The Big Bang and Cosmic Inflation

[Hobbesarable]

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/march/physics-cosmic-inflation-031714.html

[video=youtube;ZlfIVEy_YOA]

 

[Hobbesarable]

Here's a link to the NASA article:

http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/news/birth-of-the-universe20140317/index.html#.UyjcE6hdXW8

 

[Denny Crane]

I read about this the other day. But the article I read said that scientists were about to announce they detected the gravity waves. It was speculation, but they knew an announcement was coming.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I want to see if I have this right: Because of cosmic inflation, sub-atomic swirls of gravitons are now writ large on the surface of the cosmos, so large they would look larger than the moon if they were visible.

...that is the coolest damn thing.

 

[MadeFromDust]

So about the godless origins issue: How can something that is eternal and infinite change at a finite point in "time" without there being a transcendent force beyond it? Specially referring to the universe "beginning" 13.7 billion years ago? I simply can't wrap my mind around the absurdity of this. The properties of the universe are operating on a finite timescale therefore it logically concludes that something must transcend it.

 

[speeds]

His reaction is priceless.

 

[Eastoff]

So about the godless origins issue: How can something that is eternal and infinite change at a finite point in "time" without there being a transcendent force beyond it? Specially referring to the universe "beginning" 13.7 billion years ago? I simply can't wrap my mind around the absurdity of this. The properties of the universe are operating on a finite timescale therefore it logically concludes that something must transcend it.

And a superhero that is telepathic, can raise the dead, and create and destroy anything is less absurd? Oh and some people wrote about this superhero in their giant Fanfict 2000 years ago, but he has yet to make another appearance, unless you believe the Mormons.

Because you know, what good is data that is 99.999% accurate?

 

[Cryptkeeper]

So about the godless origins issue: How can something that is eternal and infinite change at a finite point in "time" without there being a transcendent force beyond it? Specially referring to the universe "beginning" 13.7 billion years ago? I simply can't wrap my mind around the absurdity of this. The properties of the universe are operating on a finite timescale therefore it logically concludes that something must transcend it.

To me, any scientific theory is more plausible than a Divine Being creating the universe and focusing on humanity.

Did you expect to know all about the creation of the universe by reading the bible, a 3500-year old book that was created when we had extremely limited technology and ability to see beyond our sky?

 

[Denny Crane]

His reaction is priceless.

The concept that time began with the big bang so there wasn't any "before" (because there was no time at all) is a tough one to grasp.

 

[MadeFromDust]

The concept that time began with the big bang so there wasn't any "before" (because there was no time at all) is a tough one to grasp.

If you're referring to my question, I don't think you understood my point. How can something that is eternal (timeless and changeless) undergo a change at a finite point without there being a personal transcendent force beyond it? 13.7 billion years is a very specific number. The universe is operating as if it hasn't always existed and won't always exist. Stars will burn out, supernova, etc.

 

[MadeFromDust]

How can something that is impersonal and eternal undergo a change? (And no, I don't believe God changes, but I do believe He is a personal being with a will to create, such as bringing the universe into existence)

 

[Denny Crane]

"Eternal" implies "time" which did not exist until the big bang.

There is not an "eternal" universe but one that is roughly 13.8B years old. There was no 13.8000000001B years ago, because time did not exist.

 

[MadeFromDust]

"Eternal" implies "time" which did not exist until the big bang.

There is not an "eternal" universe but one that is roughly 13.8B years old. There was no 13.8000000001B years ago, because time did not exist.

"Eternal time" is an oxymoron. Something must have always existed in some form or another, or do you want to argue that as well?

 

[Denny Crane]

"Eternal time" is an oxymoron. Something must have always existed in some form or another, or do you want to argue that as well?

You can't have "time" before "time" existed.

So there was nothing that existed in some form or another somehow "before" since "before" is an impossibility.

 

[MadeFromDust]

You can't have "time" before "time" existed.

So there was nothing that existed in some form or another somehow "before" since "before" is an impossibility.

So basically you are just making a play on words here: Did everything come from nothing, or did something always exist? Period.

 

[MadeFromDust]

Also I never used the term "before". I understand what you're trying to do, but it's not answering the question.

 

[Denny Crane]

You used the word eternal, which implies a "before" and also an denial of what "time" is.

 

[MadeFromDust]

You used the word eternal, which implies a "before" and also an denial of what "time" is.

Eternal means always existed, no beginning and no end. It's the exact opposite of what time is.

 

[Denny Crane]

How can something that is impersonal and eternal undergo a change? (And no, I don't believe God changes, but I do believe He is a personal being with a will to create, such as bringing the universe into existence)

It wasn't eternal.

Get it?

 

[MadeFromDust]

It wasn't eternal.

Get it?

Please define eternal for me. We must be using a different dictionary.

