Let's talk about the "Big Bang" (theory)

[YoursTrue]

No, there were no 'photos' because photography is a chemical process that can only happen after the heavier elements have formed.

We do have left over light from the hot dense phase in the cosmic background radiation. In a sense, it is a 'photo' of the universe at about 300,000 years old.

Space expands. There was not an explosion (no motion of matter through space). The expansion was there whenever there was space and/or time.

Something (whatever that was--mass? density? whatever that was also) was there, right? At this point I think it's time for me to say, yeah, well, ok...(whatever...) Just wondering what you think...

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, there was no intelligent agent until after at least the first generation of stars, so 'nobody' was around to 'put it there'.

But far more relevantly, causality happens in the forward time direction (the past causes the future). If there is no past, then there is no causality.

My view is that the universe as a whole, including all of space, all of time, all matter, and all energy, 'just exists'. It is not caused because all causes happen *inside* of the universe. It did not 'begin to happen' because time is part of the universe.

once again -- yes, well ok, whatever...have a good one. Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Big Bang theory is under more and more scrutiny as we are able to look deeper and deeper into space.

The unexpected new data coming back from the telescope are inspiring panic among astronomers
NEWS

AUGUST 13, 2022

Physicist Eric J. Lerner comes to the point:

To everyone who sees them, the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) images of the cosmos are beautifully awe-inspiring. But to most professional astronomers and cosmologists, they are also extremely surprising—not at all what was predicted by theory. In the flood of technical astronomical papers published online since July 12, the authors report again and again that the images show surprisingly many galaxies, galaxies that are surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old. Lots of surprises, and not necessarily pleasant ones. One paper’s title begins with the candid exclamation: “Panic!”

Why do the JWST’s images inspire panic among cosmologists? And what theory’s predictions are they contradicting? The papers don’t actually say. The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since. Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic. “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.”

ERIC J. LERNER, “THE BIG BANG DIDN’T HAPPEN” AT IAI.TV (AUGUST 11, 2022)

James Webb Space Telescope Shows Big Bang Didn’t Happen? Wait…

Interesting about the quote from Alison Kirkpatrick ... (let them keep thinking, I suppose...) Thanks for that post. intewesting..

 

[YoursTrue]

The Big Bang theory can be summarized thusly: At one time, the entire universe — everything you know and love, everything on the Earth and in the heavens — was crushed into a trillion-Kelvin ball about the size of a peach.
What Triggered the Big Bang? It's Complicated (Op-Ed)

Well, we have black holes - and theory says that the matter at their core is infinitely dense. Unfortunately, the laws of physics start to get very fuzzy at that point - so it's hard to say whether there is LITERALLY a point of infinite density there. But there isn't a hard-line maximum on density.
Is there a limit to how dense matter can be? - Quora
Note: Polymath will know better. There was no matter at the time of Big Bang, it was plasma.

The trite answer is that both space and time were created at the big bang about 14 billion years ago, so there is nothing beyond the universe. However, much of the universe exists beyond the observable universe, which is maybe about 90 billion light years across.
The universe is expanding, but what exactly is it expanding into? | New Scientist

Why not make a Google search for all these answers? Then if there is something that needs explaining, you can come to the forum. The answer to the last question came in 0.6 seconds with 43,50,00,000 results. Why do you bother people with such silly questions?

OK, now we have a dense mass the size of a peach. So my question which I guess the astronomers and scientists can ponder over if they want to is -- what's beyond the peach? anything? Frankly my dear, since it's beyond my comprehension, I will turn it over to God because there are some things beyond *our* comprehension, as exemplified by the new posits made by those looking through the new type of telescope. When I was in high school I pondered over atoms and what holds them together to make things like wood and desks, etc., despite the "space" between them. The intellectual ability is interesting but nothing gained in terms of pondering beyond having a good time trying to figure things out.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Physicist Eric J. Lerner comes to the point:
One paper’s title begins with the candid exclamation: “Panic!”
The papers don’t actually say. The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since.
“Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.”

Wikipedia: Eric J. Lerner is a popular science wrtier.
What he writes must be sensational, otherwise how will his articles sell?
Panic? What Panic?? Science goes by evidence. If Big Bang is proved false by evidence, we will abandon it. If it needs to be modified, then we will modify it.
So, If JWST's images do not contradict Big Bang hypothesis, then what exactly is the peeve of these papers and people (including Alison Kirkpatrick)? They should clearly come out with their objections.
@cOLTER , science will accept even the existence of God and soul if there was evidence, but unfortunately, there is none.

 

[Aupmanyav]

OK, now we have a dense mass the size of a peach.
-- what's beyond the peach? anything?
Frankly my dear, since it's beyond my comprehension, ..
I will turn it over to God because there are some things beyond *our* comprehension, as exemplified by the new posits made by those looking through the new type of telescope. When I was in high school I pondered over atoms and what holds them together to make things like wood and desks, etc., despite the "space" between them. The intellectual ability is interesting but nothing gained in terms of pondering beyond having a good time trying to figure things out.

1. There was no mass at the time of Big Bang, only energy. Mass developed later (probably due to Higg's Bosons).
2. I have already answered that question - Science does not know. Research is progressing.
3. I understand that it is beyond your comprehension and that you were never very good at science in school. That is OK.
4. It is OK, if you find your answers in a God, but do not expect all people to accept what you believe.
5. Many things have not been explained fully, that is why science is necessary, rather than pushing those things under the God carpet. New posits have not yet made Big Bang theory untenable.

 

[blü 2]

since it's beyond my comprehension, I will turn it over to God because there are some things beyond *our* comprehension, as exemplified by the new posits made by those looking through the new type of telescope. When I was in high school I pondered over atoms and what holds them together to make things like wood and desks, etc., despite the "space" between them. The intellectual ability is interesting but nothing gained in terms of pondering beyond having a good time trying to figure things out.

You don't think any importance is attached to the process of figuring things out?

Do you, for instance, see no use in sending rovers to Mars? Think the Large Hadron Collider and the James Webb telescope are just toys and a waste of money and resources?

Or are you happy with those things but at the same time content to leave such explorations to others?

 

[gnostic]

Frankly my dear, since it's beyond my comprehension, I will turn it over to God because there are some things beyond *our* comprehension, as exemplified by the new posits made by those looking through the new type of telescope. When I was in high school I pondered over atoms and what holds them together to make things like wood and desks, etc., despite the "space" between them. The intellectual ability is interesting but nothing gained in terms of pondering beyond having a good time trying to figure things out.

If you want to leave it to god it is your business.

And if you don’t want to learn science, that’s also your business.

Then why come to the science and religion science debate forum to tell us how you believe science got it all wrong when science is “beyond your comprehension” and clearly you were never good at science?

I don’t see the logic of you arguing the right or wrong about subjects that you have no understanding of.

How do you know what are wrong about the Big Bang theory, when you don’t understand the explanations, the evidence and data relating to the cosmology?

 

[PruePhillip]

OK, I will read it asap. I did look at it briefly and the very first sentence takes me aback. Here it is: "The Big Bang theory describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of high density and temperature.[" And I know by now that nothing is really nothing, something I never understand anyway even before I believed in God, but from that first sentence in the wiki article, we go back to a proposal about the foundation. How did those elements of "high density" and temperature get there? There is one answer possible: (1) no one knows. Because even if someone believes God put those elements there, how does he know that? Therefore, and Einstein I'm not, no one knows whether the theory is true or not, or real or not. But -- that's me. And again, what's "outside" that conglomerate of substance called what composes the high density and temperature? Anything? (Again -- no one on earth can say beyond conjecture.)

You say you believe in God. But which God? The God of the bible?
If so then it simply says, 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'
That's it - nothing about HOW the 'heaven' was created.
So whether it began from an initial tiny point of 'something' or God sprinkled the 'heavens' with stars is not the point - you must just believe that in the beginning God created it - and what followed from that is a PROCESS, stages if you like, which led to us. The stages of Genesis 1 (first of the two stories) accord with science. It shouldn't matter if the bible DOESN'T agree with science because it's a faith issue - but on this point Genesis and science have a broad agreement.

