Big Bang

gkell2

It had been suggested in another forum ,albeit in a derogatory fashion,that I take certain issues to Christians and I see no harm in this as by and large Christians run a mile when they hear of certain topics when it shouldn't be that way.

Time and space are limitless but unfortunately the empiricist community believe there are limits to time and space and surround this idea with an awful contrived idea called 'big bang'.Christianity cannot support 'big bang',even though it presently does,by virtue of the fact that it is not only intellectually unsightly and unacceptable but simply anti-Christian.The proposers of 'big bang' have not been shy to sneer Christians in this respect -

"At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference -- the possibility that space- time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation." Hawking

I have had similar taunts in the other forums where these things are supposed to be discussed however once the participants begin to see the cracks appear,they generally go quiet.

So,how much do Christians know of 'big bang' and its idea that time and space have limits ?

qrrgprgua

audience with the pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang

I very much doubt the Pope said this.. When did the audience take place so I can dig out the speak from the vatican.va website.

gkell2

qrrgprgua wrote: »

I very much doubt the Pope said this.. When did the audience take place so I can dig out the speak from the vatican.va website.

It is not really about what the Pope John Paul II or Hawking said,although that is a quote from his popular science book,it is whether readers and especially Christians support the idea of limits to time and space which is the central theme of 'big bang' .

lmaopml

Well you'll be happy to know that there is a really long Creationist thread you can read :pac: and get your teeth into......with some Christians who may be Creationists, others couldn't be bothered - but it has been discussed on other threads too.



Multiverse theory, dark matter, dark energy, higgs fields, supersymmetry, parallel universes, many worlds, branes, goldilock zones, extraterrestrials, and most recently Hilbert space etc. etc. etc. they've all been discussed here ad nauseum. Nobody runs...just some couldn't be arsed, and don't see a problem with Science doing what Science does.

gkell2

lmaopml wrote: »

Well you'll be happy to know that there is a really long Creationist thread you can read :pac: and get your teeth into......with some Christians who may be Creationists, others couldn't be bothered - but it has been discussed on other threads too.



Multiverse theory, dark matter, dark energy, higgs fields, supersymmetry, parallel universes, many worlds, branes, goldilock zones, extraterrestrials, and most recently Hilbert space etc. etc. etc. they've all been discussed here ad nauseum. Nobody runs...just some couldn't be arsed, and don't see a problem with Science doing what Science does.

People can do better than this.

The Christian perception of the Infinite/Eternal puts no limits to time and space whereas big bangers do hence the conflict.Some Christians are better than others at framing the argument so these things are always going to attract a less reactive reader than yourself,at least those who can make the distinction between limits and limitless -

"As regards that infinity now considered -- the infinity of space -- we often hear it said that "its idea is admitted by the mind -- is acquiesced in -- is entertained -- on account of the greater difficulty which attends the conception of a limit." But this is merely one of those phrases by which even profound thinkers, time out of mind, have occasionally taken pleasure in deceiving themselves. The quibble lies concealed in the word "difficulty." "The mind," we are told, "entertains the idea of limitless, through the greater difficulty which it finds in entertaining that of limited, space." Now, were the proposition but fairly put, its absurdity would become transparent at once. Clearly, there is no mere difficulty in the case. The assertion intended, if presented according to its intention and without sophistry, would run thus: -- "The mind admits the idea of limitless, through the greater impossibility of entertaining that of limited, space."

So,let's start this again.Does any Christian care to imagine a limit to time and space as the proposers of 'big bang' suggest ?.

lmaopml

The Eternal God is not contained in this Universe, so big bangers:) or no have little consequence -

Morbert

gkell2 wrote: »

It had been suggested in another forum ,albeit in a derogatory fashion,that I take certain issues to Christians and I see no harm in this as by and large Christians run a mile when they hear of certain topics when it shouldn't be that way.

