100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Is there a "before" the big bang? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
The big bang is a theory. Its not a religion. There are other theories in the making.
Until we actually have all the answers without a doubt... which may never happen, there will be theories. But dismissing scientific theories because we don't know all the answers and resorting to believing in myth and fairy tales of Genesis, however you interpret it, is silly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The genesis fable given in the bible supposedly occurred less than 10,000 years ago. Every piece of evidence that points to anything occurring or existing prior to that time frame is evidence against young earth creationism. yes of course, my point was that science does not even consider genesis to be anything but a fable. i think of evidence as something that supports a particular theory or concept as this disscussion has gone. the god fearing will always come back with, "prove it ain't so." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep. They assume it is true, which is illogical.
One need not waste any time trying to prove that elephants can't fly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is it at any mention of "creation", you hear words like nonsensical, mindless, idiotic, illiterate and stupid?
There is no conflict between creation and the big bang unless one wishes to straw-man the argument with assertions that the Bible must be taken literally. Even then, the 6-days can be reconciled... Please excuse this illiterate Christian, but being illiterate, I don't know the meaning of some words... What does "open-minded" mean? Would I believe my cat ate your bike? It's plausible if you knew my cat... One day my daughter's friend told me that my cat ate her hand. Turned out to be a Barbie doll's hand which was owned by her. The first thing I would do would be to contemplate how that statement could be true and investigate further. Even if you told me it was a 20" Mongoose bmx with a custom magnesium frame that weighed 20 lbs, I could still find it plausible. Can anyone here admit the possibility of a 20lbs or less housecat eating a 20lbs pedal bike? Would anyone here deny that 11=3? Or how about if I said white is green? Being open-minded entails the ability to not reject things at first site, but to examine all aspects conceivable and sometimes the inconceivable. (yeah, I know, oxymoronic statement :-Þ ) And I totally "get" the lumber yard analogy, because the odds of that happening are far greater than the odds we beat to become lifeforms. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is it at any mention of "creation", you hear words like nonsensical, mindless, idiotic, illiterate and stupid? I think those adjectives most often come into play when young earth creationism is being treated as a serious idea. There is no conflict between creation and the big bang If by 'creation' you mean any act of deliberate 'making', yes. I said elsewhere that its odd to me how strongly opposed some theists are to the big bang, as the big bang is much more favorable (relatively speaking) to some kind of creationism than other theories. Please excuse this illiterate Christian, but being illiterate, I don't know the meaning of some words... What does "open-minded" mean? Being willing to consider new arguments and new evidence, and being willing to change one's mind if those new arguments and evidence warrant doing so. It does not mean 'being open to other ideas, for the sake of being open to them. Especially when you've already examined those ideas and found them wanting. I think the squirrel that lives in the tree behind my house is responsible for all of our global financial problems. He's actually one of many transdimensional squirrels, with thousands of projections into our time space continuum, all of which take the form of squirrels. These hyper-squirrels practice mind control, and they use human beings as pieces in an elaborate game, like chess. Our global economis issues are just side effects of that game. I know this because I can see it in his eyes when he stares at me. If you don't accept my idea as worthy of exploration... Well you are so closed minded!! The first thing I would do would be to contemplate how that statement could be true and investigate further. Even if you told me it was a 20" Mongoose bmx with a custom magnesium frame that weighed 20 lbs, I could still find it plausible. Can anyone here admit the possibility of a 20lbs or less housecat eating a 20lbs pedal bike? I think a sensible and sane person, having just seen their mongoose mountain bike that morning, and being told that its missing because a 20lb house cat "ate it", should reasonably conclude that the person is being flippant. It doesn't matter that it might be possible to grind up the bike, mix it with her food, and force all of it to her (without killing her in the process) in 6 hours. The point is that its not 'closed minded' to discount this idea, when presented as the first explanation for why your bike is absent. Consider at least three levels - the person who would never, ever, under any circumstance, accept that this might be true. The person who immediately insist that it must be true, in the absence of any supporting evidence save the bicycle's absence. And then the people who don't waste their time with either of those positions, but reasonable discount the idea as likely being nonsense and seeking a more reasonable explanation. Would anyone here deny that 11=3? Define your symbols. Its dishonest to use different bases without saying so. Or how about if I said white is green? "is" or "contains"? In my view, at least when speaking intentionally, 'is' should denote complete equality and identity, unless you are saying 'is a' to indicate membership in a set. White is not identical to green. Being open-minded entails the ability to not reject things at first site, but to examine all aspects conceivable and sometimes the inconceivable. Fine, but crying 'closemindedness' just because sane, informed people won't accept my own idiotic ideas is an abuse of the term. And I totally "get" the lumber yard analogy, because the odds of that happening are far greater than the odds we beat to become lifeforms.
