Is there such thing as "Creation"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-11-2014, 08:04 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
The size of the observable universe relates to the age of the universe and the speed of light. The size of the actual universe appears to be much larger than that of the observable universe:
Quote:Because the Universe is expanding... the visible universe [is] some 90 billion light years across.
...
one line of thinking is that if the universe expanded at the speed of light during inflation, then it ought to be 10^23 times bigger than the visible universe.
...
They say that the curvature of the Universe is tightly constrained around 0. In other words, the most likely model is that the Universe is flat. A flat Universe would also be infinite and their calculations are consistent with this too. These show that the Universe is at least 250 times bigger than the Hubble volume. (The Hubble volume is similar to the size of the observable universe.)
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/422...mologists/

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2014, 09:23 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(10-11-2014 12:37 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(09-11-2014 06:10 PM)Free Wrote:  Since the observable universe appears to be expanding, then the obvious question is ... what is it expanding into? Nothing? A non existence?
I don't think it makes sense to ask "what is it expanding into?"
I understand why you ask this question. I think you are probably assuming some kind of euclidean 3 dimensions that go on forever.

Indeed. The expansion of spacetime refers to how things relate within it. It is certainly not "expanding" into some "empty space" around it. That sort of idea makes some naive intuitive sense, but is not scientifically valid.

(10-11-2014 12:37 AM)Stevil Wrote:  But spacetime is non euclidian. There is no edge to spacetime, there is no outside. Not because there is a barrier though. This doesn't mean that the universe is infinite either. If our universe is closed and you head in a particular direction without ever turning, it is possible that you come to a point which is behind where you started.

Whether the topology of spacetime is open or closed is actually a different question from whether its extent infinite or not. By our best guess it seems effectively flat and infinite, but then, an infinite radius of curvature would also look flat.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2014, 09:23 AM (This post was last modified: 10-11-2014 09:32 AM by Free.)
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(09-11-2014 11:37 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(09-11-2014 06:10 PM)Free Wrote:  Based upon observation that would appear to be the case. Yet, we cannot claim it as fact and I suspect that claim will never be made.

All observation points towards current conditions having a fixed origin point.

Actually, not all observations indicates this, as numerous objects have been seen moving towards the supposed point of origin, or in entirely different directions. Certainly the majority do, but what does that indicate exactly? Perhaps a re-examination of the Big Bang may reveal that:

1. Yes, it occurred.
2. But it occurred within an already existing part of space.
3. It is not the first Big Bang to occur within the universe, and will not be the last. It is merely one in an infinite cycle of Big Bangs that have occurred throughout the universe.

So yes, the majority of observable matter within the universe seems to be expanding, but that does not mean that space itself is expanding. Since we cannot see any kind of "edge" to space, then we cannot claim it is expanding.

Quote:
(09-11-2014 06:10 PM)Free Wrote:  Let's not forget that the purported ages of the universe has varied over the years.

So what?

Well obviously the greatest minds in history have been wrong in the past. In fact, just last year they corrected the age again by almost half a billion years. I have no doubts that they will adjust the age again as more information becomes available.

Currently they estimate the universe itself to be 13.8 billion years old, with the farthest observable matter- discovered last year- being about 13.3 billion years old.

What if they discover something next year that is 18 billion years old? My point is rather simple, isn't it?

Quote:
(09-11-2014 06:10 PM)Free Wrote:  Since the observable universe appears to be expanding, then the obvious question is ... what is it expanding into? Nothing? A non existence?

That doesn't really make sense as a question.

Of course it does. In fact it is one of the most puzzling- and unanswered- questions in the field today.

Quote:
(09-11-2014 06:10 PM)Free Wrote:  The problems with a finite universe are obvious and numerous.

... such as?

1. If the universe is finite, then what is it expanding into?
2. If the Big Bang is the origin of existence, then what is the origin of the Big Bang?
3. Why are some objects moving towards the supposed point of origin of the Big Bang when they are all supposed to be moving away from it?

