Huge!

[prometheus]

"Ada", as I'm sure you know, on the eighth day, God created A'straaalia...

And he has been resting from it ever since...

[debussy symbolism]

Interesting.

[pianistimo]

ok.  prometheus.  i went back to around #7 of this thread and found your site for 'cosmic background radiation' and read it and several other threads on the internet from 'scientific sites' and not creationist sites.

something that sticks in my head is that the amount of photons for every particle of matter are supposed to be the same today as when the 'big bang happened.'  how can this be if cosmic background microwave radiation was many times more than it is today?  and how could things not be 'cooked' instead of sustaining life? 

how many photons are sustainable for every particle of matter - if we increased the number.   

now our early universe supposedly had 1 part in a billion more particles than anti-particles.   and, when the 'big bang' occurred - this explosion filled the ENTIRE UNIVERSE (ok that's more billions and billions of light years than i can imagine - if we're talking no CREATION) ALL AT ONE TIME.  this is what scientists say.  now HOW CAN THAT BE?  how can this have happened all at one time - instantaneously - EVERYWHERE?

i thought of some of my questions after reading from this site:

www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm

[prometheus]

There was no explosion. The word 'big bang' was first coined to by a scientists to make fun of a belgium priest/cosmologist that proposed the whole universe originated from what he called a 'primordial atom'.

The big bang was not an explosion. It was an expansion of space itself.

The reason the cosmic background radiation is quite low now is because the energy is stretched out over more space now then when the universe was stil very young, and hot. Space expanded, it inflated.

A photon is not a particle of matter. It is a packet of electro-magnetic energy. This same energy can be the kinetic energy of a particle. This means a particle is 'hot'.

There is conservation of matter and energy.

The big bang did not fill the universe. The universe itself expanded. We know the unverse at some point was a singularity. And we know that it 'inflated' faster than the speed of light into something much bigger. And then it cooled down, allowing for matter to form.

As for matter and anti-matter. We don't really know why our universe is ruled by matter. Why isn't there a symmetry?

If scientists don't know neither do I. We have to accept that we can't know everything. But we also must accept that when we try to figure it out we will probably make progress. So that is what science does.

Rather than invoking 'god did it' because that stops all progress. If god really did it we will not be able to figure it out, right?


As you can see on that page. The big bang theory was riduculized, then buried but then it stood up from the dead, ressurected. Today it is accepted by all of science and debate is about details. The big bang theory is far from complete.

Today we are dealing with the 'Inflation theory' thing. But this is above my level of understanding. I think that there were several different versions of the inflation theory and that we recently discovered that recent discoveries, observations and experiments favor one of them quite clearly.

There is also a lesson about scientific method. They don't have a dogma. Science rejected the big bang theory because it was too religious. But when reality forced them to accept and embrace it nonetheless they did.

Many scientists tried really hard to refute the big bang theory. But they failed. Because it's worn out by the facts. We will never know what is really true. But we know the universe looks as if it resulted from a singularity and expanded. Then we can only assume the universe is as it looks. No trickster god.

[pianistimo]

to asyncopated,

these relativistic jets that are seen emitting powerful jets of plasma from 'discs' - these are supposedly plasma known to be electrically neutral and formed of electrons and protons and yet travel the fastest of anything we know?!  and still possess the elements of electrons and protons together?  why is it not only protons? or neutrons? 

[pianistimo]

so dark matter has no photons?

also, if we are just now witnessing the 'surface of last scattering' which is 13.7 billion year old light - HOW DID WE GET HERE BEFORE THE LIGHT ARRIVED?

i'm just asking questions.  don't shoot.  seriously, i don't think i'll ever know the deepest answers to the easiest questions - but in truth - how much different is faith in science and human reasoning - to faith in God?

[prometheus]

Ok, you linked to a page that has articles of three people that are in a sense 'dissidents' for rejecting the big bang theory.

The first one is Eric J. Lerner. He follows what is called Plasma cosmology.

Plasma cosmology rejects that the universe has an origin. Because there is no way to get away from an ex nihilo('out of nothing' models which it considers to be 'stealth creationism'.

Hannes Alfvén laid the basis for this theory, which is not worn out by the facts. He believed that the big bang theory was a myth devised to explain creation.

I couldn't find anything on William C. Mitchell.

The third person is Halton Arp and he follows Redshift quantization. This is supposed to explain the redshift in another way than to say that these objects are moving away from us. This is what  asyncopated talked about; Hubble's Law. This process of Redshift quantization has never been observed.

[pianistimo]

wait - i thought that your favorite astrophysicist alexei filippenko proved that was true.  that's how he proved the universe was expanding.  he added to the redshift some of his own theories didn't he?

well - no matter if he did or didn't.  i'm tired.  the universe is too big for me to contemplate right now.  i think i will say my bedtime prayers.  i'll say one for you too.  that you get some sleep and don't worry too much if someone blows up a theory once in a while.  i mean - they aren't set in stone like the bible.

[prometheus]

so dark matter has no photons?

Dark matter was 'invented' to explain gravitational effects on galaxies. According to our laws of gravity that what we saw happening shouldn't be possible. So either our laws were wrong or there were unaccounted gravitational forces. So some people proposed the idea of 'invisible matter' that was having this gravitational influence but we were unable to observe directly. This was called 'dark matter'.

Since photons have no mass and thus create no gravitational force they cannot account for dark matter. Light does not fall from trees.

Dark matter has recently been observed directly. But we still do not know what it is. Some things have been proposed.

also, if we are just now witnessing the 'surface of last scattering' which is 13.7 billion year old light - HOW DID WE GET HERE BEFORE THE LIGHT ARRIVED?

The expansion of the universe was faster than the speed of light. Because of that we were 'detached' from other parts of space. Because of that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. And because of that there is a 'surface', the edge of the observable universe that is 13.7 billion light years away. It is the oldest light we can see. And it is the first light released by the big bang, when the universe cooled down enough to stop scattering light so that it could move freely.

Ok, I used 'light' to refer to al electro-magnetic radiation. But that's not really true. If you have a tv on a dead channel you can see 'snow'. This is caused by random radiation in the earth's atmosphere. About 5% of this radiation is cosmic background radiation, the light of the big bang and the oldest light that has reached us, comming from the 'surface of last scattering'.

I think this was a good question.

i'm just asking questions.  don't shoot.  seriously, i don't think i'll ever know the deepest answers to the easiest questions - but in truth - how much different is faith in science and human reasoning - to faith in God?

You don't have to have faith in science and human reasoning. You can verify it. You don't have 'faith' in the fact that I will be able to read your messages. Right? You know from experience that it is possible to send messages.

Because of that you know that human reasoning and science work at least some times.


You can't verify god.

[prometheus]

wait - i thought that your favorite astrophysicist alexei filippenko proved that was true.  that's how he proved the universe was expanding.  he added to the redshift some of his own theories didn't he?

Well, according to most scientists redshift of light is caused by the fact that the objects that emit the light are moving away from us. According to Halton Arp this is not the case. For him the universe is static, not expanding. And the redshift is caused by this 'Redshift quantization'-process. If redshifting is really caused by Redshift quantization then the big bang theory is probably wrong. But Redshift quantization has never been observed as far as I know. We can be quite sure that resdhifting is caused by the objects moving away from us. And if all objects all around us move away from us then space is expanding.

  i'll say one for you too.  that you get some sleep and don't worry too much if someone blows up a theory once in a while.  i mean - they aren't set in stone like the bible.

I already got up.

I don't care if a theory is 'blown up'. If theories are not supported by reality then we need a new one. I want to know nature, not some delusional theory made by humans.

I guess I will make some breakfast.

[emmdoubleew]

We don't have more answers. We have a large system of description. Symbols, correlations, tables of data.  We do not have answers. Can you tell me what an electron is?  OH, its a subatomic particle! WOW now I understand.  wait a minute, what is a sub atomic particle?  its a point of energy? OH SO THATS WHAT IT IS....  wait...what is energy?  A mathematical formula?  no.  It is a word to describe a natural phenomenon which we do not understand.

Hmm, no. It's a word we use because we finally understand this natural phenomenon. We know we understand it because we use it everyday, and that's the purpose of science. Scientists aren't concerned with trivia but with technology. Scientists aren't concerned with parading evolution as truth, they're interested in how we can use evolution to deal with modern day problems.

you cannot simply say:  "SCIENCE!  THEREFORE, NOT GOD!"

I agree.

[debussy symbolism]

If there should be God, then there might as well be no science. After all, the world could might as well follow the most unexplainable of patterns. I am sure that there are many unexplained phenomenon, but that doesn't mean that divinity is behind it.

[pianistimo]

how can life come from nothing.  absolutely nothing.  there had to be something.  at least the bible provides a starting and ending point for the earth.  spirit.  dust returns to dust and spirit to spririt (or God) it is eternal.  even science has a symbol for infinity.  why?  they cannot explain it rationally.

as i see it...each person born has a 'thumprint' spirit that God keeps.  each person is different. why?  we could have all looked a lot more alike.  it would have been less trouble for the evolutionary process if there was one mold.  evolution is a very simplistic model compared to creation.  it means the processes are constantly randomly mutating until a completely new species develops.  but, the missing link is still missing when you compare the fossils of olive trees to the olive trees we have today.  the next thing i want to study is the tree rings of the fossilized olive trees found in greece in the santori? region.  they are said to be 5,000 plus years old and then by others 50,000 or 60,000 years old.  they must have a complete tree ring around somewheres.  i want to find out.

and why the minute detail in dna of every living thing.  to look at a tree and realize that the trunk is going to have the absolute longest and tallest part and all the branches (on every tree) will be shaped will reach out in 3D providing whatever shape of tree that it is.  it seems like a small thing at first - until you just go outside and realize that every tree you look at is a work of art.  every leaf is the same as it was for an ash or a maple - as it was thousands of years ago.  what is genetically altered THAT much?  nothing.  our creation is based on seeds and reproduction of LIKE kind.  if evolution were true - our trees would be CRAZY.  and, the most evolved.  i mean - if it all started at the grassroots - we'd have much taller and taller trees.  what causes them to grow fairly uniformly when planted in similar soil. 

diversity within uniformity is the biggest dillema, imo, for evolution. 

[pianistimo]

on article i found counters wikipedia.  one article says that an olive tree grew to be 2,300 years old - and wikipedia says they can grow to be several hundred years old.  now, if olive trees can be in the thousands of years - we have a good dating tool.  i'm sure someone else has already thought of this.

[prometheus]

how can life come from nothing.  absolutely nothing. 

According to science life didn't come from nothing. Same with the universe. We know life came from complex organic chemicals. And we just don't know where the 'big  bang came from'.

But the bible, there life came from absolutely nothing. And men himself came from dirt. Do you know what dirt is? It is made of silicium. Not carbon.

there had to be something.  at least the bible provides a starting and ending point for the earth.  spirit.

Huh?

dust returns to dust and spirit to spririt (or God) it is eternal.  even science has a symbol for infinity.  why?  they cannot explain it rationally.

Uuh... You claim that bible had a beginning. But then a scentence later you claim they are both eternal.

As for infinity. Math has infinity. Reality has not.

  it would have been less trouble for the evolutionary process if there was one mold.  evolution is a very simplistic model compared to creation.

According to evolution we have all different genes. So it explains difference and variation easily. What about genetic deficts. Creation can't explain it.

Of course evolution is the more simple model. That's because creation requires a creator that came from nothing.

if evolution were true - our trees would be CRAZY.  and, the most evolved.  i mean - if it all started at the grassroots - we'd have much taller and taller trees.  what causes them to grow fairly uniformly when planted in similar soil. 

Don't tell biologists what to believe. They know what evolution is. You don't. Because if you did you had to accept that it is a good model to explain reality. And then you would have to abadon the literal bible.

You fear god too much to accept his creation.

[asyncopated]

As for infinity. Math has infinity. Reality has not.

Sorry prometheus, I think I have to beg to differ with you here.  The reason that math has infinity and it pervades throughout, is that it is an accurate description of the real world.

Infinity is not a number. It is a concept with means tending towards a very large or very small number  (1/x as x approaches infinity) in what is largely a universal way.