Says you. I disagree. It seems to me that once prokaryotes existed, the odds of sentient lifeforms eventually existing is not that unlikely. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes..how would the big bang theory even make sense..so im supposed to believe that 20 million years ago small matter exploded and created the earth with water, trees, clouds, and existence of life...not to mention the theory also includes creating the whole universe..very very unlikely of course the big bang theory makes no sense to you. you don't seem to have the slightest grasp of what the theory is as evidenced by your 20 million year timeline not to mention the nonsense of the earth, trees, water, clouds, life, etc., occuring anywhere near the time of the big bang. even our own sun appeared no less than five billion years ago. a theory will never make sense unless you've correctly studied the theory. Clearly you haven't correctly read the whole thread or you would have realized I corrected myself and also you should know that I do know what the THEORY is I choose not believe in scientology kthxbye no indeed i don't read every post. i comment on the posts that i choose to comment on and your post illustrates that you don't understand the theory. if you've corrected your timeline to 13.75 billion years, the latest estimate of the age of the universe, then great, you're on your way to understanding. the THEORY did not originate with scientologists btw. if the age of the universe is less than 14 billion, then how do they find objects that are 42 billion light years away?... the math doesn't really add up... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if the age of the universe is less than 14 billion, then how do they find objects that are 42 billion light years away?... the math doesn't really add up... I like how you phrased that. You didn't declare that either claim was wrong, just that the numbers don't add up - leaving you with a question. IIRC, this is where 'inflation theory' comes into play. IIRC, though matter and information cannot move through space faster than c, yet space itself can expand faster than c. Metalwing may know if this is correct. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if the age of the universe is less than 14 billion, then how do they find objects that are 42 billion light years away?... the math doesn't really add up... I like how you phrased that. You didn't declare that either claim was wrong, just that the numbers don't add up - leaving you with a question. IIRC, this is where 'inflation theory' comes into play. IIRC, though matter and information cannot move through space faster than c, yet space itself can expand faster than c. Metalwing may know if this is correct. i'm thinking that some of theories may be flawed, or that red shift is not a "good" way to measure distance... if gravity affects light, then the light particles would be bending around galaxies and black holes, not making a straight line... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is it at any mention of "creation", you hear words like nonsensical, mindless, idiotic, illiterate and stupid? I think the universe is very creative. I think intelligent beings in the universe create things all the time. We could be a tiny universe inside of a petry dish or vacuum chamber in some giant laboratory of unknown purportions for all we know. But just watching how things change and evolve tells us that things happen via some kind of formula automatically. This does not mean there is not some intelligence at work. Science is for the purpose of figuring out what is happening. Religion just seems to want to say "God did it, worship him." and then they stop asking questions. What is "stupid" is to stop asking questions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if the age of the universe is less than 14 billion, then how do they find objects that are 42 billion light years away?... the math doesn't really add up... I like how you phrased that. You didn't declare that either claim was wrong, just that the numbers don't add up - leaving you with a question. IIRC, this is where 'inflation theory' comes into play. IIRC, though matter and information cannot move through space faster than c, yet space itself can expand faster than c. Metalwing may know if this is correct. This is Alan Guth's theory, anyway, and he's had a lot to say about it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if the age of the universe is less than 14 billion, then how do they find objects that are 42 billion light years away?... the math doesn't really add up... I like how you phrased that. You didn't declare that either claim was wrong, just that the numbers don't add up - leaving you with a question. IIRC, this is where 'inflation theory' comes into play. IIRC, though matter and information cannot move through space faster than c, yet space itself can expand faster than c. Metalwing may know if this is correct. Yep. It's correct. The best example of space moving faster than the speed of light while matter is limited to just under the speed of light is a black hole. It is black because the gravity well is distorting space/time faster than the speed of light. So even if light is pointed directly out of the black hole, the space/time around it is falling in even faster. There is also a cosmic "event horizon" where mass is moving away from us at a speed greater than the speed of light but it is because space/time is moving away faster than the speed of light. The mass within it's own space/time is moving relative to it's own space/time at less than the speed of light but greater than c relative to us. Space/time itself is expanding. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if the age of the universe is less than 14 billion, then how do they find objects that are 42 billion light years away?... the math doesn't really add up... I like how you phrased that. You didn't declare that either claim was wrong, just that the numbers don't add up - leaving you with a question. IIRC, this is where 'inflation theory' comes into play. IIRC, though matter and information cannot move through space faster than c, yet space itself can expand faster than c. Metalwing may know if this is correct. Yep. It's correct. The best example of space moving faster than the speed of light while matter is limited to just under the speed of light is a black hole. It is black because the gravity well is distorting space/time faster than the speed of light. So even if light is pointed directly out of the black hole, the space/time around it is falling in even faster. There is also a cosmic "event horizon" where mass is moving away from us at a speed greater than the speed of light but it is because space/time is moving away faster than the speed of light. The mass within it's own space/time is moving relative to it's own space/time at less than the speed of light but greater than c relative to us. Space/time itself is expanding. That's extremely confusing and mind boggling. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is also a cosmic "event horizon" where mass is moving away from us at a speed greater than the speed of light but it is because space/time is moving away faster than the speed of light.
That sounds like a completely different universe or a different dimension. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if the age of the universe is less than 14 billion, then how do they find objects that are 42 billion light years away?... the math doesn't really add up... I like how you phrased that. You didn't declare that either claim was wrong, just that the numbers don't add up - leaving you with a question. IIRC, this is where 'inflation theory' comes into play. IIRC, though matter and information cannot move through space faster than c, yet space itself can expand faster than c. Metalwing may know if this is correct. Yep. It's correct. The best example of space moving faster than the speed of light while matter is limited to just under the speed of light is a black hole. It is black because the gravity well is distorting space/time faster than the speed of light. So even if light is pointed directly out of the black hole, the space/time around it is falling in even faster. There is also a cosmic "event horizon" where mass is moving away from us at a speed greater than the speed of light but it is because space/time is moving away faster than the speed of light. The mass within it's own space/time is moving relative to it's own space/time at less than the speed of light but greater than c relative to us. Space/time itself is expanding. That's extremely confusing and mind boggling.
Not if you can visualize it. Imagine two canoes in a river paddling at two MPH. The river is moving at eight mph. One canoe is a mile in front of the other canoe. At this point both canoes are doing ten MPH; two relative to the river and ten relative to the land in which the river resides. They are doing zero relative to each other since they are both going the same speed. The front canoe runs into some steep fast rapids where the river is flowing at twenty eight MPH. They are still paddling at two MPH so they are now going thirty MPH relative to the surrounding countryside and twenty MPH faster than the rear canoe, but both are still paddling along at two MPH. The acceleration of the river in the rapids is like the expansion of the universe between galaxies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if the age of the universe is less than 14 billion, then how do they find objects that are 42 billion light years away?... the math doesn't really add up... I like how you phrased that. You didn't declare that either claim was wrong, just that the numbers don't add up - leaving you with a question. IIRC, this is where 'inflation theory' comes into play. IIRC, though matter and information cannot move through space faster than c, yet space itself can expand faster than c. Metalwing may know if this is correct. Yep. It's correct. The best example of space moving faster than the speed of light while matter is limited to just under the speed of light is a black hole. It is black because the gravity well is distorting space/time faster than the speed of light. So even if light is pointed directly out of the black hole, the space/time around it is falling in even faster. There is also a cosmic "event horizon" where mass is moving away from us at a speed greater than the speed of light but it is because space/time is moving away faster than the speed of light. The mass within it's own space/time is moving relative to it's own space/time at less than the speed of light but greater than c relative to us. Space/time itself is expanding. That's extremely confusing and mind boggling.