These, among others, need answers.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2014, 09:30 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
The concept of creation is one of the many things wherein Christian doctrine contradicts itself. If God 'sat down' and devised a plan for all of the universe for all of eternity, then there would have to have been a time prior to creation when God didn't have the foreknowledge of the universe.

If, however, God knew the plan all along, then he is not really 'creative.' Rather, the universe is just a system that follows a 'natural' course of events.

Celebrate Reason ● Think For Yourself
www.theHeathensGuide.com
[Image: heathens-guide.png]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2014, 09:35 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(10-11-2014 09:23 AM)Free Wrote:  
(09-11-2014 11:37 PM)cjlr Wrote:  All observation points towards current conditions having a fixed origin point.

Actually, not all observations indicates this, as numerous objects have been seen moving towards the supposed point of origin, or in entirely different directions. Certainly the majority do, but what does that indicate exactly?

Trajectories are essentially randomly distributed. But relative motion is irrelevant when the space between is expanding.

There are no distant blueshifted objects - not a single one.

(10-11-2014 09:23 AM)Free Wrote:  Perhaps a re-examination of the Big Bang may reveal that:

1. Yes, it occurred.
2. But it occurred within an already existing part of space.
3. It is not the first Big Bang to occur within the universe, and will not be the last. It is merely one in an infinite cycle of Big Bangs that have occurred throughout the universe.

Irrelevant to the point I made - everything we observe traces back to an single point.

There are lots of cosmological models in which big bang-type events occur multiple times. That doesn't make our observable universe any less the aftermath of one specific one.

(10-11-2014 09:23 AM)Free Wrote:  So yes, the majority of observable matter within the universe seems to be expanding, but that does not mean that space itself is expanding. Since we cannot see any kind of "edge" to space, then we cannot claim it is expanding.

See above; to conceive of it as expanding "into" something is invalid.

(10-11-2014 09:23 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:So what?

Well obviously the greatest minds in history have been wrong in the past. In fact, just last year they corrected the age again by almost half a billion years. I have no doubts that they will adjust the age again as more information becomes available.

Currently they estimate the universe itself to be 13.8 billion years old, with the farthest observable matter- discovered last year- being about 13.3 billion years old.

What if they discover something next year that is 18 billion years old? My point is rather simple, isn't it?

"Maybe we're wrong" is not a useful thing to say; it's implicit in every conclusion we ever draw.

Do you have compelling reason to think the vast preponderance of modern cosmological observation is wrong?

(10-11-2014 09:23 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:That doesn't really make sense as a question.

Of course it does. In fact it is one of the most puzzling- and unanswered- questions in the field today.

No; it's applying naive intuition to inadmissible contexts. The universe has no obligation to make sense to the gut feelings of some insignificant apes.

(10-11-2014 09:23 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:... such as?

1. If the universe is finite, then what is it expanding into?

Not a good question.

(10-11-2014 09:23 AM)Free Wrote:  2. If the Big Bang is the origin of existence, then what is the origin of the Big Bang?

An extremely good question!

(10-11-2014 09:23 AM)Free Wrote:  3. Why are some objects moving towards the supposed point of origin of the Big Bang is they are all supposed to be moving away from it?

Not a good question - cosmological motions is not stuff "flying away from us" on a static spacetime. It is expansion of that spacetime itself.

The "origin point" of the big bang is everywhere. By our observation it appears that everything is moving away from us and away from everything else.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
10-11-2014, 09:36 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(10-11-2014 12:22 AM)OddGamer Wrote:  
(09-11-2014 06:10 PM)Free Wrote:  The problems with a finite universe are obvious and numerous.

When I think about it, time and space can neither be finite or infinite. Both possiblilities lead to absurd conclusions (on cell so not going into it). Which to me suggests it's something even weirder, something brain-breakingly unituitive and outside our realm of thinking.

Hence why I said in an earlier post:


Quote:In my opinion, mathematics is a concept that is subject to the limitations of the human being's capacity to process. Specifically, we are restricted from a greater understanding of greater mathematical concepts due to the physical limitations of our brains.

