond as if you are addressing it.

Since the subject matter is way beyond your intellectual capacity, a technical explanation is rather pointless but a historical account puts things in perspective.
When General Relativity made its appearance in 1915, the conservation of energy was brought into question particularly when around the same time a mathematical theorem (Noether’s theorem) was proven where if the conditions of a physical system remained static (constant in time), the conservation of energy is not violated.
In General Relativity space time is dynamical in which case by Noether’s theorem; the conservation of energy is not applicable.
To put this as simply as possible so as you can understand, energy is conserved in space time or at local scales but for space time itself globally there is no conservation of energy condition.

This was recognized a good ten years before the Big Bang theory even made its appearance.

Did it ever occur that your refutation of the Big Bang is so ridiculously simplistic that individuals of greater intelligence would have come to the same conclusion and all expansion models including the Steady State theory would immediately fail and not be considered?

Why don't you show us some laboratory justification?????

Ahhh, you got none, right? just more Fairie Dust?????

Evidently you fail to see the double standard.

Your magic plasma can’t be tested either as its magical effect occurs at densities far less than the very best laboratory vacuums.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

To put this as simply as possible so as you can understand, energy is conserved in space time or at local scales but for space time itself globally there is no conservation of energy condition.

Lol, you believe that crud????

Everywhere you go in space it is conserved locally. remember, General relativity asserts that no matter where you are at in the universe, all physical laws are the same and everything appears the same. therefore according to GR there is no place in the entire universe where the laws of energy conservation would not operate.

Are the laws of physics the same throughout the universe?

"It might not seem all that interesting to show that the laws of physics are the same everywhere, but it is a fundamental assumption of physics and all assumptions need to be tested. Furthermore, there had been some evidence that the assumed "constants" of nature had changed over time. Murphy and colleagues point out that this new result is inconsistent with previous results that hinted at changes in this ratio over time."

And if you claim that the laws of physics are not the same in different parts of the universe, then you need to justify using the same physics here on earth to explain things there, since their laws would be different then ours, ours can not be used.....

So much for that pseudoscience, since every single astronomer uses the same laws of physics in operation here to describe every single part of the universe.....

This was recognized a good ten years before the Big Bang theory even made its appearance.

In other words idiots proposed fantasy long ago....

Did it ever occur that your refutation of the Big Bang is so ridiculously simplistic that individuals of greater intelligence would have come to the same conclusion and all expansion models including the Steady State theory would immediately fail and not be considered?

The pseudoscience goes where the research money is handed out....

Evidently you fail to see the double standard.

Say the person who's theory says the laws of physics are the same regardless of where you are in the universe.... and can't see his own double standard...

Your magic plasma can’t be tested either as its magical effect occurs at densities far less than the very best laboratory vacuums.

Lol, is that like what they believed before they found 30 times the amount of charged dust entering the solar system???

Is that like what they believed before actual experiments falsified every single model of the sun's heliosphere they had and it's environs????

Is that like what they believed before they found plasma halos surrounding every galaxy with up to twice the mass of the entire galaxy? And that was just the warm plasma......

You people are astounding the way you constantly ignore reality..... all in favor of Fairie Dust.....

 

[sjastro]

Lol, you believe that crud????

Everywhere you go in space it is conserved locally. remember, General relativity asserts that no matter where you are at in the universe, all physical laws are the same and everything appears the same. therefore according to GR there is no place in the entire universe where the laws of energy conservation would not operate.

Are the laws of physics the same throughout the universe?

"It might not seem all that interesting to show that the laws of physics are the same everywhere, but it is a fundamental assumption of physics and all assumptions need to be tested. Furthermore, there had been some evidence that the assumed "constants" of nature had changed over time. Murphy and colleagues point out that this new result is inconsistent with previous results that hinted at changes in this ratio over time."

And if you claim that the laws of physics are not the same in different parts of the universe, then you need to justify using the same physics here on earth to explain things there, since their laws would be different then ours, ours can not be used.....

So much for that pseudoscience, since every single astronomer uses the same laws of physics in operation here to describe every single part of the universe.....

My attempts to dumb it down to your level of intelligence failed because you still don’t comprehend what is going on.
I made it perfectly clear in my previous post which you quoted, the energy conservation law does apply at local scales (=locally) but not globally.
All you have done is to parrot the obvious at local scales; and failed miserably to note the distinction between local and global.

For those interested in a more complicated version of why energy is not conserved globally.
Energy Is Not Conserved

In other words idiots proposed fantasy long ago....

So the likes of Einstein, Hilbert, Noether etc were idiots.
Evidently there is credibility to the saying “It takes one to know one”………..

Say the person who's theory says the laws of physics are the same regardless of where you are in the universe.... and can't see his own double standard...



