• 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!

How could first big-bang explode?

Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
ben d said:
No, you are wrong still.... I said in post #375...."You can't have quantum fluctuations before you have a quantum vacuum....the energy in the expanding space has to cool to a certain level before it can convert to particles... The quantum fluctuations occur at the same times as particle formation...not before... There were no quantum vacuum fluctuations before this....the big bang event itself was not quantum mechanical ...."

This is still my position, nothing has changed....once the quantum vacuum is cool enough for particles to form...then the quantum effect is taking place...not before... It makes no difference that I had previously been working on the assumption that the particles had to be a part of the atom to be considered sub atomic, as it turns out....all the particles from the beginning of their formation were smaller than atomic size....but this QM effect is not the big bang event as I have been defining it consistently..

There were no quantum mechanics, as the present science understands, in play from time zero big bang until the quantum vacuum fluctuation began...this is what I understand as the big bang event..

This is the gap that you need to address Bunyip, because when you or anyone claims the big bang was a quantum event...this is the part I refer to and say no it isn't, because the definition of QM is not in play at the critical big bang starting phase..
Click to expand...
The first moment of the BB was that quantum vacuum fluctuation event Ben. The QVF IS the BB event Ben.I spent hours yesterday trying to address your misconception of what the prefix 'sub' means. I can't be bothered trying to explain anything more complex to you.
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Bunyip said:
The first moment of the BB was that quantum vacuum fluctuation event Ben. The QVF IS the BB event Ben.I spent hours yesterday trying to address your misconception of what the prefix 'sub' means. I can't be bothered trying to explain anything more complex to you.
Click to expand...
There is no quantum gravity theory to cover the first moment of big bang theory, and general relativity gravity can't account for the first moment either...so you are making things up as Bunyip.... If you have proof, provide it to NASA because they do not know what you claim to know...

What is more...big bang is only a theory and NASA admit that the theory may be wrong...so you are basing your belief in the big bang on faith in the present orthodox theory that may be wrong....and is wrong imo...

WMAP Site FAQs
 
gnostic

gnostic

The Lost One
paarsurrey said:
If there is no room to expand ; how could the Big-bang bang?
Click to expand...

The Big Bang is just a name. A misnomer. You do know what a "misnomer" mean, don't you?

Another scientist, who opposed the Big Bang in favor of his own theory, which is the Steady State model - Fred Hoyle - called it this, in talk radio show, and it would seem that we are stuck with the name.

A better name would be inflationary cosmology, because it would fit the description of the theory to the BB.

It has nothing to do with "bang" or "explosion".

Do not confuse the name of the theory with the THEORY itself.

If you bother to read the theory itself, you will see the name - "Big Bang" is inaccurate. Only people who don't bother to what the theory has to say confuse the theory with explosion. Read, paarsurrey, learn, do a little research.
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
ben d said:
There is no quantum gravity theory to cover the first moment of big bang theory, and general relativity gravity can't account for the first moment either...so you are making things up as Bunyip.... If you have proof, provide it to NASA because they do not know what you claim to know...

What is more...big bang is only a theory and NASA admit that the theory may be wrong...so you are basing your belief in the big bang on faith in the present orthodox theory that may be wrong....and is wrong imo...

WMAP Site FAQs
Click to expand...
ROLFMAO I know the BB is theory Ben, that was just ridiculous.
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
ben d said:
That's a pretty poor attempt at obfuscation....now about your claim that the QVF is the BB event which is not supported by the theory?
Click to expand...
That is the theory Ben. The BB theory argues that the universe begins with a QVF - that is the theory known as 'The Big Bang Theory' Ben.

Perhaps you should look it up?
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Bunyip said:
Um yes Ben, we don't know - what we have is a THEORY. The BB Theory. It suggests that a QVF may have begun the expansion.
Click to expand...
You keep saying this Bunyip....but so far it's you've not explained the science, nor provided a link to where it is....:rolleyes:
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
ben d said:
You keep saying this Bunyip....but so far it's you've not explained the science, nor provided a link to where it is....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Ok sure. It's called the 'Big Bang Theory' you just need to google it. (not the TV series)
 
Rick O'Shez

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
metis said:
Personally, I very much doubt our universe is infinite even though the components, although probably ever-changing, likely were. There's more than enough info to suggest that the BB did indeed happen, such as red-shift and the "after-glow" from the BB.
Click to expand...

