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.
I have a question about your post.
We are speaking of the "beginning of our universe - specifically the "Big Bang Theory". My expertise ends at The Big Bang Theory being one of my favorite shows, so forgive me if my question seems silly.
@PeterDona mentioned the law of thermodynamics (I believe a theory based on the second law as long as there is only one energy source).
You saw a flaw in this thought - mentioning trees, salmon swimming upstream.
My question is if this relates. I was initially following a little bit, but I was thinking we were speaking of a closed system.
Are you suggesting that in a closed system - no other energy source, nothing to absorb this energy - that energy will go from chaos to order?
Degrees of logic. And of course what's logical isn't always trueWhat about photon energy? Since gamma can undergo pair production (yielding matter and anti-matter particles) wouldn't we have to account for all matter, anti-matter, and photon energy?
Anyway...
My point is this energy, to some, is their "god". It had to have existed eternally. But it also had to have been in motion eternally.
Some find it logical to believe there was at least an eternal energy equlivant to the energy and mass in the universe at constant motion from which order evolved. Others find it logical to believe in a god. Yet others find it logical to believe in God.
How can energy in a closed system (what we are by necessity dealing with in a first cause event) become more concentrated?No. Some of the energy in either an open or closed system
may act to temporarily increase order.
I don't think that energy goes from chaos to order.
But in some cases energy may become more concentrated.
These events are readily observed as in examples given
That all matter has an anti-matter counterpart is dependent on science (it is unproven theory based on observable data).Degrees of logic. And of course what's logical isn't always true
The issue is not explaining things but explaining causality.
No matter what sparked the universe it had to have had a beginning. Was energy "god"? Was mass "god"? Was this energy or mass simply always in motion without something setting it in motion?What on Earth does that mean? How does "causality" need to be explained.
No matter what sparked the universe it had to have had a beginning. Was energy "god"? Was mass "god"? Was this energy or mass simply always in motion without something setting it in motion?
I read a lot of things about tree rings, thermodynamics, and big bangs. But that's starting mid-story.
"Let's start at the beginning, a good place to start." (Mary Poppins).
There is plenty of evidence suggesting a 13+ billion year old earth, but only if God is removed from the equation. With God present as Creator then the data is far from evidence (for or against an old earth) and the issue becomes theological (Could God create a mature universe at the start? Does nature itself testify to how God created? Does nature form an obstacle that only faith corrects? Ect).
You are just making assertionsI disagree. The data points to an order and design that can only be attributed to a designer.
Thus far there have been no proofs - no data - against God as Creator. In fact, the data points to the opposite, as an affirmation.
Of the ideas of how the universe came to be, no scientific theory had challenged Creationism (although some have challenged individual ideas about how God created).
Do you believe the First Law of Thermodynamics to be correct?
If so, then there has to be an origin equal to all energy (to include mass) in the universe today.
I think a more simple explanation will do the job for a "beginner".M'boy....this (and similar such and such for beginners) looks like so much fun ! [**cough**]
Thanks for a wonderful recap there. Can you reference a book on the topic?Given that Cuvier was born in 1769, I find that a hard claim to accept.
Naturalists from the 1500s onwards suggested the earth was ancient. There was a particularly rich vein of Italian naturalists (Gasparo Contarini, Girolamo Fracastoro, Tiberio Russilano) who published their speculation. While they didn't give firm estimates, the idea of 'deep time' was already pervasive - millions of years, rather than thousands.
The idea that the world was only 6,000-10,000 years old really only gets legs under it in the later part of the 1500s. Martin Luther, John Calvin and other Protestants declared the earth to be no more than 6000 years old. Then the Catholic Church, looking for ways to push back against the 'heresies' of the Protestant Reformation and the early stages of the Enlightenment, shifted into its own phase of biblical literalism and sought to align the claims of naturalists with a strict chronological interpretation of the Bible.
Serious scientific attempts were made in England and France to actually date the earth starting the early 1700s.
Somewhere around 1715 (potentially earlier), Edmund Halley suggested a method for estimating the age of the earth (based on salination rates). Event the lowest end of the estimates would have produced an age in the millions of years. Halley never tested his hypothesis as he never had the data he wanted, but others did in the 1800s and got ages ranging from 25 million to over 100 million years.
Benoit de Maillet estimated in the mid 1720s that earth was around 2 billion years old (based on sea declination rates). But his estimate wasn't published until after his death in 1738, due to fear of what the Church would say/do. Even then, the estimate was published anonymously.
Georges-Louis Leclerc, the Comet de Buffon, estimated in 1741 that the earth was a little under 75,000 years old. He also delayed publishing his estimate (until 1778), partly because of fear of rejection from other naturalists and also from reprisals from the Church. It was only after he was made a count that he felt safe enough to publish. Even so, he eventually had to publish a retraction.
There was a cottage industry in the second half of the 1700s into the first quarter of the 1800s of trying to estimate the age of the earth through various methods. By the 1820s, it was pretty well established that the earth was millions of years old, if not 10s or 100s of millions of years.
Lyell's estimates of the age of the earth were a refinement of the work of earlier naturalists like Steno and de Saussure and geologists like Werner and Hutton, who proposed rock formation took place under what we would geological time scales. Hutton was probably most responsible (in the 1780s) for the development of what we understand today as 'deep time'
Thanks for joining the conversation. The Hertzsprung-Russell diagrams, those with white dwarfs and red giants and white giants and a main sequence, right?John Gribbin, in his book 13.8: The quest to find the true age of the universe and the theory of everything (Icon Books Ltd., 2015) lays out the evidence for the age of the universe in detail. In particular, he describes the ages determined from the Hertzsprung-Russell diagrams of globular clusters (being Danish you should be familiar with the scientific work of Ejnar Hertzsprung), from the lower luminosity limit of white dwarf stars, from the recession rates of galaxies, and from the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background (WMAP and Planck).
Gribbin concludes that the oldest globular clusters in our Galaxy are 12.6 billion years old, two nearby white dwarfs have ages of 11 and 11.5 billion years, and the oldest individual stars are 14.5±0.8 billion years. The measurements of the recession speeds of galaxies yielded a Hubble constant of 73.8±2.4 km/s/Mpc. The WMAP and Planck measurements of the cosmic microwave background, carried out between 2001 and 2013, yielded a Hubble constant of 67.8±0.77 km/s/Mpc and an age for the universe of 13.798±0.037 billion years.
The good agreement between these three independent methods of measuring the age of the universe is good evidence for the accuracy of the result. Notice that the WMAP and Planck measurements were carried out after 2000 and therefore less than 25 years ago, so the story of scientists at an informal meeting agreeing on an age of 13.7 billion years is incorrect or is based on a misunderstanding.
Can you turn this into a more easily accessible explanation please?Recession velocities of galaxies due to spacetime expansion are characterized by purely radial motion (no transverse component) and is proportional to the distance from the observer according to Hubble's law.
Thanks for joining the conversation. The Hertzsprung-Russell diagrams, those with white dwarfs and red giants and white giants and a main sequence, right?
I have a consideration on this. All those years are mathematical years, not real years. Given that, it could be that they point not to real years, but to some reality which may have to do not with real years but with some fact yet to be realized.
Unless, of course, they can blaspheme God with them.
Like El Niño and His [sister? transgender?] counterpart, La Niña.
And, of course, let's not forget the God Particle.
I do now.You do know that El Niño and La Niña were given their names by Catholic South American fishermen in the 1600s, right?
I do now.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?