Yet our arrogance forces us to not accept that there are some things we are simply incapable of understanding due to our limitations. We tend to ignore the fact that we are but a slightly more intellectually evolved animal living on an insignificant planet in an infinite universe.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2014, 10:44 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(10-11-2014 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(10-11-2014 09:23 AM)Free Wrote:  Actually, not all observations indicates this, as numerous objects have been seen moving towards the supposed point of origin, or in entirely different directions. Certainly the majority do, but what does that indicate exactly?

Trajectories are essentially randomly distributed. But relative motion is irrelevant when the space between is expanding.

There are no distant blueshifted objects - not a single one.

Note that you have added "distant" to the equation, but that does not eliminate the fact that there are indeed blue shifted objects.

So let's look at a hypothetical Big Bang. We tend to think of it as an explosion, not unlike a nuclear detonation except, obviously, much larger.

If the Big Bang- before it exploded- was a swirling mass of matter and energy with incredible gravitational power, it would pull into it all objects from perhaps billions of light years away, making any objects at farther distances un-observable, as even the light from those objects would hit the event horizon of the Big Bang and be curved into it.

Then, the explosion occurs with an unimaginable force. The force of the explosion expands all matter and energy through space, destroying or propelling anything else (distant blue shifted objects) in its wake. Over time, however, the force and wake of the Big Bang decreases and loses power. Eventually its explosive power becomes too weak to prevent any other distant objects from moving towards the point of origin. Now its only matter of time before the distant blue shifted objects become visible.

I believe that the not-so-distant visible blue shifted objects can be seen today - such as the Andromeda Galaxy- because of numerous factors such as gravitational effects and the sort.

So now we see why objects are moving away from a point of origin, and we can reasonably postulate as to why we cannot yet see distant blue shifted objects.

Sorry, I just got very busy at my office and will return later to address your other points.

Have a good day!

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2014, 11:16 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(10-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  
(10-11-2014 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Trajectories are essentially randomly distributed. But relative motion is irrelevant when the space between is expanding.

There are no distant blueshifted objects - not a single one.

Note that you have added "distant" to the equation, but that does not eliminate the fact that there are indeed blue shifted objects.

Yes. I had thought it clear that only objects at cosmological distances were relevant here, but on the other hand, I hadn't defined the terms explicitly.
("cosmological distances" being an imprecise term for objects farther away than our local group, which has a gravitational center and apparent ongoing concentration - quasars, for example, the best early/distant objects we can observe, are ~10^9 or more light years away, whereas Andromeda is 10^6)

There are planets in our solar system moving towards us. There are planets in our solar system moving away from us. There are stars in our galaxy moving towards us. There are stars in our galaxy moving away from us. There are galaxies in our cluster moving towards us. There are galaxies in our cluster moving away from us.

There are no cosmologically distant objects moving towards us. Such motion is impossible under current models and has never been observed.

(10-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  So let's look at a hypothetical Big Bang. We tend to think of it as an explosion, not unlike a nuclear detonation except, obviously, much larger.

No, we don't. That's a very wrong conception.

(10-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  If the Big Bang- before it exploded- was a swirling mass of matter and energy with incredible gravitational power, it would pull into it all objects from perhaps billions of light years away, making any objects at farther distances un-observable, as even the light from those objects would hit the event horizon of the Big Bang and be curved into it.

Then, the explosion occurs with an unimaginable force. The force of the explosion expands all matter and energy through space, destroying or propelling anything else (distant blue shifted objects) in its wake. Over time, however, the force and wake of the Big Bang decreases and loses power. Eventually its explosive power becomes too weak to prevent any other distant objects from moving towards the point of origin. Now its only matter of time before the distant blue shifted objects become visible.

Cosmological expansion is literally the expansion of the spacetime manifold. It is not merely some initial momentum imparted by some "explosion" from which objects "move away". That is entirely the wrong picture!

Correlating apparent motion with distance and age, cosmological expansion is not slowing - if anything it is increasing.

(10-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  I believe that the not-so-distant visible blue shifted objects can be seen today - such as the Andromeda Galaxy- because of numerous factors such as gravitational effects and the sort.

The Andromeda galaxy is close enough for gravitation interaction to be meaningful - it is not sufficiently distant for that attraction (between relatively close galaxies) to be outmatched by cosmic expansion.

