[_ Old Earth _] Universe shouldn't exist

[TOG]

New research bears bad news for the Big Bang theory of the universe's origin.

Scientists at King's College in London have found that the current model of the Big Bang would have resulted in a universe that collapsed soon after its formation.

According to the researchers, the rapid cosmic expansion physicists would expect to see after the Big Bang would have caused a good bit of turbulence—a situation worsened, not helped, by the so-called "God particle."

This "God particle," the Higgs boson, should have crushed our universe, shifting it into a lower energy field in which collapse would have been inevitable
Source

Charisma News isn't a scientific journal, so it's understandable that it doesn't go into any details of what it is about the research that contradicts the Big Bang theory. Does anyone here know more about this?

The TOG​

 

[jasonc]

Charisma News isn't a scientific journal, so it's understandable that it doesn't go into any details of what it is about the research that contradicts the Big Bang theory. Does anyone here know more about this?

The TOG​

try a creation ministries international or icr. the later cites peer reviewed articles.

 

[Barbarian]

The result is probabilistic, and therefore not intrinsically impossible. Merely unlikely.

 

[duari91]

Those are strong statements from the article. Do they provide evidence of any kind? How about a simulation model on the computer?

It told us quite a bit, but didn't show us anything. I wouldn't hold much next to it.

 

[Barbarian]

Those are strong statements from the article. Do they provide evidence of any kind? How about a simulation model on the computer?

It told us quite a bit, but didn't show us anything. I wouldn't hold much next to it.

Look to the primary literature. But be warned, it's deeply mathematical. Once, someone explained to me why the speed of light is tied to so many other universal constants. It made my head hurt.

 

[agua.]

Charisma News isn't a scientific journal, so it's understandable that it doesn't go into any details of what it is about the research that contradicts the Big Bang theory. Does anyone here know more about this?

The TOG​

I don't know much about the data but I think there's no need to argue against BB for a Christian really. I like the idea that Yahweh stretched out the Heavens and how He did it doesn't bother me.

 

[jasonc]

I don't know much about the data but I think there's no need to argue against BB for a Christian really. I like the idea that Yahweh stretched out the Heavens and how He did it doesn't bother me.

well can you explain to the Hebrews, even the liberal ones. why they are wrong for using that calendar that starts at adams creation? and they believe that it was within a week of the creation of the planet, and stars.

www.chabad.org. post the date that it says. it should be tammuz something.

 

[agua.]

No need. A Calendar simply gives us a refernce point. Unfortunately the calendar will likely be inaccurate anyway because of the absence of some descendants in the Bible.

 

[Edward]

Look to the primary literature. But be warned, it's deeply mathematical. Once, someone explained to me why the speed of light is tied to so many other universal constants. It made my head hurt.

Careful there, their knowledge is expanding quite fast and is changing. my understanding is that they have now been able to show that there are no constants like they thought before. It set the physics world on end. They really have no clue at this point but they can show what isn't, lol.

 

[Barbarian]

You have a link for the paper showing no physical constants? If they don't exist, the whole foundation of physics comes apart.

 

[Edward]

You have a link for the paper showing no physical constants? If they don't exist, the whole foundation of physics comes apart.

Well, I'm no scientist, and maybe it's not all of the constants, but some of them they now know are not constant. Two off the top of my head are that the speed of light is variable and slowing down, and that the infinite universe is in now way infinite, neither in the microcosm or the macrocosm. There's a man who has a Physics degree (turned Pastor) and he explains both of them, which I have links to the vids and will not try to explain them myself, lol.

Instead of posting the vids, I'll just post links to them for your perusal. there may be a few of them, I'll look for more.

 

[Edward]

Not a paper but a lecture of sorts, from a man who has a degree in Physics and turned pastor. i will not not attempt to explain this myself, for i am no scientist, nor a mathematician. But the two constants that are not constant (that I remember off the top of my head) are that the speed of light is not constant (it's slowing down) and that the universe is not infinite, but finite. I'll post links to the vids rather than the vids because there may be a few of them.

Huh. It put the vids up anyway...??

 

[Barbarian]

Most physicists are skeptical of claims that the speed of light might not be constant. Indeed, even those proposing that it might be inconstant only mention it as a possibility, and consider it to vary by about a millionth of a billionth part. Too small for us to measure, given present technology, even if it didn't affect other constants, making the effect undetectable.

 

[Edward]

Who's most physicists?

 

[Edward]

 

[Edward]

Oh, I found a good video. I have given you brothers and sisters a video as told by a Physicist turned Pastors view...now have another as told by the other side, pure science. From what this video says, science has proven the existence of God, and that religion is merely non-compulsory. I *think* they get Gods name wrong at the end, they call Him Elah (Allah?) but that is a minor thing I believe, the rest of the video is good. Except that they dodo's now think to harness the power of God for human convenience, har de har har, but I guess that's how scientists think, lol.

 

[Barbarian]

Science can say nothing about God. The supernatural is beyond the reach of science. However, if you'll take a look in the literature, you'll see that physicists do not consider a change in the speed of light in a vacuum to be supported by evidence.

 

[Edward]

Science can say nothing about God. The supernatural is beyond the reach of science. However, if you'll take a look in the literature, you'll see that physicists do not consider a change in the speed of light in a vacuum to be supported by evidence.

Many would disagree with you about science can say nothing about God. While much of the supernatural is beyond the reach of science, in their endeavors to figure the universe out and prove things, they run into brick walls of the unexplainable, that they only answer (or theory) that could answer the question is...God.