I agree. What's mind boggling is when you think about what ( if anything ) is "outside" our expanding universe.
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Ok folks...this is big bang theory in all its clarity.....have faith all you believers...even to the ends of the earth....

The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we. Big Bang Theory

So let me see if I have this right....The big bang singularity did not appear in space, but that's no bother because space appeared in it, and that's what counts......once it did not exist, but that's no bother because now it exists, and that's what counts....we don't know why the big bang occurred, but that's no bother because we know it occurred, and that's what counts......we don't know where it came from, but that's no bother because it did come, and that's what counts.....we don't know where it is, but that's no bother because we know it's here, and that's what counts.....
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Spiny Norman said:
I agree. What's mind boggling is when you think about what ( if anything ) is "outside" our expanding universe.
Click to expand...
Nothing is outside the big bang space time according to the theory...which would make a so called multiverse an impossibility... But it does allow an infinite number of big bang space time universes existing as 'stand alone units' without space time connections between them.. Iow, they would all be internally existing space time bubbles in isolation to each other... A multiverse that allows contact of any sorts between the constituent island universes has to be infinite...
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Spiny Norman said:
I'm curious, did you base your signature on this Buddhist sutta?

Nibbāna Sutta: Unbinding (3)
Click to expand...
No...but reading the sutta, I see it may have been the original text on which the text I came across was based....or the other way around... I don't remember where I came across it....perhaps here on RF at some time...member zenzero comes to mind.....as follows..

There exists that which is not born, nor become, nor made.
If that were not so, there would be no refuge
From that which is born, is become, is made.
That is the end of sorrow.
That is Nirvana.

.......from the Buddha
 
Last edited:
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
ben d said:
Yes...see my sig line...the universe is one...never had a beginning...couldn't be any other way without having a miraculous something from nothing beginning. As for the manifest part, whether it be in the form of one steady state infinite universe or an infinite steady state mulltiverse of island universes.....all the material forms are finite, from island universes, galaxies, stars, etc., and thus have births and deaths...

You appear to have more faith in big bang than NASA and science in general have....NASA .WMAP Site FAQs says, wrt big bang theory.."it could be wrong...no theory is ever absolutely proved true". Much of the touted supporting evidence has been protected from skeptical science criticism by its orthodox followers....including red shift, CMB, and gravity...
Click to expand...
I have read several books on this written by cosmologists, and I haven't read a single one that still supports the SST. Neither do I, but I don't get too hung up on this. All evidence that I have seen them write or speak on this has the universe still expanding.


Added: I don't know where you're getting your information from, so you might want to check out this site: The Big Bang - NASA Science
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
ben d said:
No...but reading the sutta, I see it may have been the original text on which the text I came across was based....or the other way around... I don't remember where I came across it....perhaps here on RF at some time...member zenzero comes to mind.....as follows..

There exists that which is not born, nor become, nor made.
If that were not so, there would be no refuge
From that which is born, is become, is made.
That is the end of sorrow.
That is Nirvana.

.......from the Buddha
Click to expand...
But the SST would defy dharma itself as one of the teachings is that everything changes over time, plus there's the issue of dependence rising to consider and its implications. The BB with multiple causation better fits dharma.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Spiny Norman said:
I agree. What's mind boggling is when you think about what ( if anything ) is "outside" our expanding universe.
Click to expand...
Yes, and why should we assume that we are the only game in town? The more and more we even understand our own universe, the more that we have learned that it's much more complex than what most scientists thought centuries and even just decades ago. One cosmological hypothesis, for example, has it that maybe our universe was spit out of a black hole from another universe.
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
ben d said:
No...but reading the sutta, I see it may have been the original text on which the text I came across was based....or the other way around... I don't remember where I came across it....perhaps here on RF at some time...member zenzero comes to mind.....as follows..

There exists that which is not born, nor become, nor made.
If that were not so, there would be no refuge
From that which is born, is become, is made.
That is the end of sorrow.
That is Nirvana.

.......from the Buddha
Click to expand...

What was Buddha's source of knowledge except Word of Revelation from G-d?

Regards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top