It can be applied everywhere, the whole foundation of newtons laws, laws of electrodynamics etc. uses the concept of infinity to assert that space and time are "smooth", which is why we can define a derivative, and solve equations of the motion.

Infinity is a proper, self-consitent logical concept in mathematics that accurately describes what we see in the world around us.  To what extent this is accurate, we still have no idea.  But so far, there hasn't yet been a better proposition.

[prometheus]

Of course it is a concept. I don't understand why you don't agree since that what you say is exactly what I was saying.

[pianowelsh]

God has infinity and He made something out of nothing..thats cool! At the same time wewho are finite, who trust in Jesus are eternal beings and wont die.  I dont know if you can really separate the math of a person from the reality of that. Inexplicable?!? maybe but God knows...He is wise. Much smarter than you or I.

[asyncopated]

Of course it is a concept. I don't understand why you don't agree since that what you say is exactly what I was saying.

Ok, sorry I think it's semantic.  The word 'has' is tricky.

[pianowelsh]

Ok would you prefer 'is infinite'

[pianistimo]

ok.  i have a science question.  i'll try to pose it without being too 'full of it' because i know that i don't know everything.  well, anything that doesn't have to do with a few bible questions.  here's my question:

scientists say this about the 'big bang' :  'the early universe was opaque because a) it was a sea of hot, dense, ionized gas and b) free electrons in ionizzed medium scatter photons.  and instead of being able to pass through - had to have high 'electricity.'  on the 400,000 year of 'expansion' - it density and temp dropped to a critical level that allowed the combination of subatomic particles and resulted in hydrogen and various other light elements to form.  matter and radiation finally disunited and the universe became 'transparent.'

ok. my question:  our entire sky is uniform in every direction and has 2.725 above absolute zero background radiation.  that would imply that the 'center' of everything was US and that it wasn't coming to us - wouldn't it?  and also, another question:  if oxygen is created at the same time as when you make hydrogen - if hydrogen is a huge portion (90%)  element of the entire universe - why is there not as much oxygen everywhere?  what happened to it?  is it because THAT hydrogen wasn't produced with WATER?  when we produce hydrogen we do it with jars of water and electrical coils and batteries - and get a result - but we need WATER.   there is no water elsewhere.  or are many pieces of chunks of astral matter huge blocks of ice?  they just float around as ice chunks?  where did the oxygen go?

btw, these are entirely my own questions.  hence, probably simple answers.  but, i await them nonetheless.

[asyncopated]

scientists say this about the 'big bang' :  'the early universe was opaque because a) it was a sea of hot, dense, ionized gas and b) free electrons in ionizzed medium scatter photons.  and instead of being able to pass through - had to have high 'electricity.'  on the 400,000 year of 'expansion' - it density and temp dropped to a critical level that allowed the combination of subatomic particles and resulted in hydrogen and various other light elements to form.  matter and radiation finally disunited and the universe became 'transparent.'

I don't mean to sound condescending, but I am impressed by your knowledge

ok. my question:  our entire sky is uniform in every direction and has 2.725 above absolute zero background radiation.  that would imply that the 'center' of everything was US and that it wasn't coming to us - wouldn't it?   

Not exactly.  Microwave background radiation seems to be isotropic (same in all directions) and homogeneous (same everywhere in space that we know of).  This means that it's unlikely that we are in the "center".  In fact, current theories of space and time might not even allow for a "center".  Think of the surface a ball, not the volume but the surface.  The word "center" has no meaning because there is none -- some scientist postulate that we live on such a surface. 

In all truth, i don't know what is true or not about the big bang.  It's one of the really big questions about the universe.  It seems to give us an idea about why we see the universe as it is today, and possibly of where we might be headed, but until we learn much more, we can't say anything for sure.  Talking about our world is difficult enough, I find big bang is even more difficult a concept to really get my head around. not that i don't believe it, but I only believe it in as much as it gives us some understanding, and am open to other possible theories.

and also, another question:  if oxygen is created at the same time as when you make hydrogen - if hydrogen is a huge portion (90%)  element of the entire universe - why is there not as much oxygen everywhere?  what happened to it?  is it because THAT hydrogen wasn't produced with WATER?   