Lol, is that like what they believed before they found 30 times the amount of charged dust entering the solar system???

Is that like what they believed before actual experiments falsified every single model of the sun's heliosphere they had and it's environs????

Is that like what they believed before they found plasma halos surrounding every galaxy with up to twice the mass of the entire galaxy? And that was just the warm plasma......

You people are astounding the way you constantly ignore reality..... all in favor of Fairie Dust.....

How does any of this justify the existence of magic plasma?

You are not only inept but profoundly dishonest in continuing to peddle magic plasma when you chicken out on every question on explaining how it works.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Let me reiterate, the Big Bang is pseudoscience!!!!! ...

The Big Bang is a scientific theory based on an enormous body of empirical which makes that statement a a lie. Likewise dark energy is a measured increase in the rate of expansion of the universe, i.e. science.

10 October 2018 Justatruthseeker: A fantasy about an obscure A New Non-Doppler Redshift paper.
This is a 1988 Physics Essay paper by a Paul Marmet which is obviously not about dark energy (discovered in 1998). Physics Essays is an obscure journal that started in 1988. That paper has had 11 citations (4 by Marmet) in 30 years. IOW it is an obscure paper that is not considered to be valid enough for astronomers to cite.

10 October 2018 Justatruthseeker: Abysmal ignorance that the Big Bang is a physical explosion.
He has been posting about the Big Bang for many years (e.g. Jul 31, 2013) and does not know the basic fact the Big Bang is not an explosion !
The Big Bang is an expansion of the universe where the distance between points gets bigger.
Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology

It is observations that support the Big Bang. It is the extremely well tested GR that shows that the universe has to be contracting, expanding or static. Every laboratory experiment ever performed has confirmed the validity of GR. There is no "creation of energy" in cosmology. The universe has the energy that it is measured to have.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Lol, you believe that crud???? ...

10 October 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorantly calls energy conservation in General Relativity crud followed by GR gibberish.
Anyone who learns about GR learns that it conserves energy locally and especially what locally means! Locally means in an "infinitesimal" region of space where the curvature of spacetime is flat. There are issues with finite regions and globally.
Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity?

In special cases, yes. In general, it depends on what you mean by "energy", and what you mean by "conserved".

 

[DogmaHunter]

What, you think because someone points out to you that a priest wrote your theory that this automatically means that person supports that theory as well?

While pumping your chest that it was a priest that came up with it AND that it was in the bible all along?

Only to then turn around and state that it is false?

Yes, I call that extremely suspect.

 

[SelfSim]

Lol, you believe that crud????

Everywhere you go in space it is conserved locally. remember, General relativity asserts that no matter where you are at in the universe, all physical laws are the same and everything appears the same. therefore according to GR there is no place in the entire universe where the laws of energy conservation would not operate.
...
And if you claim that the laws of physics are not the same in different parts of the universe, then you need to justify using the same physics here on earth to explain things there, since their laws would be different then ours, ours can not be used.....

So much for that pseudoscience, since every single astronomer uses the same laws of physics in operation here to describe every single part of the universe.....
...
In other words idiots proposed fantasy long ago....
...
The pseudoscience goes where the research money is handed out....
...
Say the person who's theory says the laws of physics are the same regardless of where you are in the universe.... and can't see his own double standard...
...
You people are astounding the way you constantly ignore reality..... all in favor of Fairie Dust.....

Sheesh .. Talk about an enormous dump of foot-in-mouth .. all in one post, too! (Ie: a major fail).

Why don't you now try and respond to sjastro's 'magic plasma' challenge?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So...

Why do scientists have to explain things, and religious pontificators need only say so?

Because we admit it was a miracle. You on the other hand are claiming it was purely natural without Divine intervention..... Therefore you should be able to explain it, while a miracle is by definition unexplainable....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sheesh .. Talk about an enormous dump of foot-in-mouth .. all in one post, too! (Ie: a major fail).

Why don't you now try and respond to sjastro's 'magic plasma' challenge?

In other words your realization that we use the laws on earth to explain the entire universe just killed your claims it works differently elsewhere and you can't bring yourself to admit it..... I understand.... It's ok..... No, really it is... cough, cough....

What magic plasma?

Ahh, you mean plasma that didn't behave like they expected it to in space.....

At least my magic plasma makes up 99.9% of the universe, while your magic Fairie Dust cant even be observed.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

While pumping your chest that it was a priest that came up with it AND that it was in the bible all along?

Only to then turn around and state that it is false?

Yes, I call that extremely suspect.

Apparently you don't understand the difference between an initial expansion that satisfies the laws of physics and a continued expansion that is increasing in violation of the laws of physics....

No, you don't, as observed by your next response. See above post.....