Another Big Bang thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter lemondiesel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OK. The singularity was located where? And the universe is expanding into what? Empty, emptiness?

If we could peer just outside the edge of the universe, what would we see?

If there was no explosion with shrapnel, then where did the dust come from? Is it all just congealed energy?

The redshift idea runs into problems when we find some objects moving away from us at faster than the speed of light.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
OK. The singularity was located where? And the universe is expanding into what? Empty, emptiness?

If we could peer just outside the edge of the universe, what would we see?

If there was no explosion with shrapnel, then where did the dust come from? Is it all just congealed energy?

The redshift idea runs into problems when we find some objects moving away from us at faster than the speed of light.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Ed, many of these questions are addressed (but perhaps not all answered) by George RF Ellis, a “Christian cosmologist” (no, that is not an oxymoron) in his article “Philosophical Issues in Cosmology”. I’ll be trying to summarize the ideas in a thread with the same title to be posted shortly in the “Magis Center for Reason and Faith” group forum. We would welcome your participation and critical judgment.
anselm.
 
Current cosmological theory considers the universe to be finite and occupying space which is positively curved. It is curved into a sphere. The universe is envisaged as an expanding sphere, or an expanding balloon. But keep in mind that it’s a 4-dimensional (at least) balloon we are talking about. The galaxies populate the surface of the sphere. In reality, the 3D space we call the universe is the surface of a 4D sphere which is expanding, causing the space between galaxies to become greater.

There are three possible endpoints: 1) the universe sphere continues to expand forever, leaving most galaxies isolated and space pretty much empty and cold after a few billion years. 2) the universe slows and stops at an equilibrium point, neither expanding or contracting, or 3) the expansion of the universe sphere is overcome by gravity and begins to contract once again, resulting in a big crunch and another singularity in a few billion years.
 
edwest2 said:
OK. The singularity was located where? And the universe is expanding into what? Empty, emptiness?
Click to expand...
I would assume at the center of the universe, and it is just continuing to expand, creating more space between matter. That is just my understanding, which could be completely off.
edwest2 said:
If we could peer just outside the edge of the universe, what would we see?
Click to expand...
There is no outside because space is only relevant when matter is present.
edwest2 said:
If there was no explosion with shrapnel, then where did the dust come from? Is it all just congealed energy?
Click to expand...
Hydrogen into Helium, then it was a gradual process of nuclear fusion, etc.
edwest2 said:
The redshift idea runs into problems when we find some objects moving away from us at faster than the speed of light.
Click to expand...
What is moving faster than the speed of light?
 
JDaniel said:
Hello, Cassini:

I don’t think that a theory of a “revolving universe” would be true enough even to be theoretical. If the entire universe is revolving, how would we know? What references would we use to know that it is revolving. Now, the stuff inside of the outer boundaries could all be revolving, or, moving, relatively speaking. But, for these things, galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets, moons, etc., there are see-able references. The stuff of the universe could be revolving within the universe’s outer wall, or, at least moving in reference to what each island of matter is, or was, proximate to.

Certainly the universe cannot be infinite as it is composed. It is composed of islands of material of varying sizes. Each with its own surrounding limit, or surface. Even in terms of quanta, there is no doubt an uncountable quantity of it. As uncountable as it all appears to us to be, it is still non-infinite.

The concept of multiple universes is not even true enough to be theoretical, per se. It is merely an effortless assertion designed to contend with certain seemingly effortless religious assertions. Black holes, and dark energy, give such ideas a bit of authenticity.

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
You know JD, you are perfectly right. I loved that answer above, cannot deny its logic. Indeed, as your answer suggests, ‘science’ (reason) as portrayed in our time, is pretty useless as a means to cosmic truth. We can only speculate. The universal revolution I would go for would be the firmament itself, that is, a finite amount of space created about the earth into which were created the celestial bodies with their own limited movements. It is this firmament that revolves every day taking the celestial bodies with it.

‘Dost thou know the order of heaven, and canst thou
set down the reason thereof on the earth? Who can
declare the order of the heavens or who can make
the harmony of heaven to sleep?’ — (Job. 38:33&37).

Here God tells Job (us) we are limited in our ability to know things and His Omnipotence. Did Osiander not tell us this in the preface to Copernicus’s book when he said the truth of the universe can only be known for certain if God reveals it.
Did Pope Urban VIII not tell Galileo not to try to limit God’s ability to move the heavenly bodies to mechanics thought up by man?

So it comes down to a this, only in FAITH can man know the universe, not through human reason alone.
 
JDaniel said:
Hello, Yppop:

With all due respect, that is incorrect. The correct transliteration is, “Something is created where nothing was before,” or, “where there was nothing before.” That’s quite a different statement. To say that God created the universe from Nothing is to say that He used some kind of unknown stuff, we just happen to call, “Nothing,” as the material out of which He fashioned the stars, the planets and space. Creation is the bringing into existence of something without the use or benefit of any kind of raw material. No Material Cause whatsoever.

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
Hello jd
Whenever the word “nothing” is introduced into a discussion about creation there is sure to be much misunderstanding, this becomes worse when we start throwing Latin phrases around (I plead guilty). When you say “that is incorrect” are you referring to my phrase, “we were created from nothing” or are you referring to my translation of the Latin: creatio ex nihilo! You are correct if you mean my translation is incorrect; the precise translation would be: “creation **out of **nothing!” and I should have said “the universe was created out of nothing”.

However if you are saying that the phrase “we are created from nothing” is incorrect , then I don’t understand your answer to my question: “Something is created where nothing was before,” or, “where there was nothing before.”

I believe your answer can be expressed in Latin as creatio ex nihilo sui et subjecti; translated “creation out of non-existence”. I can’t extract a meaningful distinction between the nihilo and the nihilo sui. Theologically (meaning according to the Vatican), the phrase that is usually applied to creation is *creatio ex nihilo *even when they mean creation ex nihilo sui et subjecti.

Here is an excerpt from a talk to a general audience given by Pope John Paul II in January, 1986:

“Creation” therefore means: to make from nothing, to call into existence, that is, to form a being from nothing. Biblical language gives us a glimpse of this significance in the opening words of the Book of Genesis: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The word “created” is a translation of the Hebrew bara, which describes an action of extraordinary power whose subject is God alone. Reflection after the exile resulted in a better understanding of the significance of the initial divine intervention. The Second Book of Maccabees finally presents it as a production “not out of things that existed” (7:28). The Fathers of the Church and theologians further clarified the meaning of the divine action by speaking of creation “from nothing” (Creatio ex nihilo; more precisely ex nihilo sui et subjecti).

In the act of creation, God is the exclusive and direct principle of the new being, to the exclusion of any pre-existing matter.

Through this creative power (omnipotence) God is in the creature and the creature is in him. However, this divine immanence in no way diminishes God’s transcendence. As Creator, God is in a certain sense “outside” of created being and what is created is “outside” of God. At the same time the creature fully and completely owes to God its own existence (its being what it is), because the creature has its origin fully and completely from the power of God
in regard to everything to which he gives existence.”

Verbiage and theology aside I repeat my question, what could creatio ex nihilo mean philosophically? I am searching for a metaphysical answer. The real conundrum found in creation is the contradiction the Pope includes in the first and third sentence of last paragraph. How can we be both inside and outside of God?

There is an answer even for this contradiction; it is made possible by the mathematics of infinity.

Blessings on you also,
Yppop
 
yppop said:
Hello jd
Whenever the word “nothing” is introduced into a discussion about creation there is sure to be much misunderstanding, this becomes worse when we start throwing Latin phrases around (I plead guilty). When you say “that is incorrect” are you referring to my phrase, “we were created from nothing” or are you referring to my translation of the Latin: creatio ex nihilo! You are correct if you mean my translation is incorrect; the precise translation would be: “creation **out of **nothing!” and I should have said “the universe was created out of nothing”.

However if you are saying that the phrase “we are created from nothing” is incorrect , then I don’t understand your answer to my question: “Something is created where nothing was before,” or, “where there was nothing before.”

I believe your answer can be expressed in Latin as creatio ex nihilo sui et subjecti; translated “creation out of non-existence”. I can’t extract a meaningful distinction between the nihilo and the nihilo sui. Theologically (meaning according to the Vatican), the phrase that is usually applied to creation is *creatio ex nihilo *even when they mean creation ex nihilo sui et subjecti.

Here is an excerpt from a talk to a general audience given by Pope John Paul II in January, 1986:

“Creation” therefore means: to make from nothing, to call into existence, that is, to form a being from nothing. Biblical language gives us a glimpse of this significance in the opening words of the Book of Genesis: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The word “created” is a translation of the Hebrew bara, which describes an action of extraordinary power whose subject is God alone. Reflection after the exile resulted in a better understanding of the significance of the initial divine intervention. The Second Book of Maccabees finally presents it as a production “not out of things that existed” (7:28). The Fathers of the Church and theologians further clarified the meaning of the divine action by speaking of creation “from nothing” (Creatio ex nihilo; more precisely ex nihilo sui et subjecti).

In the act of creation, God is the exclusive and direct principle of the new being, to the exclusion of any pre-existing matter.

Through this creative power (omnipotence) God is in the creature and the creature is in him. However, this divine immanence in no way diminishes God’s transcendence. As Creator, God is in a certain sense “outside” of created being and what is created is “outside” of God. At the same time the creature fully and completely owes to God its own existence (its being what it is), because the creature has its origin fully and completely from the power of God
in regard to everything to which he gives existence.”

Verbiage and theology aside I repeat my question, what could creatio ex nihilo mean philosophically? I am searching for a metaphysical answer. The real conundrum found in creation is the contradiction the Pope includes in the first and third sentence of last paragraph. How can we be both inside and outside of God?

There is an answer even for this contradiction; it is made possible by the mathematics of infinity.

Blessings on you also,
Yppop
Click to expand...
Hello again, Yppop:

The Volume 1 of the, “The Teachings of the Catholic Church” (2 volume set), is quite clear that what is meant is that a thing is created where, prior to that new thing, no thing ever existed. That is, where there was an absence of substance, of any kind whatsoever, including a parcel of God himself, a creature was brought into being.

By an exercise of his almighty power God willed, commanded, and creatures began to be. There was nothing out of which he might make them–not from his own substance, which is simple and indivisible–and apart from him there was nothing [else].

Thus, even the statement, “we were created from nothing,” appears to imply that we were made from some substance which we call, “Nothing.” Well, we know there is no substance called, “Nothing.” But, critics, and honestly ignorant people, will enjoy thinking that that is what was meant.

Creation is the only cause that does not require the pre-existence, or pre-supposition, of any other thing except God. I am retarded such that, in this way, at least, I desire to be perfectly understood! :o

God bless,
jd
 
bnapgh said:
That link is blocked to me. Is it my privileges that are insufficient or has the thread been banned?
Click to expand...
The thread is still going and the link works for me. I had thought that everyone (even non-members of a group) could look at threads of any social group and also post, but I may be mistaken). Try going to Group Forums, go all the way down to the bottom, and then get the Magis Center group and click on that to see our threads. If that doesn’t work, I invite you to become a member of the group …no dues outside of good behavior :D.
anselm
 
JimG said:
Current cosmological theory considers the universe to be finite and occupying space which is positively curved. It is curved into a sphere. The universe is envisaged as an expanding sphere, or an expanding balloon. But keep in mind that it’s a 4-dimensional (at least) balloon we are talking about. The galaxies populate the surface of the sphere. In reality, the 3D space we call the universe is the surface of a 4D sphere which is expanding, causing the space between galaxies to become greater.
Click to expand...
Jim:

What are the four dimensions?
There are three possible endpoints: 1) the universe sphere continues to expand forever, leaving most galaxies isolated and space pretty much empty and cold after a few billion years. 2) the universe slows and stops at an equilibrium point, neither expanding or contracting, or 3) the expansion of the universe sphere is overcome by gravity and begins to contract once again, resulting in a big crunch and another singularity in a few billion years.
Click to expand...
The last two are just that, “possibilities.” The problem with them is that we have almost 17 billion years of unmitigated procession towards the # 1 endpoint.

God bless,
jd
 
JDaniel said:
The last two are just that, “possibilities.” The problem with them is that we have almost 17 billion years of unmitigated procession towards the # 1 endpoint.

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
17 billion years of unmitigated procession JD? Is that a fact, or just another another ‘possibility’?
 
JDaniel said:
Jim:

What are the four dimensions?

The last two are just that, “possibilities.” The problem with them is that we have almost 17 billion years of unmitigated procession towards the # 1 endpoint.

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
The normal 3 spatial dimensions plus time. (I should add that M-theory posits up to 10 spatial dimensions.)

In thinking of the universe as a sphere, rather than just a stretch of flat space, consider what would happen to a photon or a beam of light that you shine straight ahead in any direction. After traveling straight ahead at light speed for some billions of years it would return to hit you in the back of the head, having circumnavigated the universe. (From the photon’s POV, of course, no time at all would have elapsed.) Just like circumnavigating a globe.

If you think of the expanding universe as a balloon filling with air (but with a three dimensional surface), the diameter of the balloon gets larger with elapsed time. If you were somehow able to go towards the center of the balloon rather than be limited to the 3 dimensional surface, you would simply be encountering previous, smaller versions of the balloon at every point inward, in effect, traveling backward in time. And this is exactly what cosmologists see. As they examine the universe as it was at smaller and smaller diameters, they are just examining earlier versions of the universe. So one could view the “inside” of the balloon universe as filled not with space but with time.

You are right that continuing expansion is the probable outcome. But if the dark matter/dark energy hypotheses turn out to be true, there may be more matter in the universe than was thought. Perhaps enough to slow the expansion. I haven’t really kept up on this. But it seems I have heard lately that the expansion may actually be increasing.
 
JimG said:
The normal 3 spatial dimensions plus time. (I should add that M-theory posits up to 10 spatial dimensions.)

In thinking of the universe as a sphere, rather than just a stretch of flat space, consider what would happen to a photon or a beam of light that you shine straight ahead in any direction. After traveling straight ahead at light speed for some billions of years it would return to hit you in the back of the head, having circumnavigated the universe. (From the photon’s POV, of course, no time at all would have elapsed.) Just like circumnavigating a globe.

If you think of the expanding universe as a balloon filling with air (but with a three dimensional surface), the diameter of the balloon gets larger with elapsed time. If you were somehow able to go towards the center of the balloon rather than be limited to the 3 dimensional surface, you would simply be encountering previous, smaller versions of the balloon at every point inward, in effect, traveling backward in time. And this is exactly what cosmologists see. As they examine the universe as it was at smaller and smaller diameters, they are just examining earlier versions of the universe. So one could view the “inside” of the balloon universe as filled not with space but with time.

You are right that continuing expansion is the probable outcome. But if the dark matter/dark energy hypotheses turn out to be true, there may be more matter in the universe than was thought. Perhaps enough to slow the expansion. I haven’t really kept up on this. But it seems I have heard lately that the expansion may actually be increasing.
Click to expand...
“Matter,” you mean? That would be interesting.

God bless,
jd
 
JDaniel said:
Well, I wasn’t there, so, I can’t be sure. 😃

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
Yeh, I thought so, a possibility. But you know JD, God was there, and Adam, or so they said in this book called the Bible, but they put it at around 6,000 years of expansion, if it is expanding. I think I will read Job again, for in there there are lessons for all us ‘philosophers’.

God bless you too JD…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top