• 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!

Big Bang in Trouble

Status
Not open for further replies.

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Is the Big Bang in crisis?
Stubborn problems with dark matter, dark energy, and cosmic expansion have some astronomers rethinking what we know about the early universe.

"...cosmologists have struggled — if not outright failed — to understand essential facets of the universe. We know almost nothing about dark matter and dark energy, which together make up more than 95 percent of the total energy in existence today. We don’t understand how the universe’s protons, electrons, and neutrons could have survived the aftereffects of the Big Bang. In fact, everything we know about the laws of physics tells us that these particles should have been destroyed by antimatter long ago. And in order to make sense of the universe as we observe it, cosmologists have been forced to conclude that space, during its earliest moments, must have undergone a brief and spectacular period of hyperfast expansion — an event known as cosmic inflation. Yet we know next to nothing about this key era of cosmic history."

.."scientists generally assume that space expanded steadily during the first fraction of a second, without any unexpected events or transitions. It is entirely plausible that this simply was not the case."

"they know relatively little about the first seconds that followed the Big Bang — and next to nothing about the first trillionth of a second. When it comes to how our universe may have evolved, or to the events that may have taken place during these earliest moments, we have essentially no direct observations on which to rely."

Is the Big Bang in crisis?

The big bang theory is not a theory of origins of the universe, but a theory of development of the universe. And it is backed by very detailed evidence.

If the problems of dark matter etc are solved - the universe will still be expanding, the CMB radiation would still be present and still fall in line with big bang predictions.
The facts are what they are and remain what they are.

That the very early universe poses challenges to cosmologists isn't exactly fresh news either... Physics has basically been stuck for several decades now when it comes to that - so you are a bit late to catch up.



Creation is a better explanation.

Religious assertions aren't explanations of anything.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Creation remnant radiation. Sad how some people have tried to credit the radiation to a fable.

The difference is that the radiation, and its distribution, is predicted by big bang theory in great detail.

While your silly religious creationism is compatible with universes with radiation, universes without radiation, universes with different types of radiation,.... Because it doesn't predict anything nore does it explain anything nore does it address any facts whatsoever. Instead, it's just a bare assertion "god-dun-it" - no matter what "it" is.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I think it is.
But it's very lacking in predictive power / testability.
It does have the advantage of no fancy math though.


To "explain" means to make things clear, understandable, simpler.

It means to take a complex thing or one or more unknowns and clarify them in terms that are simple or known and understood.

"creation" is not an explanation, because it attempts to "solve" a mystery by appealing to an even bigger mystery.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
In origin sciences those theories are beliefs. The bible has predictions too. You do realize there were failed predictions in science? The bible predictions are 100% accurate.
There are supposed to be failed predictions in the world of science.
That's how it progresses, ie, the failures lead to new better theories.
This isn't a problem....it's part of the method.
But the Bible's predictions are so poetic in nature that they're at best
"not even wrong". And at worst, they fail miserably, eg, the age of
the Earth, repeated predictions of the end of the world.
Now you've drifted off into la la land. No prediction involving a same nature in the past exists that was verified.
That is actual science and deal with how things work now and are observed now.
Science still has better access to historical events than does the Bible,
which is simply accepted on faith. For example, the Triassic-Jurassic
Extinction is soundly rooted in forensic science. The Bible says nothing
of it, & is commonly read to even deny that the planet existed then.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
To "explain" means to make things clear, understandable, simpler.

It means to take a complex thing or one or more unknowns and clarify them in terms that are simple or known and understood.

"creation" is not an explanation, because it attempts to "solve" a mystery by appealing to an even bigger mystery.
Not all explanations are useful.
For example, there's a flood in Minot North Dakota which kills 20 people.
Explanations.....
"God works in mysterious ways."
"God did it."
"God punished them for sinful ways."
"Satan did it."
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Not all explanations are useful.
For example, there's a flood in Minot North Dakota which kills 20 people.
Explanations.....
"God works in mysterious ways."
"God did it."
"God punished them for sinful ways."
"Satan did it."


All those are bare claims. None of them explain what happened.

You can call them "explanations", but by virtue of what the word "explanation" actually means, they aren't explanations.
So to call them such, would just be wrong.

upload_2020-5-25_15-35-39.png
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
All those are bare claims. None of them explain what happened.

You can call them "explanations", but by virtue of what the word "explanation" actually means, they aren't explanations.
So to call them such, would just be wrong.

View attachment 40226
For some folk, "God did it." is sufficient clarity & detail.
I find it lacking, but we all have different needs & interests.

Btw, I often run across "God did it." or "The Bible
says so.", & the poster finishes the post with "nuff said".
This clearly shows satisfaction with the explanation.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Prove that stars are getting further away without using redshift? I have no reason to assume that out in unknown deep space, there are factors that affect light that we do not know about.

"The observational consequences of this effect can be derived using the equations from general relativity that describe a homogeneous and isotropic universe.

To derive the redshift effect, use the geodesic equation for a light wave, which is

d s 2 = 0 = − c 2 d t 2 + a 2 d r 2 1 − k r 2 {\displaystyle ds^{2}=0=-c^{2}dt^{2}+{\frac {a^{2}dr^{2}}{1-kr^{2}}}}
7f5cf01702557114f8e9c8e08d612a1d8393293d

where

Time is an integral part of what we use to determine what Redshift is all about. If time were changing, we could see wave lengths change! From the observation point of earth, it would not be known what caused the shift.