Time and space are limitless but unfortunately the empiricist community believe there are limits to time and space and surround this idea with an awful contrived idea called 'big bang'.Christianity cannot support 'big bang',even though it presently does,by virtue of the fact that it is not only intellectually unsightly and unacceptable but simply anti-Christian.The proposers of 'big bang' have not been shy to sneer Christians in this respect -

"At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference -- the possibility that space- time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation." Hawking

I have had similar taunts in the other forums where these things are supposed to be discussed however once the participants begin to see the cracks appear,they generally go quiet.

So,how much do Christians know of 'big bang' and its idea that time and space have limits ?

You are missing the point entirely.

It is not a case of "Atheists contrive a big bang theory to fit their worldview". It is a case of "Atheists and theists believe the big bang theory is true because of the evidence for it."

gkell2

Morbert wrote: »

You are missing the point entirely.

It is not a case of "Atheists contrive a big bang theory to fit their worldview". It is a case of "Atheists and theists believe the big bang theory is true because of the evidence for it."

So there is no objection to the central tenet of 'big bang' which can be found in any article or website ? -

"Astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope have peered further back in time than ever before, spotting a galaxy that formed less than 500 million years after the birth of our universe, making it the oldest and most distant ever seen."

http://www.space.com/10691-oldest-galaxy-discovered-hubble-space-telescope.html

Do you agree with that statement or not ?.

Doc Farrell

gkell2 wrote: »

Time and space are limitless but unfortunately the empiricist community believe there are limits to time and space and surround this idea with an awful contrived idea called 'big bang'.Christianity cannot support 'big bang',even though it presently does,by virtue of the fact that it is not only intellectually unsightly and unacceptable but simply anti-Christian.The proposers of 'big bang' have not been shy to sneer Christians in this respect -

The big bang theory is a cosmological model which is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. It is also being further refined. If you have a different model you wish to share feel free.
The theory was developed by a Jesuit priest George Lamaitre, who also developed Hubbles law.
The multiverse theory is not accepted as scientific and yet seems very beautiful to me. Neither the big bang or cosmic egg theory nor the multiverse theory is anti-Christian.
Lmaopml was kind enough to engage in your thread and you were ridiculously rude to her.
If you want to get any further conversation going why don't you try being polite?

As mentioned there is a creationist mega thread if you wish to 'expand' on your own theories there.
Discourtesy is unChristian, not scientific models. If you feel that you are too intelligent to be polite feel free to post elsewhere.

Benny_Cake

gkell2 wrote: »

So there is no objection to the central tenet of 'big bang' which can be found in any article or website ? -

"Astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope have peered further back in time than ever before, spotting a galaxy that formed less than 500 million years after the birth of our universe, making it the oldest and most distant ever seen."

http://www.space.com/10691-oldest-galaxy-discovered-hubble-space-telescope.html

Do you agree with that statement or not ?.

I don't see what there is to disagree with in that statement, it's simply a statement of fact surely? In what way do you disagree with it?

gkell2

Doc Farrell wrote: »

As mentioned there is a creationist mega thread if you wish to 'expand' on your own theories there.
Discourtesy is unChristian, not scientific models. If you feel that you are too intelligent to be polite feel free to post elsewhere.

I am not discussing any theories other than the one presented to the wider population as 'big bang',where the oldest galaxies are considered the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe.This would make the youngest galaxies the nearest in an older/larger Universe hence the absurdity of 'big bang' and those who propose it.

If you decide that the oldest galaxies are not the most distant then 'big bang' falls apart as an argument for any opinion or idea must contain internal logical consistency.I am not telling you 'big bang' is wrong,I am pointing out the extended conclusion which the Church should have done long ago before it decided to support something as dishonorable to human intelligence as 'big bang' and its stated limits to time and space.

Gumbi

gkell2 wrote: »

I am not discussing any theories other than the one presented to the wider population as 'big bang',where the oldest galaxies are considered the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe.This would make the nearest galaxies the youngest in an older/larger Universe hence the absurdity of 'big bang' and those who propose it.