It's not really created at the same time. Hydrogen is the easiest element to create in the sense that it has 1 proton and 1 electron and is essentially stable when it combines in pairs.  H₂.  Oxgen is created much later down the chain by fusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements

The percentages that we see of the elements up to fusion are related directly to the "difficulty" (scientific term is potential barriers) for fusion to form that particlar element.

After iron, elements are naturally created in violent reactions like in supernovas.  This is also how we create superheavy elements artifically.  We sort smash two smaller elements against one another to create a heavier element

https://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/7/7

when we produce hydrogen we do it with jars of water and electrical coils and batteries - and get a result - but we need WATER.   there is no water elsewhere.  or are many pieces of chunks of astral matter huge blocks of ice?  they just float around as ice chunks?

What you are describing is electrolosis

This is a chemical process (or more accurately the reversal of a chemical reaction) by pulling apart hydrogen and oxygen molecules.  Originally hydrogen was not created using water, by rather when the dense soup cleared to form stable particles like electrons, protons and neutrons, because electrons (negetively charged) attact protons (positively charged) they immediatly combine when close to one another to form hydrogen giving off light in the process.

I don't know if this makes sense... sorry about not being very clear. 

 

[pianistimo]

thanks for taking the time to explain all that.  i was wondering where all the water on the planet came from.  water seems to be second to the profuse amount of oxygen.  was there a separate creation of our atmosphere from the 'heavens?'  could they be NOT related at all?  just a wonderment.  i find the 'suface of last scattering' very hard to believe and i don't believe that evolution could cause radiation to be everywhere at once in the universe considering how large it is.  that's like expecting me to believe that my cat was responsible for populating the world.

also, it would not account for the expansion of the universe.  as i see it - which is still a child's eye view of science - i know - if hydrogen is the lightest gas - and all the elements that are much heavier are produced with a cooling off - and we are at 'the surface of last scattering' and there is much cooler temps than before - we should have less and less ability to make any sort of elements at all - if they are originally the product of a big bang.  the cooling off only created them from what was preexisting, right?  perhaps this is the case - in which case it would again lead to a single source - because it is returning to a single source = what we see as nothing.

there are a few scriptures that mention the earth 'fading.'  this implies to me - a lessening of abilities - and extinctions not only of some human races, but also some animal species, and elements?  or do you think elements are cyclical and come back in forms over and over like the water cycle?

[asyncopated]

i was wondering where all the water on the planet came from.  water seems to be second to the profuse amount of oxygen.  was there a separate creation of our atmosphere from the 'heavens?'  could they be NOT related at all?  just a wonderment. 

Another thing I don't know about.  You need to ask a geologist.  most of the earth surface is covered with water.  I'm not sure what it's like nearer the core, or what the percentages are or how to rationalise them.  However, I think that we do know that answers to these questions, it's just a matter of finding out (talking to someone credible who knows about these things). 

If you do find out about this I will be interested to know.

i find the 'suface of last scattering' very hard to believe and i don't believe that evolution could cause radiation to be everywhere at once in the universe considering how large it is.  that's like expecting me to believe that my cat was responsible for populating the world.
also, it would not account for the expansion of the universe.

I need to read that more carefully I don't understand that myself as well.  Will tell you tomorrow after I've found out more.

if hydrogen is the lightest gas - and all the elements that are much heavier are produced with a cooling off - and we are at 'the surface of last scattering' and there is much cooler temps than before - we should have less and less ability to make any sort of elements at all - if they are originally the product of a big bang.  the cooling off only created them from what was preexisting, right?

This idea is a bit simplistic.  Not all of the universe is in thermodynamic equilibrium.  Although the vast majority -- the "empty" space is.  Stars, backholes, nuetron stars, pulsars, etc. are not really in equilibrium.  They are very violent objects that are fuel by a dance of energy and matter. This is where most of our elements are produced.

Also for a cooling universe, or one with increasing entropy (entropy and temperature are linked), again, that is a huge scientific question, and a very valid one.  there are some theories around, but i don't think any of them are conclusive.