On earth and in this area, yes. Once again, we could use a different belief to interpret the observation in deep space!

It isn't. Sorry you did not know that! Earth was here first! Your religious models are wrong and are NOT science at all in any real sense.

I kid you not.
I think I'll abide by the solid truth as it pertains to the properties of light. It's stuff you can actually see for yourself with very tangible results.

Not some book of mythology that has been derived from from ancient Greek and Roman culture that has no tangibility or substance by way of its storytelling.

And Earth was certainly not the first from the singularity much less any of its life. That was very bemusing. Lol.
 

Messianic Israelite

Active Member
Well if you noticed from the science article, it does not repudiate the big bang.

It seems to address the role of dark matter more than anything else as it relates to the expansion of the universe to where revisions to the theory are necessary in light of new information.

While it mentions the big bang, the article isn't about the big bang itself, or whether or not it happened, we already know that it happened.
Hi Nowhere Man. Good afternoon. Yes, you already know the Big Bang happened because you were there, weren't you? Job 38:4 says "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding."
 

dad

Undefeated
well, I would still outperform the ones who know absolutely nothing. "Almost nothing" is vastly preferable to "absolutely nothing". Don't you think so?

Ciao

- viole
So you can't dispute knowing almost nothing, but you try to project the same disease to other beliefs.

I could defend how Scripture is based on knowledge and history and eyewitnesses, experience etc etc. But that is another thread. Once we see you admit knowing almost nothing about your own fable here, we are done.
 

dad

Undefeated
I realise insight is not your strong suit.

But perhaps other readers may find my summary saves them the trouble of wading through the article for themselves.
Why wade through the article? I picked out the gems already.
 

dad

Undefeated
That's terrific!

How does it work, exactly? What are the processes involved?
All forces that exist and others we do not know about are involved. ALL of them jump to the tune of His voice. He speaks and it is so. Don't blame me if science has such limited understanding. The way God puts it is like this

Isa 55:9 - For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

I assure you my views are mainstream orthodox. On the basis of what evidence do you disagree?
On the basis of what science claims and you seem to be defending.
The standard model in cosmology and their claims about how stars evolve and where they come from, and what they are is the thing I disagree with.

It's your chosen conclusion to the OP, where you said it was a better 'explanation'. So I'm simply seeking your clarification as to what, exactly, it explains.
Better is in the eye of the beholder.
 

dad

Undefeated
The big bang theory is not a theory of origins of the universe, but a theory of development of the universe. And it is backed by very detailed evidence.
That is one way to describe a little hot soup speck burping out the universe. However, since they do claim that the observable universe originated in that once small soup, that is all about origin.

If the problems of dark matter etc are solved - the universe will still be expanding,
Or, if you misread what red-shifted light is really all about, the so called expanding would be viewed another way. Remember dark stuff is an invention to explain what we see out in unknown space, so any problem involved with it is really just a problem in your comprehension.

the CMB radiation would still be present and still fall in line with big bang predictions.
No. The prediction depends on a series of things a pile of beliefs that cannot be proven. Basically the so called prediction is just a crass attempt to claim credit for creation background radiation for your fable.

That the very early universe poses challenges to cosmologists isn't exactly fresh news either...
True. The ignorance runs deep and has been here awhile.

Physics has basically been stuck for several decades now when it comes to that - so you are a bit late to catch up.
That never stopped them from making stuff up based on what they admit not knowing!
 

dad

Undefeated
There are supposed to be failed predictions in the world of science.
I'll say! Nothing to brag about though! Some people may have an issue with science building a castle on the sand of some event that they admit they know nothing about though!

That's how it progresses, ie, the failures lead to new better theories.
This isn't a problem....it's part of the method.
Modus operandi would be a better term! The scientific modus operandi!
I know how they work, and can see em comin.


But the Bible's predictions are so poetic in nature that they're at best
"not even wrong". And at worst, they fail miserably, eg, the age of
the Earth, repeated predictions of the end of the world.
Ah, now you try to smear other beliefs as some excuse for your own failure.
Science still has better access to historical events than does the Bible,
which is simply accepted on faith.
Oh? Are you sure they do not just limit what they choose to call historical to things that their limited methodology can confirm?
For example, the Triassic-Jurassic
Extinction is soundly rooted in forensic science.
Science was able to see remains of dead creatures. Wow. No one argues that creatures didn't die! What a lame attempt to credit science! Now when this happened is not known to science. They used belief based methods to determine dates.

The Bible says nothing
False. The bible says Adam died. The bible says death was brought into the world through one man. That means we should find remains of some dead creatures. What an example!
of it, & is commonly read to even deny that the planet existed then.
? How would fossils mean the planet never existed. You seem to be drifting.
 

dad

Undefeated
I think I'll abide by the solid truth as it pertains to the properties of light. It's stuff you can actually see for yourself with very tangible results.
You tested light in a lab. It does behave as it should there. Your lab is not in deep space.


Not some book of mythology that has been derived from from ancient Greek and Roman culture that has no tangibility or substance by way of its storytelling.
The inevitable attempt to slur other beliefs...yawn...

And Earth was certainly not the first from the singularity much less any of its life. That was very bemusing. Lol.
There was no singularity and claiming there was one is based on not knowing!
Lol indeed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top