Not if you can visualize it. Imagine two canoes in a river paddling at two MPH. The river is moving at eight mph. One canoe is a mile in front of the other canoe. At this point both canoes are doing ten MPH; two relative to the river and ten relative to the land in which the river resides. They are doing zero relative to each other since they are both going the same speed. The front canoe runs into some steep fast rapids where the river is flowing at twenty eight MPH. They are still paddling at two MPH so they are now going thirty MPH relative to the surrounding countryside and twenty MPH faster than the rear canoe, but both are still paddling along at two MPH. The acceleration of the river in the rapids is like the expansion of the universe between galaxies. In your example, you have the water that is moving. What in the universe (between galaxies) is moving? Could that be dark matter? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if the age of the universe is less than 14 billion, then how do they find objects that are 42 billion light years away?... the math doesn't really add up... I like how you phrased that. You didn't declare that either claim was wrong, just that the numbers don't add up - leaving you with a question. IIRC, this is where 'inflation theory' comes into play. IIRC, though matter and information cannot move through space faster than c, yet space itself can expand faster than c. Metalwing may know if this is correct. Yep. It's correct. The best example of space moving faster than the speed of light while matter is limited to just under the speed of light is a black hole. It is black because the gravity well is distorting space/time faster than the speed of light. So even if light is pointed directly out of the black hole, the space/time around it is falling in even faster. There is also a cosmic "event horizon" where mass is moving away from us at a speed greater than the speed of light but it is because space/time is moving away faster than the speed of light. The mass within it's own space/time is moving relative to it's own space/time at less than the speed of light but greater than c relative to us. Space/time itself is expanding. That's extremely confusing and mind boggling.
Not if you can visualize it. Imagine two canoes in a river paddling at two MPH. The river is moving at eight mph. One canoe is a mile in front of the other canoe. At this point both canoes are doing ten MPH; two relative to the river and ten relative to the land in which the river resides. They are doing zero relative to each other since they are both going the same speed. The front canoe runs into some steep fast rapids where the river is flowing at twenty eight MPH. They are still paddling at two MPH so they are now going thirty MPH relative to the surrounding countryside and twenty MPH faster than the rear canoe, but both are still paddling along at two MPH. The acceleration of the river in the rapids is like the expansion of the universe between galaxies. In your example, you have the water that is moving. What in the universe (between galaxies) is moving? Could that be dark matter? That is the expanding universe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 11/05/11 05:27 PM
|
|
if the age of the universe is less than 14 billion, then how do they find objects that are 42 billion light years away?... the math doesn't really add up... I like how you phrased that. You didn't declare that either claim was wrong, just that the numbers don't add up - leaving you with a question. IIRC, this is where 'inflation theory' comes into play. IIRC, though matter and information cannot move through space faster than c, yet space itself can expand faster than c. Metalwing may know if this is correct. Yep. It's correct. The best example of space moving faster than the speed of light while matter is limited to just under the speed of light is a black hole. It is black because the gravity well is distorting space/time faster than the speed of light. So even if light is pointed directly out of the black hole, the space/time around it is falling in even faster. There is also a cosmic "event horizon" where mass is moving away from us at a speed greater than the speed of light but it is because space/time is moving away faster than the speed of light. The mass within it's own space/time is moving relative to it's own space/time at less than the speed of light but greater than c relative to us. Space/time itself is expanding. That's extremely confusing and mind boggling.
Not if you can visualize it. Imagine two canoes in a river paddling at two MPH. The river is moving at eight mph. One canoe is a mile in front of the other canoe. At this point both canoes are doing ten MPH; two relative to the river and ten relative to the land in which the river resides. They are doing zero relative to each other since they are both going the same speed. The front canoe runs into some steep fast rapids where the river is flowing at twenty eight MPH. They are still paddling at two MPH so they are now going thirty MPH relative to the surrounding countryside and twenty MPH faster than the rear canoe, but both are still paddling along at two MPH. The acceleration of the river in the rapids is like the expansion of the universe between galaxies. In your example, you have the water that is moving. What in the universe (between galaxies) is moving? Could that be dark matter? That is the expanding universe. But what is in between the galaxies? Are you saying that the universe is some sort of bubble getting bigger and there is "nothing" or "empty space" in between the galaxies? In your example of the acceleration of the river rapids, it is clear that water is what is moving. If galaxies and our "matter" can't travel faster than the speed of light, what is it that IS traveling faster than the speed of light? The "expansion" (of the universe) does not explain it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 11/05/11 05:26 PM
|
|
There is also a cosmic "event horizon" where mass is moving away from us at a speed greater than the speed of light but it is because space/time is moving away faster than the speed of light.
Okay, I am reading this again. (Above) 1. space is "moving" faster than the speed of light. (???) Define and describe this so-called "space" please. 2. Time is moving faster than the speed of light. (???) Define and describe exactly what this "time" is that is moving and what is it moving through? (Space?) --Not possible since you said that space is also moving faster than the speed of light.-- Question: Can time and space exist without matter? If so, describe the nature of time and space without matter. Question: Is "matter" the same thing as "mass?" Question: How can time and space move faster than the speed of light? If time and space are "things" that can "move" I wish you would describe the nature of these "things" and how they move, and what they move through. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is also a cosmic "event horizon" where mass is moving away from us at a speed greater than the speed of light but it is because space/time is moving away faster than the speed of light.
Okay, I am reading this again. (Above) 1. space is "moving" faster than the speed of light. (???) Define and describe this so-called "space" please. 2. Time is moving faster than the speed of light. (???) Define and describe exactly what this "time" is that is moving and what is it moving through? (Space?) --Not possible since you said that space is also moving faster than the speed of light.-- Question: Can time and space exist without matter? If so, describe the nature of time and space without matter. Question: Is "matter" the same thing as "mass?" Question: How can time and space move faster than the speed of light? If time and space are "things" that can "move" I wish you would describe the nature of these "things" and how they move, and what they move through. I just explained it. How can you say something is not possible when you don't understand it? There is no speed limit on the movement of space/time, just light and matter. If the universe is expanding, it is moving. It really is that simple. The initial expansion of the universe was many times the speed of light. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 11/05/11 05:41 PM
|
|
There is also a cosmic "event horizon" where mass is moving away from us at a speed greater than the speed of light but it is because space/time is moving away faster than the speed of light.
Okay, I am reading this again. (Above) 1. space is "moving" faster than the speed of light. (???) Define and describe this so-called "space" please. 2. Time is moving faster than the speed of light. (???) Define and describe exactly what this "time" is that is moving and what is it moving through? (Space?) --Not possible since you said that space is also moving faster than the speed of light.-- Question: Can time and space exist without matter? If so, describe the nature of time and space without matter. Question: Is "matter" the same thing as "mass?" Question: How can time and space move faster than the speed of light? If time and space are "things" that can "move" I wish you would describe the nature of these "things" and how they move, and what they move through. I just explained it. How can you say something is not possible when you don't understand it? There is no speed limit on the movement of space/time, just light and matter. If the universe is expanding, it is moving. It really is that simple. The initial expansion of the universe was many times the speed of light. You have not explained anything at all. First you said that space and time are moving faster than the speed of light. If the universe is expanding.... what is moving? What IS "the universe?" It is matter. It is stars and galaxies. Space and time are not anything. Space and time do not exist without MATTER. If space and time are "things" please describe the nature of these "things" that you claim are moving faster than the speed of light. You are just avoiding my questions by claiming that I "don't understand." Of course I don't understand. What you are saying is ridiculous. I don't understand ridiculous claims. |
|
|
|
|