You ask tough questions!  are you sure you are not a budding scientist? 

last question - why - when all the protons and electrons and particles combine to make hydrogen - that they do not also make water?  or do they?  sort of like 'sweat.'  intense heat to cooling.

Hydrogen consist of 1 electron and 1 proton sometimes, with 1 neutron.  Oxygen on the other hand consists of  8 protons, 8 electrons and  (usually) 7/8 neutrons. 

It's just easier to make a element of one of each particle.  Helium is rather easy to make as well, but not as easy as hydrogen.  You need quite alot of collisions with high energy  before you get an element with 16 charged particles.  You then also need the right conditions for water molecules H20 to form. 

So it's a much longer process (many more fusion and chemical reactions) to get to water than just simple hydrogen.

[pianistimo]

last question - why - when all the protons and electrons and particles combine to make hydrogen - that they do not also make water?  or do they?  sort of like 'sweat.'  intense heat to cooling.

[pianistimo]

well, i know with entropy you're back to the second law of thermodynamics - which i quoted because i know very little about it and wanted to get feedback.  i am what you call a 'backwards' budding scientist. i start with the paths of least resistance until i hit major brick walls and decide to just stop and do something else.

ps i know you could have stopped me in my tracks about 100 messages back.  you are very kind.  thankfully, i get sidetracked easily (when not obsessing).  i mean, this morning i woke up and wasn't totally thinking about nitrogen, although i was thinking about background radiation.

just watching ice melt is a phenomenon to me.  say you put a cube of ice in warm water.  it doesn't just melt.  it flips over and over.  becomes top heavy due to surface melting slower than base.  this could keep me busy for a few hours.  but, now, due to the advent of the internet - i find 'far ultraviolet spectroscopic explorer' a little bit more interesting.  it is said that 'beta pictoris disk' has been explored and as it continues to create itself - that the planets that come out of it are hypothesized to be 'water-rich' like the earth - OR extremely carbon-rich and sort of 'smoggy.'  the gas around beta pictoris is supposedly very carbon-rich.  (how do they determine this? is it because of fogginess?)

[ahinton]

i was wondering where all the water on the planet came from.

As well you might, given that you appear to believe that, a mere 6,000 or so years ago, the entire earth was submerged under the stuff up to a depth of at least 10km greater than is now the case (not that you seem ever to have explained how, when or why so much of it evaporated so soon afterwards...).

water seems to be second to the profuse amount of oxygen.

...or words, perhaps...

also, it would not account for the expansion of the universe.  as i see it - which is still a child's eye view of science

Some might say that you'd know about that...

we should have less and less ability to make any sort of elements at all

But didn't God make all the elements? (albeit He then seems rather carelessly to have omitted to tell Peter all about them...)

- if they there are a few scriptures that mention the earth 'fading.'  this implies to me - a lessening of abilities - and extinctions not only of some human races, but also some animal species, and elements?  or do you think elements are cyclical and come back in forms over and over like the water cycle?

I don't know about the earth "fading" - but, having read that paragraph five times in rapid succession, something certainly seems to be fading here - it's either manifesting itself as a "lessening of (my) abilities" or it isn't...

Best,

Alistair

[debussy symbolism]

Interesting discussion.

[pianowelsh]

The words used are poetic...which shows how emotively God felt about it 'opened the floodgates of heaven'. He knew we would never understand how it was done. We cant even fathom the depths of what we have let alone workout a source which would cover the whole earth (wasnt 10km by the way thats more than even the bible claims). It also speaks of the waters receeding. it dosent say how God did it  - we dont need to know that really it suffices to say that large ammounts receeded..part of which could have been through eveaporation However we know that excessive heat was not the case as else it would have consummed a goafer wood vessel! we also know that it was a gradual receeding not like a sudden plop - done! God was so angry at Sin that the entire world needed to be covered and figuratively cleansed - perhaps practically speaking to in ways which we cant fully take in. Re oxygen ? who knows we know God sustained the lifes of Noah and his family thats all, there were no others who needed oxygen. As God is the one who the bible teaches gave breath to Adam and Eve in the opening chapters of our worlds existance I dont think he had any real issues sustaining a handfull of folks on a boat.

[debussy symbolism]

Still an interesting discussion.