If you decide that the oldest galaxies are not the most distant then 'big bang' falls apart as an argument for any opinion or idea must contain internal logical consistency.I am not telling you 'big bang' is wrong,I am pointing out the extended conclusion which the Church should have done long ago before it decided to support something as dishonorable to human intelligence as 'big bang' and its stated limits to time and space.

have you studied any of the evidence that's there for the Big Bang? it really seems like you haven't.

Have you studied any of the evidence for the Big bang? It seems like you haven't.

gkell2

Gumbi wrote: »

have you studied any of the evidence that's there for the Big Bang? it really seems like you haven't.

Have you studied any of the evidence for the Big bang? It seems like you haven't.

I am pointing out what 'big bang' proposers state as a principle that if the oldest galaxies are the most distant then the youngest galaxies are the nearest,people who identify with the internal logical consistency of any idea or opinion will immediately recognize the absurdity.

So,if you accept the oldest galaxies are the most distant and run with that conclusion then accept the consequences of its extended conclusion.The Universe can be mysterious but it is never impossible and that the Church presently accepts impossible conceptions passing themselves off as intellectual elitism is a tragedy for everyone,Christian and non Christian alike.

wonderfulname

gkell2 wrote: »

I am pointing out what 'big bang' proposers state as a principle that if the oldest galaxies are the most distant then the youngest galaxies are the nearest,people who identify with the internal logical consistency of any idea or opinion will immediately recognize the absurdity.

So,if you accept the oldest galaxies are the most distant and run with that conclusion then accept the consequences of its extended conclusion.The Universe can be mysterious but it is never impossible and that the Church presently accepts impossible conceptions passing themselves off as intellectual elitism is a tragedy for everyone,Christian and non Christian alike.

You really don't get what you're on about do you? Obviously you've read some article on oversized distant galaxies and assumed it completely disproved the ever evolving model that is the big bang theory (that's the great thing about science, theories are improved and refined as information presents itself). Firstly, nothing at those distances are verified, we won't have the means to gauge such distances for at least 3 years. Age and distance isn't even the problem, it's size and age, large, distant galaxies suggest a period of great activity near the begining of the universes life that goes against previous assumptions, but that's okay, because science is not a doctrine. This will result in a re-evaluation of our cosmological model that whilst a big deal for those in that area of study, is in real terms a very small adjustment. Think for a moment about our understanding of the earth itself, first it was flat, then a sphere, a more accurately sized sphere, a slightly squashed sphere, a minutely pear shaped slightly squashed sphere... what you're talking about here is the equivalent of an even lesser adjustment than the last, what came before isn't wrong per se, just slightly less right, and of next to no importance to the vast majority of people.

It's such a strange thing for you to pick up on, you could have gone with the elusiveness of monopoles or antimatter, areas where there is at least genuine debate, although interestingly enough said debate usually remains within the current model.

lmaopml

gkell2 wrote: »

I am pointing out what 'big bang' proposers state as a principle that if the oldest galaxies are the most distant then the youngest galaxies are the nearest,people who identify with the internal logical consistency of any idea or opinion will immediately recognize the absurdity.

So,if you accept the oldest galaxies are the most distant and run with that conclusion then accept the consequences of its extended conclusion.The Universe can be mysterious but it is never impossible and that the Church presently accepts impossible conceptions passing themselves off as intellectual elitism is a tragedy for everyone,Christian and non Christian alike.

But the Big Bang was an explosion of space, not some kind of explosion in space iykwim it's expanding as far as scientists can tell at the same rate everywhere. If a galaxy is spotted and seen as one of the oldest and most distant, it's only in relation to the age of said galaxy and the horizon, and not necessarily in relation to where it is in 'space' or in relation to a central point.

gkell2

wonderfulname wrote: »

Age and distance isn't even the problem, it's size and age, large, distant galaxies suggest a period of great activity near the begining of the universes life that goes against previous assumptions, but that's okay, because science is not a doctrine.

You are still asserting that the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe which locks you in to the extended conclusion that the youngest galaxies are the nearest and that is either obscene or insane,take your pick.

wonderfulname

gkell2 wrote: »

You are still asserting that the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe which locks you in to the extended conclusion that the youngest galaxies are the nearest and that is either obscene or insane,take your pick.

Okay could you elaborate on what you're trying to say because obscene/insane doesn't really cut it as an explanation, and I'm not quite sure what I should be addressing, throw in your own beliefs with regard the universe while you're at it.

gkell2

lmaopml wrote: »

If a galaxy is spotted and seen as one of the oldest and most distant, it's only in relation to the age of said galaxy and the horizon, and not necessarily in relation to where it is in 'space' or in relation to a central point.

So now you are saying that the oldest galaxies are not the most distant and then 'big bang' falls apart insofar as the assertion is that the further in distance we observe a galaxy,the younger and smaller the Universe is.

So what is it that you want,do you want the oldest galaxies to be the most distant or not ?,it is a question of logical consistency and if you feel the youngest galaxies are the nearest as an extended conclusion now you have to explain that also in evolutionary terms and all within the same picture of the Universe.

That the Christian Church would suffer its followers to try and make sense of impossible conceptions that exist only inside the imagination of mathematicians is a tragedy and especially for students who assume adults act with intellectual integrity and in their best interests.The Spirit of Christianity is found in the Infinite and should denominational Christianity support limits to time and space as big bangers have it then they will have no time to appreciate the Infinite in creation -

"To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour."

William Blake

Making astronomy and the terrestrial sciences familiar again is the greatest priority the Church has.

gkell2

wonderfulname wrote: »

Okay could you elaborate on what you're trying to say because obscene/insane doesn't really cut it as an explanation, and I'm not quite sure what I should be addressing, throw in your own beliefs with regard the universe while you're at it.

It is called common sense.

Do you believe the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe ?.It is not rocket science if you extend the conclusion that the youngest galaxies are the nearest in an older/larger Universe,this has nothing to do with 'big bang' being right or wrong but its internal logic.

You either live with the absurdity or walk away from it but what you can't do is hide from the proposal itself.

lmaopml

gkell2 wrote: »

It is called common sense.

Do you believe the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe ?.It is not rocket science if you extend the conclusion that the youngest galaxies are the nearest in an older/larger Universe,this has nothing to do with 'big bang' being right or wrong but its internal logic.

You either live with the absurdity or walk away from it but what you can't do is hide from the proposal itself.

Sorry, I think you are mixing up the idea of looking out and seeing from our perspective the first visions of the youngest galaxies in relation to the big bang and the speed of light - it's like going back in time.

I think perhaps the word 'oldest' is getting mixed up in relation to the speed of light and the horizon - looking out into the universe is pretty much like looking 'back' in time to the 'younger' universe iykwim. It doesn't matter what direction you look out - Hope that makes sense.

wonderfulname

gkell2 wrote: »

It is called common sense.

Do you believe the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe ?.It is not rocket science if you extend the conclusion that the youngest galaxies are the nearest in an older/larger Universe,this has nothing to do with 'big bang' being right or wrong but its internal logic.

You either live with the absurdity or walk away from it but what you can't do is hide from the proposal itself.

I've just had a gander at your contributions in Astronomy and Space and to be frank I gave you too much credit in my initial post. I'll ask one more time, and that will be that, what is your view of the universe and what is your reasoning behind the position you consistently put forward?

If you cannot answer this I will assume you to be trolling or crazy.

wonderfulname

lmaopml wrote: »

Sorry, I think you are mixing up the idea of looking out and seeing from our perspective the first visions of the youngest galaxies in relation to the big bang and the speed of light - it's like going back in time.

I considered this, but then figures would be cited, it's not hard to find descriptions of distant galaxies that could give someone such an impression, the poster seems not to be questioning data, but the very nature of the universe.

lmaopml

I think gkell might just be getting mixed up intuitively on how people may say the 'oldest' galaxies in some kind of time frame from a central point - which is understandable.

From our point of view they are the oldest in terms of the Horizon and how long it took for light to travel across a distance - In relation to the Big Bang however, (which is a theory based on being able to view the universe expanding in all directions) they are 'earlier' - so looking out into space is like looking 'back' in time iykwim gkell.

Zombrex

gkell2 wrote: »

So now you are saying that the oldest galaxies are not the most distant and then 'big bang' falls apart insofar as the assertion is that the further in distance we observe a galaxy,the younger and smaller the Universe is.

The actual universe isn't any younger, but the light we are looking at has had further to travel and thus took longer.

Thus we are seeing a snapshot of an older time in the universe's history. The actual universe is all the same age, but theses snapshots of light take longer to get to use the further out the originate from, thus they will be of an older time.

Space that is far far away is not any older or newer than right here. The universe is all the same age. But the snapshots of light we see from very far away galaxies must have left a long long time ago because they had to travel very far to get here. So they will naturally be snapshots of a very long time ago. We are seeing what that part of the universe looked like billions of years ago because the light that that part of the universe generated had to travel for a very long time.

These areas of space don't look like that any more, but we cannot see what they look like now because the snapshot of what it looks like right now will take billions of years to reach Earth.

Gumbi

Zombrex wrote: »

The actual universe isn't any younger, but the light we are looking at has had further to travel and thus took longer.

Thus we are seeing a snapshot of an older time in the universe's history. The actual universe is all the same age, but theses snapshots of light take longer to get to use the further out the originate from, thus they will be of an older time.

Space that is far far away is not any older or newer than right here. The universe is all the same age. But the snapshots of light we see from very far away galaxies must have left a long long time ago because they had to travel very far to get here. So they will naturally be snapshots of a very long time ago. We are seeing what that part of the universe looked like billions of years ago because the light that that part of the universe generated had to travel for a very long time.

These areas of space don't look like that any more, but we cannot see what they look like now because the snapshot of what it looks like right now will take billions of years to reach Earth.

I think you're wasting your time, Zombrex, but I applaud you for trying.

gkell2

Zombrex wrote: »

The actual universe isn't any younger, but the light we are looking at has had further to travel and thus took longer.

Thus we are seeing a snapshot of an older time in the universe's history. The actual universe is all the same age, but theses snapshots of light take longer to get to use the further out the originate from, thus they will be of an older time.

Space that is far far away is not any older or newer than right here. The universe is all the same age. But the snapshots of light we see from very far away galaxies must have left a long long time ago because they had to travel very far to get here. So they will naturally be snapshots of a very long time ago. We are seeing what that part of the universe looked like billions of years ago because the light that that part of the universe generated had to travel for a very long time.

These areas of space don't look like that any more, but we cannot see what they look like now because the snapshot of what it looks like right now will take billions of years to reach Earth.

The idea is not to get caught up in 'big bang' nonsense but to sail through it and get to where genuine astronomy is.If you insist that the oldest galaxies are the most distant then the extended conclusion is that the nearest galaxies are the youngest.

All evolutionary sciences rely on the observer's ability to appreciate historical continuity between past and present and to endeavor to put the evolutionary puzzle together that way,we see the geological evolutionary past through rock strata and geological formations and the fossil record contains the evolutionary history of life on Earth but 'big bang' asserts that we see the evolutionary timeline of the Universe directly and that should horrify any intelligent individual.You have as much a chance of seeing your own evolutionary history from child to adult directly as you have of seeing any other evolutionary timeline directly.

So,if students are taught that the oldest galaxies are the furthest,it follows that the youngest galaxies are the nearest and although the latter view is not stated by big bangers,that is what they are compelled to believe.

That the Christian Church doesn't move against the 'big bang' monstrosity is astonishing as the so-called theory requires it adherents to suspend their normal understanding of time and space.The fact is not that 'big bang' is wrong but rather how a society ended up following such a thing in the first place and that is when people will discover the genuine astronomical heritage of Christianity and how it is buried under contrived junk passed off as intellectual elitism.

gkell2

lmaopml wrote: »

Sorry, I think you are mixing up the idea of looking out and seeing from our perspective the first visions of the youngest galaxies in relation to the big bang and the speed of light - it's like going back in time.