Like how every proton or electron knows what every other proton/electron is doing, this is proven though I doubt you watched the videos. So if the protons know what each other are doing, then there must be a signal of sorts between them to transfer this information. Distance does not seem to matter with this and it is as if the signal is instantaneous. certainly faster than the speed of light, they say this and explain it.

This is interesting stuff barbarian, but i notice that you're becoming vague. What physicists? What literature? Written by whom? I have given you vids with peoples names, and they reference their degrees and where they work and so forth. I can't help but notice that you continue down a vague path in your responses! ;)

What physicists do not consider a change in the speed of light in a vacuum to be supported by evidence?
The vids I have posted do not agree with your vague statement brother. They say there is evidence from experiements and show you the experiment and so forth. Watch the vids and then answer with a response, and please please brother, let's not be vague ok? Link to literature, give some names, and so forth. I can read. I will consider it with an open mind, but uh, give me something to consider beyond vague opinion with no backup.

:wink

 

[Barbarian]

Many would disagree with you about science can say nothing about God.

Doesn't matter. I know of no scientist who claims that science can test God in any way.

While much of the supernatural is beyond the reach of science, in their endeavors to figure the universe out and prove things, they run into brick walls of the unexplainable, that they only answer (or theory) that could answer the question is...God.

Infectious disease, for example, and eclipses, and earthquakes, and lightning. But there's a problem with that. As we learn more and more, it becomes plainer and plainer that it's risky trying to prove God by what we don't happen to know at the time.

Like how every proton or electron knows what every other proton/electron is doing, this is proven though I doubt you watched the videos.

Actually, it's not proven. Science, being mostly inductive, doesn't prove things. It just gets more and more confident as evidence accumulates. We can only look at what happened, and try to infer the rules. We will never fully know them, because we can't prove them. But what happens when someone figures out what makes particles interact that way? Is God then disproven? It is this sort of thing that leads some to think that science has disproven God because we have learned the real causes for things once attributed to God.

This is interesting stuff barbarian, but i notice that you're becoming vague. What physicists? What literature? Written by whom?

Geometrodynamics of variable-speed-of-light cosmologies

Phys. Rev. D 62, 103518 – Published 25 October 2000

Bruce A. Bassett, Stefano Liberati, Carmen Molina-París, and Matt Visser

Variable-speed-of-light (VSL) cosmologies are currently attracting interest as an alternative to inflation. We investigate the fundamental geometrodynamic aspects of VSL cosmologies and provide several implementations which do not explicitly break Lorentz invariance (no “hard” breaking). These “soft” implementations of Lorentz symmetry breaking provide particularly clean answers to the question “VSL with respect to what?.” The class of VSL cosmologies we consider are compatible with both classical Einstein gravity and low-energy particle physics. These models solve the “kinematic” puzzles of cosmology as well as inflation does, but cannot by themselves solve the flatness problem, since in their purest form no violation of the strong energy condition occurs. We also consider a heterotic model (VSL plus inflation) which provides a number of observational implications for the low-redshift universe if χ contributes to the “dark energy” either as CDM or quintessence. These implications include modified gravitational lensing, birefringence, variation of fundamental constants and rotation of the plane of polarization of light from distant sources.

Notice that no one really knows. Indeed, unless the symmetries with other constants are broken, we can't know, since the speed of light would look identical to the one we have now, as a result of the other constants.

Problems of "doubly special relativity" with variable speed of light
CERN Document Server


There are two major alternatives for violating the (usual) Lorentz invariance at large (Planckian) energies or momenta -- either not all inertial frames (in the Planck regime) are equivalent (e.g., there is an effectively preferred frame) or the transformations from one frame to another are (non-linearly) deformed (``doubly special relativity''). We demonstrate that the natural (and reasonable) assumption of a variable speed of light in the latter method goes along with serious problems regarding locality and separability (and even translational invariance) and thereby invalidates the particle picture underlying the whole approach. PACS: 03.30.+p, 11.30.Cp, 04.60.-m, 04.50.+h.

Not a lot of stuff about this in the literature, because it's pretty speculative. But as you see, physicists generally see a lot of problems with it.

Show me some papers asserting that it's a fact.

 

[Edward]

ok barbarian...You didn't watch any of those videos, did you?

They took some protons or electrons, I forget which and had them (somewhere) and then inserted a strand of DNA into them. The protons then began moving into an arrangement by the DNA...a reaction to the DNA. Then they took out the DNA and continued to observe them once the DNA was gone and they again began moving (back to the original configuration?) which took over 22 minutes for them to do so,. This proved that the protons knew of the presence of the DNA, or the lack of it.

have you ever heard of quantam entanglement? Something about every proton/electron (?) in the universe reacts to other protons/electrons. They did an experiment where they had two electrons and put them in a laser and they shot one of them through the laser 89 miles away to an island. Then inserted another electron and got a reaction from the one 89 miles away (it cloned or something?) which somehow proved that the different electrons knew what was happening to the other one. And this could have only been possible through the communication of the electrons, a 'signal' of sorts. This happened in such a way that they had to conclude that, a) communication was proven between them, and b) that the signal was faster than the speed of light. This "force" or signal is not identified by scientists, yet the conclusion is one which points to the existence of the "God" force. (It's in the video.) (and also what the bible says.

I know I am not good at explaining this, I'm no scientist, lol. but they're on to this stuff and from what they said, it does prove the existence of God. I'm not sure that i am really grasping the point which you seem to be moving towards here. I know you're educated and can talk circles around me, but...in a nutshell, what are you trying to say? God does/doesn't exist? You seem to find fault with what most say, but to what end?

Bless you brother.