 

[MadeFromDust]

e·ter·nal [ih-tur-nl]
adjective
1.
without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal ): eternal life.
2.
perpetual; ceaseless; endless: eternal quarreling; eternal chatter.
3.
enduring; immutable: eternal principles.
4.
Metaphysics . existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change.
noun
5.
something that is eternal.
6.
the Eternal, God.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eternal

 

[Denny Crane]

The universe is NOT eternal.

You saying so doesn't make it so. It makes you wrong.

 

[MadeFromDust]

The universe is NOT eternal.

You saying so doesn't make it so. It makes you wrong.

*sigh* That's exactly my point! It's not eternal, therefore it logically concludes that there must be something that IS that transcends it. What could that be?

 

[Denny Crane]

You cannot logically conclude that there was something before there was anything.

There wasn't anything. There wasn't time. There wasn't space. There wasn't atoms. There wasn't anything at all. And SURELY there was no omnipotent being.

 

[MadeFromDust]

You cannot logically conclude that there was something before there was anything.

There wasn't anything. There wasn't time. There wasn't space. There wasn't atoms. There wasn't anything at all. And SURELY there was no omnipotent being.

You are making a faith based claim, so do be careful. Also saying there was no omnipotent being is a positive assertion that you cannot prove. It's sounding more and more like you just don't want God to exist and will do anything to remove Him from the picture, even if it means shooting yourself in the foot and throwing all logic under the bus.

All I'm trying to show is that God is the most logical explanation for causation. From nothing, nothing comes. Eternal nothingness begets eternal nothingness. There is no model or evidence in existence to disprove this.

 

[Denny Crane]

I am making an evidence based claim. There may have been a hypothesis at some point decades ago about the big bang. The results of numerous experiments continue to do nothing but confirm it as the most likely explanation for how everything began. Period.

There is not one shred of evidence for a creator. Period.

Not one.

 

[Denny Crane]

My bad, there is evidence God exists.

It's a joke.

 

[MadeFromDust]

I am making an evidence based claim. There may have been a hypothesis at some point decades ago about the big bang. The results of numerous experiments continue to do nothing but confirm it as the most likely explanation for how everything began. Period.

There wasn't anything. There wasn't time. There wasn't space. There wasn't atoms. There wasn't anything at all. And SURELY there was no omnipotent being.

So what evidence do you put forward for these claims?

There is not one shred of evidence for a creator. Period.

Not one.

That is your opinion, not a fact.

 

[Denny Crane]

Light is a wave. As it is stretched, its period becomes longer. For audio, it would mean a lower pitch. For light, it means the light will appear red. You know, ROY G BIV, the colors of the rainbow/spectrum? (Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet).

So we see the light from EVERYTHING we see in the sky has a red shift, which means the source of the light is moving away from us.

If you see a car on a straight road goes 100MPH for an hour, you know it went 100 miles in an hour. From that end point, 100 miles further, you can "rewind" the motion to before you first saw it. If the car was going 100MPH the whole time, an hour earlier it was 100 miles away from where you first saw it, in the other direction.

Similarly, you can rewind the motion of all the light sources in the universe. And back 13.8B years ago, they all meet at a single point. Before that there was nothing.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of experiments that supports the big bang. Like we can't see anything older than 13.8B years with our strongest and best telescopes. Kind of funny how the age of the oldest thing we can see with telescopes is the same age as the universe according to the big bang theory.

Other experiments include measurement of a galactic background radiation, which is the afterglow of the big bang. It is almost uniform and comes at us equally from every direction. It exists because the big bang happened.

And it is fact there is no evidence for a creator. Period.

 

[MadeFromDust]

Light is a wave. As it is stretched, its period becomes longer. For audio, it would mean a lower pitch. For light, it means the light will appear red. You know, ROY G BIV, the colors of the rainbow/spectrum? (Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet).

So we see the light from EVERYTHING we see in the sky has a red shift, which means the source of the light is moving away from us.

If you see a car on a straight road goes 100MPH for an hour, you know it went 100 miles in an hour. From that end point, 100 miles further, you can "rewind" the motion to before you first saw it. If the car was going 100MPH the whole time, an hour earlier it was 100 miles away from where you first saw it, in the other direction.

Similarly, you can rewind the motion of all the light sources in the universe. And back 13.8B years ago, they all meet at a single point. Before that there was nothing.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of experiments that supports the big bang. Like we can't see anything older than 13.8B years with our strongest and best telescopes. Kind of funny how the age of the oldest thing we can see with telescopes is the same age as the universe according to the big bang theory.

Other experiments include measurement of a galactic background radiation, which is the afterglow of the big bang. It is almost uniform and comes at us equally from every direction. It exists because the big bang happened.

And it is fact there is no evidence for a creator. Period.

I'm not even denying that the Big Bang happened, it seems to me that you are dodging every question I'm throwing at you. A Christian Astronomer came up with the Big Bang theory. Did you know that? It does nothing to rule out the existence of God. At this point you are just forcing your own personal beliefs on me. there are no testable or recreatable models for the Big Bang, especially if you claim to not know what caused it.