 

[PruePhillip]

You don't think any importance is attached to the process of figuring things out?

Do you, for instance, see no use in sending rovers to Mars? Think the Large Hadron Collider and the James Webb telescope are just toys and a waste of money and resources?

Or are you happy with those things but at the same time content to leave such explorations to others?

Some Jehovah Witness friend of mine took offense when I said the 'first kangaroos were tree dwellers.'
I suppose he was going to tell me Jehovah created kangaroos to hop on the ground, but thought the better of it after I replied, 'Well the FIRST kangaroos we have discovered to date were tree dwellers.' There's facts.
And yesterday someone objected to the idea that the moon spun off from the earth - as if the work of the Apollo progam proved nothing.
But this ignorance works both ways. I meet people who say there's no truth in the bible whatsoever.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The stages of Genesis 1 (first of the two stories) accord with science.

??

 

[blü 2]

Some Jehovah Witness friend of mine took offense when I said the 'first kangaroos were tree dwellers.'
I suppose he was going to tell me Jehovah created kangaroos to hop on the ground, but thought the better of it after I replied, 'Well the FIRST kangaroos we have discovered to date were tree dwellers.' There's facts.
And yesterday someone objected to the idea that the moon spun off from the earth - as if the work of the Apollo progam proved nothing.
But this ignorance works both ways. I meet people who say there's no truth in the bible whatsoever.

Whereas ─ exactly as it says in the beginning ─ we know for a fact that King James VI and I authorized a famous version of it!

 

[PruePhillip]

Whereas ─ exactly as it says in the beginning ─ we know for a fact that King James VI and I authorized a famous version of it!

?????
I tend to read a range of interpretations, if I get stuck I try the Interlinear.

 

[PruePhillip]

??

First the 'heavens'
then the earth
and the earth is dark, oceanic, no landfall and sterile
then the continents rose
and life appeared on 'land' (fresh water)
and then in the sea
and then man.

 

[Aupmanyav]

First the 'heavens'
then the earth
and the earth is dark, oceanic, no landfall and sterile
then the continents rose
and life appeared on 'land' (fresh water)
and then in the sea
and then man.

Give the exact words of Genesis 1 and then explain.
No, life did not appear on land or in fresh water. Wrong.

 

[Heyo]

Frankly my dear, since it's beyond my comprehension, I will turn it over to God

That's OK. There are still gaps in our knowledge where a god can fit in. But as long as you don't understand the science, you'd have to trust the scientists to tell you where the gaps are.

 

[Heyo]

No, life did not appear on land or in fresh water. Wrong.

Most probably wrong. We don't know yet. But all our hypothesis are saying it was in the oceans.

 

[syo]

how big was the material in the clump? that initiated the "Big Bang"? A secondary question is: did that clump have anything outside of that clump?

It was an egg-shaped.

 

[joelr]

OK, now we have a dense mass the size of a peach. So my question which I guess the astronomers and scientists can ponder over if they want to is -- what's beyond the peach? anything? Frankly my dear, since it's beyond my comprehension, I will turn it over to God because there are some things beyond *our* comprehension, as exemplified by the new posits made by those looking through the new type of telescope. When I was in high school I pondered over atoms and what holds them together to make things like wood and desks, etc., despite the "space" between them. The intellectual ability is interesting but nothing gained in terms of pondering beyond having a good time trying to figure things out.

It was smaller than a peach. The microwave background radiation is evidence that the universe was sub-atomic in size at one point. If new theories arise in physics and are shown to be true they might offer insight into the big bang. There is a lot we don't know.
Atoms are held together by forces, the strong force and EM.

 

[blü 2]

?????
I tend to read a range of interpretations, if I get stuck I try the Interlinear.

I was just trying to pin down a certainly-true statement from the Good Book for you. And there it was, right at the front.