Where is your evidence of where, when and how space, matter, energy and time came into existence and in what sequence?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A new theory for the creation of the universe.
- Thread starter Ted Evans
- Start date
Where is your evidence of where, when and how space, matter, energy and time came into existence and in what sequence?
Time existed at least 13.8 billion years ago when Big Bang happened. Expansion of the universe requires time, and evidence (detailed in my earlier post) shows that this expansion started 13.8 billion years ago.
Last edited:
And I thought you are above the nonsense that nature was created 10,000 years ago but is made to look billions of years old to fool scientists. If that is what you are going by, why not have the universe be created by the devil yesterday but made to look old and with false memories of us having a past life?
Time has been a factor in physics since Aristotle or before, and is essential to any concept of motion or change.
Yet our physical model has no concept of NOW. Everyone knows the arrow of time through experience, but just what that means in terms of physics is undescribed.
If indeed Einstein's concept of spacetime as a unit is correct, then we're each moving through it in a deterministic manner, and I have no way of telling whether my consciousness of now is simultaneous with yours, or whether yours is hours or years or even dead in the future, or in the past.
And if we're in this deterministic concrete block, we still know that at the least our consciousness moves through its various states, even if those states themselves are fixed.
So the fact that we know change happens means that change / time is somewhere. It'll take a genuinely dinky explanation to persuade me otherwise.
- And then science had to discard the Newtonian gravitational ideas of celestial motion when discovering the "galactic rotation curve".
That is: Cosmological science is also based on beliefs and ad hoc assumptionsAnd frequently one can read that cosmological scientists are surprised over new findings that contradict former consensus "firm evidences".
Yes. So? Science provides a sequence of better and better approximations to the truth. it does so by testing and observation. Any time we proceed into new realms, there will be a question whether the old models work in the new realm. Any time we manage to extract more precision in our measurements there is a possibility the old models will fail at the increased precision.
BTW, Newtonian gravitational ideas were discarded in favor of general relativity way before galactic rotation was observed. You are thinking of the *addition* of dark matter to the Newtonian models (and relativistic models, although the speeds involved are Newtonian).
But, and this is crucial, when the *new* models come out, they have to agree with the old models in those cases where the old models gave accurate answers.
So, when general relativity came out, the results for our solar system were and had to be in agreement with the Newtonian model *because* the Newtonian model was tested in our solar system and worked.
When quantum mechanics came out, one requirement is that it had to agree with Newtonian physics for things larger than atoms. That is because the Newtonian ideas were tested and worked for things larger than atoms (to the approximations available at the time).
Any new theory for the early universe (and/or before) has to agree with the hot Big Bang model for times after the first second or so of the current expansion. That is because the current hot Big Bang model works very, very well for times after that.
That is true, there has not been one since the global flood.
Easy. The BB model is based on General Relativity. That is what predicts the form for the red-shifts. If the observed red-shifts were different than predicted, that would be a falsification.
The hot BB theory adds thermodynamics and nucleosynthesis. It is based on the reaction cross-sections for the various nuclear reactions (which can be observed today) and the rules of thermodynamics (which again can be verified). The BB model here could be falsified by observations of light element abundances different than the model predicts.
The hot BB theory also predicts the near perfect black body nature of the background radiation. The observations are that the background radiation follows the black body curve to one part in 100,000. But there is more. The theory actually predicts the *differences* with the black body radiation curve. These have been observed and agree with the model.
This much has verified the basic BB model. Any new theory has to *at least* be able to explain these observations to the accuracy we have.
Adding cold dark matter and dark energy to the model predicts the details of the red-shifts for very distant galaxies, the rotation curves of galaxies, the motions of galactic clusters, the gravitational lensing of light passing galaxies, the details of the fluctuations in the black body radiation, etc.
In particular, the black body aspect of the background radiation cannot be mimicked and is, in itself, enough to demonstrate a hot BB. But the fluctuations in that radiation give incredibly precise information about the nature of the early universe. The range and type of curves that can fit this data is very restricted. Observations that could not be fit by the predicted fluctuation curve would be a solid falsification of our current ideas. But they agree incredibly well.
At this point the BB theory is solid. Any new theory would have to agree with the BB model for times after the time of nucleosynthesis. This is a very difficult thing to do.
Those aren't the facts you have to deal with. Those are speculation. The *facts* that you have to deal with are the red-shifts, the light element abundances, the background radiation, and the fluctuations in that background radiation.
Any new theory has to deal with those effectively *first* and can then proceed into the more speculative times.
Wait, didn't you start this whole thread with the pretense of doing everything by the scientific method? If so, where's the evidence for any of your claims? I mean, assuming you still want to keep the pretense up and not just admit that you're using a faith based argument instead of a logical or evidence based one.
I say Poe. How you people waste your time with such a charlatan is entirely up to you.
When did science first come up with the idea of the universe being stretched out, expanding? It was written in Judeo-Christain scriptures in the sixth century BC or even before. Just a couple of verses from a number of them validating the claim.
“He stretches out the north over empty space And hangs the earth on nothing.” (Job 26:7, NASB95)
Most Bible scholars believe Job was one of the first books of the Bible that were written.
“It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.” (Isaiah 40:22, NASB95)
Pretty well shoots down the flat earth that is used quite frequently.
Not at all. You have to remember the model that was used at the time.
The Earth was a flat disk (circle, not sphere) surrounded by water and held up by pillars. The sky was a dome over the Earth which was 'spread out like a tent' to dwell in'. Heaven was a place above the dome of the sky. Remember that the sun, planets, and stars were thought to be *attached* to the sky.
You are 'stretching' in your re-interpretation of these versus as opposed to taking the obvious meaning from the ideas of the time they were written.
IOW, you cannot answer the questions and I already did, case settled.
Nope. You still need to account for everything the BB model already works for:
1. red-shifts of galaxies. They increase with increasing distance as predicted by the BB model.
2. The abundances of light elements. They agree with the predictions made for the hot BB.
3. The existence of the background radiation.
4. The fact that the background radiation follows an almost perfect black body curve. (Do you know what that is?)
5. That the fluctuations in the black body curve fit very specific theoretical curves based on things like age of the universe, amount of mass, amount of baryonic mass (you do know what that is, right?), the cosmological constant (dark energy), the rate of expansion of the universe, etc.
Only *after* your theory describes these at least as well as the current model do you get to push into new territory.
Good luck!
Well, you have proven that you cannot answer questions but I will offer a couple more to prove my claim.
IF, there was no sun, how would seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years and light years be calculated?
IF, there was no intelligence to measure "time", how can you prove its existence?
“What happens with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is that we have to stop playing this game. Instead of introducing this fictitious variable—time, which itself is not observable—we should just describe how the variables are related to one another. The question is, Is time a fundamental property of reality or just the macroscopic appearance of things? I would say it’s only a macroscopic effect. It’s something that emerges only for big things.”
By physical processes that we know the rates for. Like radioactive decay. There are many, many others, though.
Because we can see how things changed in the past through evidence now. That change shows the existence of time.
Which means it is still meaningful for 'big things'. In this context, 'big things' are anything larger than the Planck length. A proton, for example, is many times larger than this.
Can you prove it? Try looking up the meaning of "circle" using scripture definitions.
horizon ⇔ circle n. — the horizon understood as a circle.
As usual, tries to make claims about things he knows absolutely nothing about, IMO.
No offence, guy, but you've lost the right to accuse people of not answering questions.
I say all of your claims are about things you know absolutely nothing about.
Every single one. UNTIL you can verify them with evidence or proof. Use this "scientific methodlogy" you keep going off about and actually stop making yourself look like a hypocrite. You made a HUGE case for yourself, asserting your own superiority and honesty in the OP. Now, show it to be true.
Compare the word for circle and the word for sphere (or ball). The Earth was NOT described as a ball, but as a circle.