I think perhaps the word 'oldest' is getting mixed up in relation to the speed of light and the horizon - looking out into the universe is pretty much like looking 'back' in time to the 'younger' universe iykwim. It doesn't matter what direction you look out - Hope that makes sense.

That is merely moving deckchairs around on a sinking ship for if you assert the youngest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe you are still stuck with the extended conclusion that the oldest galaxies are the nearest in a larger/older Universe.

You now have moved away from the central tenet of 'big bang' that the oldest galaxies are the most distant and inconsistency is fatal to any idea.

Hope that helps.

Benny_Cake

This has to be a first for the Christianity forum - the church being criticised for being pro-science in accepting the prevailing theory about the origins of the universe! OP, I'm not really sure what you're getting at and how it relates to Christianity. Do you have an alternative theory that you'd like us to consider?

gkell2

Benny_Cake wrote: »

This has to be a first for the Christianity forum - the church being criticised for being pro-science in accepting the prevailing theory about the origins of the universe! OP, I'm not really sure what you're getting at and how it relates to Christianity. Do you have an alternative theory that you'd like us to consider?

Simple question - how long does it take the Earth to turn once ?.This is the most basic astronomical question anyone can ask or answer.

Cú Giobach

gkell2 wrote: »

That is merely moving deckchairs around on a sinking ship for if you assert the youngest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe you are still stuck with the extended conclusion that the oldest galaxies are the nearest in a larger/older Universe.

You now have moved away from the central tenet of 'big bang' that the oldest galaxies are the most distant and inconsistency is fatal to any idea.

Hope that helps.

You go on and on about this and no matter how many times you are told you completely ignore the facts that......
1. Nobody actually thinks the most distant galaxies are actually older than nearby ones.
2. Anyone with an interest in this subject knows that if you were to travel to what we perceive as the edge of the Universe and looked back to here, you would see this part of space as it was 13.7 billion years ago, looking just like the edge 13.7 billion ly away does to us now.

You are a very confused individual.

Your comments make as much sense as someone saying "All people from Cork are stupid, because there are no schools in Cork"
The conclusion is meaningless because it is based on an incorrect statement.

gkell2 wrote: »

Simple question - how long does it take the Earth to turn once ?.This is the most basic astronomical question anyone can ask or answer.

It's amusing that because your arguments on this topic were blown out of the water in A&S you come here to try and carry on a discussion on them.
Remember retrograde rotations? I'm still waiting.

gkell2

Cú Giobach wrote: »

You go on and on about this and no matter how many times you are told you completely ignore the facts that......
1. Nobody actually thinks the most distant galaxies are actually older than nearby ones.

Let me see -

"Utilizing the Hubble Space Telescope, a team of astronomers have discovered a cluster of developing galaxies an astonishing 13.1 billion light-years from Earth, making the galaxy clusters the oldest and most distant galaxy clusters ever observed."
http://www.inquisitr.com/179511/hubble-spots-the-most-distant-galaxy-cluster-ever-observed/#4QWxgIxo771QSSMT.99

The 'big bang' proposal is pretty definite - the oldest galaxies are the most distant so that you believe you are looking out at not only a younger/smaller Universe but can see the whole evolutionary timeline of the Universe directly.The extended conclusion is therefore that the youngest galaxies are the nearest hence the absurdity of the whole thing.

Christianity does not have a theory of the Infinite,it reveals the Infinite in finite and temporal things.It is not your fault that you have a poor understanding of matters of faith when the Church is seen supporting these misguided ideas that you can see any evolutionary timeline directly as 'big bang' does .

A Christian should be able to make an immediate determination on 'big bang' and the proposers of that nonsense rather than suffering a runaround by people who can hold two contradictory views.