What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

[_ Old Earth _] Some More Garbage

Wow. These were predicted to exist, but no one had ever seen them before. That's a huge step for physics. A Nobel might be in the offing for this one.
 
"Certainly everything in the universe that we see now, at one time before inflation, was smaller than an electron," Irwin said. "And then it expanded during inflation at faster than the speed of light."

Isn't this interesting. I'm guessing it was actually much much smaller than an electron. :D
 
The article starts by saying...

CNN said:
There's no way for us to know exactly what happened some 13.8 billion years ago
Click to expand...

And later in the article...

CNN said:
Certainly everything in the universe that we see now, at one time before inflation, was smaller than an electron
Click to expand...

I realize that CNN isn't a scientific journal, but with articles like this one, they presumably get their information from scientists and have scientists go over the article to make sure they're not publishing gibberish. So, if there's no way for us to know what happened 13.8 billion years ago, how can something that happened less than a trillionth of a second after the big bang be "certain"? Also, how can the oldest known star in the universe be 700 million years older than the universe itself?

The TOG​
 
Often, there is a way to know exactly how something happened a long time ago. We can't know exactly how everything happened, but evidence does let us find out things.

The reason we know the theory is correct is because we realize what must be, if it happened according to the theory, and we keep finding the predicted things. The first major breakthrough was the accidental detection of the predicted microwave background by a couple of Bell Lab engineers who were just trying to make a noiseless microwave antenna. They kept getting a residual hiss, no matter which direction they set the antenna. Eventually, a physicist realized that they had found the predicted microwave background radiation.
 
Fascinating discovery. It is a pretty cool feature of our universe. If one accepts their pre-digested ideas uncritically, I suppose one could see this as support for the big band model. They don't mention it but the concept of "inflation" was proposed because the observations conflicted with the original model. Inflation was added to the model so they could push back the dating from ~5 billion years to their current estimate of ~13 billion years. The Big Bang isn't the only show in town though, just the one they promote.
I wasn't a Christian at the time, but I remember when the COBE satellite confirmed the background radiation. Another discovery that was touted as proof of the Big Bang. However, background radiation fits with other models, as well as creationist ones, the Big Bang was just the one they promoted.
 
So far, no other model can explain the background radiation, in a way consistent with observed physical constants. In fact, no other theory predicted the background radiation or gravity waves. This is why the theory is so well-accepted. When other theories predict things that are later confirmed, that might change. But not until.
 
The reason we know the theory is correct is because we realize what must be, if it happened according to the theory
Click to expand...

The theory is correct if the theory is correct. Thank you for pointing that out. I never would have figured it out on my own. This, of course, proves that the theory is correct.

The TOG​
 
That's not what I said. Theories are judged by how well they fit the evidence. All real theories make predictions about things we don't yet know. So when those predictions are fulfilled, we have confidence that the theory is correct.

A theory is less well-supported if it explains known facts, but has no verified predictions.

A "theory" which has no predictions isn't a theory at all.
 
Cool stuff. Looking forward to see if a programmer can plug this in to a simulation and show how the data collaborates. It should work, they are working with some pretty hard data.
 
Funny how some creationists seem to take issues with the Big Bang Theory. Before the BBT scientists and philosophers were assuming the universe was endless and had no beginnig. If so, there would have been no room for a creator. So discovering the redshift in the light of extra galactic objects (and thus concluding that they move away from us, and further concluding that everything must have been clustered together at one point in the past, and further concluding universe indeed had a beginning) was like a confirmation of a creation event.
 
Exactly. If the universe had a beginning it had a beginner. I think that's one reason BBT has been so widely accepted. It doesn't rule out God as creator like the steady state models tried to so many Christian accept it. Also, it's about the evolution of the universe and billions of years so many atheists accept it.
It is just a model, one of many, of the universe that physicists came up with. Just to name two, White hole cosmology and plasma cosmology, are alternatives to the big bang, with beginnings, that still explain background radiation/red shifts/etc. None are perfect though. I find it interesting some creationist models were criticized for having a variable speed of light when the BBT inflation is just that, particles traveling faster than the speed of light.

Recently BBT has been rejected by MIT in favor of a steady state universe:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/419984/big-bang-abandoned-in-new-model-of-the-universe/

But that model can't explain background radiation. This isn't a right/wrong issue, if people accept BBT fine. If they don't it that should be fine too.

"However we are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideaology"
http://books.google.com/books?id=QagG_KI7Ll8C&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=However we are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology&source=bl&ots=GntineOxU3&sig=rk-Fu0rOjHgY2dq4Dv8GA2_cvVQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VyodU6LgAZKxqQGS1ICgDw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=However we are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology&f=false
 
Claudya said:
Funny how some creationists seem to take issues with the Big Bang Theory. Before the BBT scientists and philosophers were assuming the universe was endless and had no beginnig. If so, there would have been no room for a creator. So discovering the redshift in the light of extra galactic objects (and thus concluding that they move away from us, and further concluding that everything must have been clustered together at one point in the past, and further concluding universe indeed had a beginning) was like a confirmation of a creation event.
Click to expand...
No' No' No God was always here He has no beginning. And and as for us' we will blow a fuse with our finite minds trying to get a grasp on the fact that God has no beginning. Now God resides in the 3rd Heaven and man can't see that far or reach it. So like I said that stuff is more garbage. Tell me so tell me' God's abode was created by a big bang ?
 
Exactly. If the universe had a beginning it had a beginner. I think that's one reason BBT has been so widely accepted. It doesn't rule out God as creator like the steady state models tried to so many Christian accept it.
Click to expand...

In fact, a priest first worked out the theory.

Also, it's about the evolution of the universe and billions of years so many atheists accept it.
It is just a model, one of many, of the universe that physicists came up with. Just to name two, White hole cosmology and plasma cosmology, are alternatives to the big bang, with beginnings, that still explain background radiation/red shifts/etc.
Click to expand...

Not the last time I checked. Show us the number, if you will.

None are perfect though. I find it interesting some creationist models were criticized for having a variable speed of light when the BBT inflation is just that, particles traveling faster than the speed of light.
Click to expand...

No. It's the expansion of space itself, not the movement of matter.
 
Can I get a answer to my question please' was God's abode created by a big bang ? I gotta hear this.
 
So, I don't get your question. What does it have to do with God's abode? And if He abides in 3rd Heaven, isn't that a contradiction to the fact that He is everywhere?

And given one more prediction of the theory being validated, isn't that a clue that the theory is right?
 
Claudya said:
Funny how some creationists seem to take issues with the Big Bang Theory. Before the BBT scientists and philosophers were assuming the universe was endless and had no beginnig. If so, there would have been no room for a creator. So discovering the redshift in the light of extra galactic objects (and thus concluding that they move away from us, and further concluding that everything must have been clustered together at one point in the past, and further concluding universe indeed had a beginning) was like a confirmation of a creation event.
Click to expand...
Finanly - someone other than ME saying it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top