(10-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  So now we see why objects are moving away from a point of origin, and we can reasonably postulate as to why we cannot yet see distant blue shifted objects.

Sorry, I just got very busy at my office and will return later to address your other points.

Have a good day!

I welcome your comments but I feel that you are not fully cognisant of the actual tenets of modern cosmology. Your objections seem rooted in an intuitive sense that is not valid at cosmological scales.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
10-11-2014, 01:40 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(10-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  So let's look at a hypothetical Big Bang. We tend to think of it as an explosion, not unlike a nuclear detonation except, obviously, much larger.
No we don't. We tend to think of it as an expansion.
(10-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  If the Big Bang- before it exploded- was a swirling mass of matter and energy with incredible gravitational power, it would pull into it all objects from perhaps billions of light years away...
There were no objects for the singularity to pull in.
All these blue-shifted objects you mention are a product of the big bang.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2014, 02:46 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(10-11-2014 11:16 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(10-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  Note that you have added "distant" to the equation, but that does not eliminate the fact that there are indeed blue shifted objects.

Yes. I had thought it clear that only objects at cosmological distances were relevant here, but on the other hand, I hadn't defined the terms explicitly.
("cosmological distances" being an imprecise term for objects farther away than our local group, which has a gravitational center and apparent ongoing concentration - quasars, for example, the best early/distant objects we can observe, are ~10^9 or more light years away, whereas Andromeda is 10^6)

There are planets in our solar system moving towards us. There are planets in our solar system moving away from us. There are stars in our galaxy moving towards us. There are stars in our galaxy moving away from us. There are galaxies in our cluster moving towards us. There are galaxies in our cluster moving away from us.

There are no cosmologically distant objects moving towards us. Such motion is impossible under current models and has never been observed.

(10-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  So let's look at a hypothetical Big Bang. We tend to think of it as an explosion, not unlike a nuclear detonation except, obviously, much larger.

No, we don't. That's a very wrong conception.

(10-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  If the Big Bang- before it exploded- was a swirling mass of matter and energy with incredible gravitational power, it would pull into it all objects from perhaps billions of light years away, making any objects at farther distances un-observable, as even the light from those objects would hit the event horizon of the Big Bang and be curved into it.

Then, the explosion occurs with an unimaginable force. The force of the explosion expands all matter and energy through space, destroying or propelling anything else (distant blue shifted objects) in its wake. Over time, however, the force and wake of the Big Bang decreases and loses power. Eventually its explosive power becomes too weak to prevent any other distant objects from moving towards the point of origin. Now its only matter of time before the distant blue shifted objects become visible.

Cosmological expansion is literally the expansion of the spacetime manifold. It is not merely some initial momentum imparted by some "explosion" from which objects "move away". That is entirely the wrong picture!

Correlating apparent motion with distance and age, cosmological expansion is not slowing - if anything it is increasing.

(10-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  I believe that the not-so-distant visible blue shifted objects can be seen today - such as the Andromeda Galaxy- because of numerous factors such as gravitational effects and the sort.

The Andromeda galaxy is close enough for gravitation interaction to be meaningful - it is not sufficiently distant for that attraction (between relatively close galaxies) to be outmatched by cosmic expansion.

(10-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  So now we see why objects are moving away from a point of origin, and we can reasonably postulate as to why we cannot yet see distant blue shifted objects.

Sorry, I just got very busy at my office and will return later to address your other points.

Have a good day!

I welcome your comments but I feel that you are not fully cognisant of the actual tenets of modern cosmology. Your objections seem rooted in an intuitive sense that is not valid at cosmological scales.

I'm not sure how you did not understand the words "hypothetical Big Bang," for I am not speaking of the prevailing model where scientists think that all of space-time was created with the Big Bang.

The problem with the prevailing theory is that there is simply no way to prove that space-time was created with the Big Bang. It is a wholly unsupported theory. This needs to be acknowledged and understood.

Now once again, putting the prevailing theory aside, please discuss my proposal in the context of it being a different theory and tell me what's wrong with it.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: