Is there such thing as "Creation"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-11-2014, 03:15 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(10-11-2014 02:46 PM)Free Wrote:  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.

It seemed by your choice of vocabulary and tense that you were ("we tend to think", etc).

(10-11-2014 02:46 PM)Free Wrote:  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.

The big bang is an observation - present conditions seem to have begun at a certain time and place, although not a "time and place" as intuition would suggest.

There are ideas as to what preceded/contained this even, but no coherent testable theories.

It is just as fundamentally meaningless to say that space-time did not begin with the (observable!) big bang; it's naive question-begging at best.

(10-11-2014 02:46 PM)Free Wrote:  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.

It's demonstrably false?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2014, 06:20 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(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.

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.
The Big Bang wasn't a bang, it wasn't an explosion.
Objects in spacetime aren't traveling away from a central point.

For objects that are very far apart the rate at which they are travelling away from each other (due to expansion of space) correlates closely to the distance between two objects. i.e. If the distance is X then the rate of seperation is Y but if the distance is 2X then the rate of seperation is 2Y. This makes the relative velocity of each object insignificant.
At closer distances the respective velocities are more significant than the rate of expansion of space between them.
The rate of expansion is the same everywhere but because there is more space then there is more expansion.
e.g. if space doubles in size(huge exaggeration) every minute then objects 2 meters apart see themselves 4 meters apart a single minute later. Which means they have seperated by 2 meters in 1 minute. However objects 100m apart will find themselves 200m apart a single minute later this means they have seperated by a futher 100m in 1 minute. Two objects 1 km apart will have seperated by a further 1 km in a minute, two objects a million light years apart will have seperated by a further million light years in 1 minute.

(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.
There may not have been any gravity in the early big bang. There weren't any atoms, maybe no higgs bosons or perhaps they just behaved differenly in those extreme conditions. There were no objects any amount of distance away from the big bang singularity (we cannot assume if there are multiple universes that there would be a spacial path between them). There was probably no spacetime, hence probably no distance, probably no time.

(10-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  Then, the explosion occurs with an unimaginable force.
No explosion, no force. Space just expanded extremely quickly. Each "particle", "photon" would have not felt any force or any acceleration. It would have simply observed that other particles and photons would have travelled away from it in all directions at a rapid speed.

(10-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  The force of the explosion expands all matter and energy through space, destroying or propelling anything else (distant blue shifted objects) in its wake.
There was nothing else to destroy. The universe didn't expand into already occupied space. Space itself expanded, it's still expanding today.

(10-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  Over time, however, the force and wake of the Big Bang decreases and loses power.
All energy has been conserved, nothing has been lost. The energy which was concentrated in a single point is now dispersed over a huge volume hence the universe has cooled via dispersal.

(10-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  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.
No, space is expanding. Objects further away are getting even further away at a quicker rate. Blue shifted objects will not suddenly become visible.


(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.
It's because there isn't enough distance between the milky way and the andromeda for the expansion of space to be larger than the pull of gravity.

(10-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  So now we see why objects are moving away from a point of origin
Every observer thinks they are at the point of origin as they see objects moving away from themselves. In reality there is no point of origin. Space is expanding uniformly everywhere.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Stevil's post
10-11-2014, 08:43 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(10-11-2014 03:15 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(10-11-2014 02:46 PM)Free Wrote:  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.

It's demonstrably false?

Then by all means, demonstrate it as being false with actual evidence- not theory- but conclusive evidence.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2014, 09:12 PM (This post was last modified: 10-11-2014 09:20 PM by Free.)
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(10-11-2014 06:20 PM)Stevil 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.

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.
The Big Bang wasn't a bang, it wasn't an explosion.
Objects in spacetime aren't traveling away from a central point.

For objects that are very far apart the rate at which they are travelling away from each other (due to expansion of space) correlates closely to the distance between two objects. i.e. If the distance is X then the rate of seperation is Y but if the distance is 2X then the rate of seperation is 2Y. This makes the relative velocity of each object insignificant.
At closer distances the respective velocities are more significant than the rate of expansion of space between them.
The rate of expansion is the same everywhere but because there is more space then there is more expansion.
e.g. if space doubles in size(huge exaggeration) every minute then objects 2 meters apart see themselves 4 meters apart a single minute later. Which means they have seperated by 2 meters in 1 minute. However objects 100m apart will find themselves 200m apart a single minute later this means they have seperated by a futher 100m in 1 minute. Two objects 1 km apart will have seperated by a further 1 km in a minute, two objects a million light years apart will have seperated by a further million light years in 1 minute.

(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.
There may not have been any gravity in the early big bang. There weren't any atoms, maybe no higgs bosons or perhaps they just behaved differenly in those extreme conditions. There were no objects any amount of distance away from the big bang singularity (we cannot assume if there are multiple universes that there would be a spacial path between them). There was probably no spacetime, hence probably no distance, probably no time.

(10-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  Then, the explosion occurs with an unimaginable force.
No explosion, no force. Space just expanded extremely quickly. Each "particle", "photon" would have not felt any force or any acceleration. It would have simply observed that other particles and photons would have travelled away from it in all directions at a rapid speed.

(10-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  The force of the explosion expands all matter and energy through space, destroying or propelling anything else (distant blue shifted objects) in its wake.
There was nothing else to destroy. The universe didn't expand into already occupied space. Space itself expanded, it's still expanding today.

(10-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  Over time, however, the force and wake of the Big Bang decreases and loses power.
All energy has been conserved, nothing has been lost. The energy which was concentrated in a single point is now dispersed over a huge volume hence the universe has cooled via dispersal.

(10-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  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.
No, space is expanding. Objects further away are getting even further away at a quicker rate. Blue shifted objects will not suddenly become visible.


(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.
It's because there isn't enough distance between the milky way and the andromeda for the expansion of space to be larger than the pull of gravity.

(10-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  So now we see why objects are moving away from a point of origin
Every observer thinks they are at the point of origin as they see objects moving away from themselves. In reality there is no point of origin. Space is expanding uniformly everywhere.

My entire inescapable problem with all this rests on these two questions:

1. If space is expanding, then what is it expanding into?

2. If the Big Bang is the origin of the universe, then what is the origin of the Big Bang?

My very first sentence on this topic is on page 1, and it says:

"Ah yes, the nature of existence."

When I speak of the nature of existence, I find it completely illogical to accept an origin to existence as being the Big Bang, since the question of the origin of the Big Bang cannot be answered.

To me, it appears absolutely ridiculous to think that if space is expanding that it could expand into a non existence ie; nothingness. It simply makes no sense at all.

No. Space may very well be expanding, but if it is, then it is most definitely expanding into another existence.

No. The Big Bang may indeed be the origin of the universe, but if is, then it of itself came from something previous.

You see, I am not so much as arguing as to how the universe came into existence as much as I am arguing about existence itself.

And my position on existence is that it is both infinite and eternal.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2014, 09:28 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(10-11-2014 09:12 PM)Free Wrote:  
(10-11-2014 06:20 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The Big Bang wasn't a bang, it wasn't an explosion.
Objects in spacetime aren't traveling away from a central point.

For objects that are very far apart the rate at which they are travelling away from each other (due to expansion of space) correlates closely to the distance between two objects. i.e. If the distance is X then the rate of seperation is Y but if the distance is 2X then the rate of seperation is 2Y. This makes the relative velocity of each object insignificant.
At closer distances the respective velocities are more significant than the rate of expansion of space between them.
The rate of expansion is the same everywhere but because there is more space then there is more expansion.
e.g. if space doubles in size(huge exaggeration) every minute then objects 2 meters apart see themselves 4 meters apart a single minute later. Which means they have seperated by 2 meters in 1 minute. However objects 100m apart will find themselves 200m apart a single minute later this means they have seperated by a futher 100m in 1 minute. Two objects 1 km apart will have seperated by a further 1 km in a minute, two objects a million light years apart will have seperated by a further million light years in 1 minute.

There may not have been any gravity in the early big bang. There weren't any atoms, maybe no higgs bosons or perhaps they just behaved differenly in those extreme conditions. There were no objects any amount of distance away from the big bang singularity (we cannot assume if there are multiple universes that there would be a spacial path between them). There was probably no spacetime, hence probably no distance, probably no time.

No explosion, no force. Space just expanded extremely quickly. Each "particle", "photon" would have not felt any force or any acceleration. It would have simply observed that other particles and photons would have travelled away from it in all directions at a rapid speed.

There was nothing else to destroy. The universe didn't expand into already occupied space. Space itself expanded, it's still expanding today.

All energy has been conserved, nothing has been lost. The energy which was concentrated in a single point is now dispersed over a huge volume hence the universe has cooled via dispersal.

No, space is expanding. Objects further away are getting even further away at a quicker rate. Blue shifted objects will not suddenly become visible.


It's because there isn't enough distance between the milky way and the andromeda for the expansion of space to be larger than the pull of gravity.

Every observer thinks they are at the point of origin as they see objects moving away from themselves. In reality there is no point of origin. Space is expanding uniformly everywhere.

My entire inescapable problem with all this rests on these two questions:

1. If space is expanding, then what is it expanding into?

2. If the Big Bang is the origin of the universe, then what is the origin of the Big Bang?

My very first sentence on this topic is on page 1, and it says:

"Ah, the nature of existence."

When I speak of the nature of existence, I find it completely illogical to accept an origin to existence as being the Big Bang, since the question of the origin of the Big Bang cannot be answered.

To me, it appears absolutely ridiculous to think that if space is expanding that it could expand into a non existence ie; nothingness. It simply makes no sense at all.

No. Space may very well be expanding, but if it is, then it is most definitely expanding into another existence.

No. The Big Bang may indeed be the origin of the universe, but if is, then it of itself came from something previous.

You see, I am not so much as arguing as to how the universe came into existence as much as I am arguing about existence itself.

And my position on existence is that it is both infinite and eternal.

It's been said before, but maybe this isn't getting to you.

To say, What is it expanding into... is a question that asserts there is something that is in place of being answered as "what". That's an invalid question. A more legitimately valid question would be. Does it expand into something? A question that doesn't already make an assumption. It is "Most definitely" expanding into something isn't sound... based on what do you make such assertions and claims?

If you understood well known and talked about scientific understanding of the bigbang, even to general pop-culture influenced science talks, you could know the origin of the big-bang in the manner you speak of isn't known. It's a not yet known claim that's not an invalidation of anything. The big bang is the furthest element of our universe. It coming from something "else" is invalid because there is no evidence of anything else prior because it's the visible origin to space/time itself.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2014, 10:24 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
Romans 1:20
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2014, 11:55 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
Hitchens 2:40

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
10-11-2014, 11:58 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(10-11-2014 10:24 PM)Nintentacle Wrote:  Romans 1:20

quoting fairy tales does not equal reality sweetie

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
11-11-2014, 07:26 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(10-11-2014 10:24 PM)Nintentacle Wrote:  Romans 1:20
Cretin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2014, 09:10 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(10-11-2014 09:28 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(10-11-2014 09:12 PM)Free Wrote:  My entire inescapable problem with all this rests on these two questions:

1. If space is expanding, then what is it expanding into?

2. If the Big Bang is the origin of the universe, then what is the origin of the Big Bang?

My very first sentence on this topic is on page 1, and it says:

"Ah, the nature of existence."

When I speak of the nature of existence, I find it completely illogical to accept an origin to existence as being the Big Bang, since the question of the origin of the Big Bang cannot be answered.

To me, it appears absolutely ridiculous to think that if space is expanding that it could expand into a non existence ie; nothingness. It simply makes no sense at all.

No. Space may very well be expanding, but if it is, then it is most definitely expanding into another existence.

No. The Big Bang may indeed be the origin of the universe, but if is, then it of itself came from something previous.

You see, I am not so much as arguing as to how the universe came into existence as much as I am arguing about existence itself.

And my position on existence is that it is both infinite and eternal.

It's been said before, but maybe this isn't getting to you.

To say, What is it expanding into... is a question that asserts there is something that is in place of being answered as "what". That's an invalid question. A more legitimately valid question would be. Does it expand into something? A question that doesn't already make an assumption. It is "Most definitely" expanding into something isn't sound... based on what do you make such assertions and claims?

If you understood well known and talked about scientific understanding of the bigbang, even to general pop-culture influenced science talks, you could know the origin of the big-bang in the manner you speak of isn't known. It's a not yet known claim that's not an invalidation of anything. The big bang is the furthest element of our universe. It coming from something "else" is invalid because there is no evidence of anything else prior because it's the visible origin to space/time itself.

None of this is logically acceptable.

Everything last thing we know comes to us from the existence of people, places, time, objects, etc.

Nothingness is a non existence, therefore the universe cannot logically expand into a non existence. Hence, if it is expanding, then it is definitely logically sound to conclude that it is expanding into something, based upon everything we currently know about existence.

I mean seriously, how can things go anywhere if there is no where to go? It's really that simple. If there was no place for the Big Bang to expand to, then we would not exist, and neither would anything else.

I can accept that the origin of the Big bang is "unknown," and always have accepted that. But by no means whatsoever does that indicate that the Big Bang did not have an origin.

Things simply do not appear from a non existence. They either come from somewhere, or they go somewhere, and if we accept- for example- that the universe is expanding, then it is definitely going "somewhere."

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: