Big bang fact vs big bang theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter KingCoil
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KingCoil

Guest
Dear readers here, I like to have your (name removed by moderator)uts so that I can learn from you all.

Here is my stock knowledge:

Big bang fact is the objective event of the universe having begun to exist, it has not always existed.

Big bang theory is the explanation from scientists how the fact (event) came about.

So, please give me your (name removed by moderator)uts and we can exchange thoughts: so that we both you and I will profit with coming to consensus in knowing with certainty that the big bang is or is not a fact.

If you don’t have any personally thought out knowledge to share, then by all means give your (name removed by moderator)uts from your sources, but and forgive me please also put the notice that you are just reporting from your sources — no need to state your sources because that will take time and labor, just say from what you read or heard, etc.

And I will not dispute your sources because that – the way I see it, it is an unprofitable exercise, because then we will be into a useless competition of citing links and text excerpts.

Now, if it is from your own personally thought out knowledge, what I call stock knowledge from keeping in touch with developments in science, then I love very much for us to work together to come to concurrence on what should be our mutually agreed on stock knowledge.

If you don’t understand something from the above words, please ask me to explain.

KingCoil
 
It is my understanding that the big bang, as an event, is a speculation based on the cosmological model contained in the theory of the big bang. The model is scientists best estimate for explaining currently available cosmoslogical data.

As an event, the big bang is not a fact, as defined by any of the following definition.

[quote=dictionary.com]3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
[/quote]

Catholic teaching indicates that God created the heavens and the earth, the seen and the unseen. There is no definitive evidence that the big bang, as an event, was this creation. That is not to say it isn’t, but the current evidence is not sufficient to show that it is.
 
davidv

Do those models hold the doctrine that math runs the physical laws?

I have asked this many times–I should recall the answer, but do not.

THANKS!
 
Jim_Baur said:
davidv

Do those models hold the doctrine that math runs the physical laws?
Click to expand...
To claim so would not, in my mind, be logical. How can a model which is man-made preceed a reality that apparently existed before man, and certainly before man had the mathamatical tools needed to create the models.
I have asked this many times–I should recall the answer, but do not.

THANKS!
Click to expand...
 
davidv said:
To claim so would not, in my mind, be logical. How can a model which is man-made preceed a reality that apparently existed before man, and certainly before man had the mathamatical tools needed to create the models.
Click to expand...
I think it’s logical. Math exists regardless of whether we perceive it, just as physics exists regardless of if we perceive it, and God exists whether we perceive Him or not. While our understanding of math is a latecomer to the party, math itself (the fundamental concepts that we call mathematics) has existed since the founding moment of the universe. Without it, the universe would not be what it is today. That is not to say that math exists apart from God, but rather that it has existed and governed the development of the universe since the first moments of creation. From that perspective, math does indeed dictate the operation of the physical laws.
 
It is physically impossible to determine if the Big Bang actually occurred or not, the basic reason revolving around that it supposedly happened when we didn’t exist. This debate could last for ages and all we will have achieved is wasted time. It’s a decent theory but it has flaws. The horizon problem is the first that comes to mind.

Even if we do determine that the Big Bang did in fact happen, then that is the farthest point science can reach, so science cannot explain what caused that little ball of infinite mass and density to explode outwards. It will always be a mystery.
 
KingCoil said:
So, please give me your (name removed by moderator)uts and we can exchange thoughts: so that we both you and I will profit with coming to consensus in knowing with certainty that the big bang is or is not a fact.

KingCoil
Click to expand...
Even if we all agree it does not make it true or prove it.

God Bless
 
KingCoil said:
Dear readers here, I like to have your (name removed by moderator)uts so that I can learn from you all.

Here is my stock knowledge:

Big bang fact is the objective event of the universe having begun to exist, it has not always existed.

Big bang theory is the explanation from scientists how the fact (event) came about.

So, please give me your (name removed by moderator)uts and we can exchange thoughts: so that we both you and I will profit with coming to consensus in knowing with certainty that the big bang is or is not a fact.

If you don’t have any personally thought out knowledge to share, then by all means give your (name removed by moderator)uts from your sources, but and forgive me please also put the notice that you are just reporting from your sources — no need to state your sources because that will take time and labor, just say from what you read or heard, etc.

And I will not dispute your sources because that – the way I see it, it is an unprofitable exercise, because then we will be into a useless competition of citing links and text excerpts.

Now, if it is from your own personally thought out knowledge, what I call stock knowledge from keeping in touch with developments in science, then I love very much for us to work together to come to concurrence on what should be our mutually agreed on stock knowledge.

If you don’t understand something from the above words, please ask me to explain.

KingCoil
Click to expand...
The theory of the Big Bang seems credible. The universe had a starting point. However, questions remain:
  1. What was the energy or material that was there?
  2. Where did it come from?
  3. Why did it detonate?
  4. Just prior to detonation, there was no universe, so what did the Bang expand into?
Peace,
Ed
 
First of all, the methodology of science does not allow for declaring anything as a “fact” as we do in the vernacular of everyday speech.

When we say “fact” in the vernacular we mean something firmly established as truth. The scientific method does not allow for this because what we understand as “truth” today can change as we learn more.

Instead, scientists use the term “theory” to describe what we call “facts.” A scientific “theory” is a well-established understanding that has been confirmed by demonstrable data and experimentation.

Second, the “big bang theory” was developed by a Catholic priest and was not readily embraced by the scientific community of his day.

Monseigneur Georges Lemaître, professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven, was the first to propose that the universe actually had a beginning that resulted in the expansion of the universe.

Up to that point scientists believed that the universe had always existed. Many balked at Lemaitre’s hypothesis of the universe suddenly coming into existence until it was confirmed by the work of American astronomer Edwin Hubble. Monseigneur Lemaitre’s hypothesis thus became discernible “theory,” proving the words of Genesis 1:1 that the universe indeed had a “beginning” to the chagrin of scientists everywhere.

Today the scientific community embraces this model of the origins of the universe. Alas, many Christians are unaware of its origins, debating the model though it is the best scientific support we have for the teaching that the universe has not always been as the Church and Bible declare.
 
Because it meets the scientific definition, the big bang is widely accepted by the vast majority of scientists as a theory. I present (again) the following summary of the big bang’s development as an argument for the theory’s justification. Science does not always follow the strict procedure of the scientific method, but you should have no trouble identifying each of the elements - observation, hypothesis, prediction, and verification - that are contained in the summary. All four of the elements of the scientific method are found in this summary. All of the observations are facts.

SUMMARY
1814 – Joseph Fraunhofer invented the spectroscope and discovered dark lines in the sun’s spectrum

1859 – Gustav Kirchhoff and Robert Bunsen found that the frequencies of the dark spectral lines found in sunlight corresponded to the frequencies of bright lines produced when chemical elements are activated to glow in the laboratory. When a spectroscope is attached to a telescope astronomers are able to tell what stars are made of.

1912 – Henrietta Leavett discovered a method for determining the distance to stars called Cepheid variables

1914 – Vesto Slipher announced that characteristic spectral lines observed in the light from nebulae were not at frequencies one would expect; instead they were shift toward the red side of the spectrum.

1915 – Einstein introduced the General Theory of Relativity. When Einstein solved the equation for the universe he found the solution predicted an expanding universe. In order to conform to the existing paradigm that held that the universe was static, he introduced a constant, since referred to as the cosmological constant.

1922 – Alexander Friedman found that Einstein made a mathematical mistake; but even with the cosmological constant, the relativity equation predicted an expanding universe.

1924 - Edwin Hubble focused the new 100 inch Mt. Wilson reflecting telescope on the nebulae and was able to resolve individual stars. He found Cepheid variables and used Leavitt’s technique to measure the distance to the nebulae and found them to be outside our Milky Way galaxy. They were separate galaxies; the Universe was much bigger than previously assumed.

1929 – Hubble analyzed the red shifts in the spectral lines from distant galaxies and noticed that the more distant a galaxy from our own, the larger the red shift. This meant that the farther away the receding galaxies were from our galaxy, the higher the velocity of recession. This could only mean that the universe was expanding.

1931 – Father Georges Lemaitre independently recreated the Freidman model, realized that expansion was real and proposed that the universe expanded from an infinitely small object called the ‘primeval atom’.

1948 – George Gamow and his student Ralph Alpher applied classical thermodynamics and nuclear physics to the primeval atom and predicted that the remnants of the expansion would be a background of energy measuring about 5 degrees Kelvin. In addition, this work also predicted the relative abundance of lithium and beryllium by a process of nucleosynthesis.

1964 - Jim Peeples, Robert Dicke, et.al. at Princeton University, apparently without knowledge of Gamow’s prediction, offered their own prediction that there should be a detectable remnant of the big bang; the remnant has since become known as the cosmic background radiation (CBR).

1964 - Two BTL engineers at Holmdel, NJ, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, were troubled by a noise from all parts of the sky while setting up a radio telescope to be used for wireless communication. The Princeton group realized that the remnant that they and Gamow’s group predicted was the signal observed by Penzias and Wilson, thus verifying the big bang theory.

Subsequently the prediction of the distribution of light elements was also verified by observation adding additional validation of the theory,

Also the observed distribution of galaxies in the various stages of evolution provides additional support for the BB theory

Yppop
 
The evidence for the big bang is directly measurable in the cosmic background radiation.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

This is the entire proof of the big bang and no other explanation exists as to why there would be microwave radiation that comes from all directions all the time.

Please understand that the big bang is solid physics. and is observable. This is why the whole theory exists in the first place.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
I think it’s logical. Math exists regardless of whether we perceive it, just as physics exists regardless of if we perceive it, and God exists whether we perceive Him or not. While our understanding of math is a latecomer to the party, math itself (the fundamental concepts that we call mathematics) has existed since the founding moment of the universe. Without it, the universe would not be what it is today. That is not to say that math exists apart from God, but rather that it has existed and governed the development of the universe since the first moments of creation. From that perspective, math does indeed dictate the operation of the physical laws.
Click to expand...
My illogical comment related to the created models, not the underlying mathematical principles.
 
Frankenfurter said:
The evidence for the big bang is directly measurable in the cosmic background radiation.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

This is the entire proof of the big bang and no other explanation exists as to why there would be microwave radiation that comes from all directions all the time.

Please understand that the big bang is solid physics. and is observable. This is why the whole theory exists in the first place.
Click to expand...
Microwave radiation comes from all directions all the time. Gravity does too. I don’t think microwave radiation is the whole answer. Then there’s dark matter.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Microwave radiation comes from all directions all the time. Gravity does too. I don’t think microwave radiation is the whole answer. Then there’s dark matter.
Click to expand...
If you mount a microwave antenna and a power meter you can detect the background radiation. It is a noise floor that you can’t get below. Moving the antenna around in space (literally in outer space) has no effect on this level. Pointing the antenna in different directions has no effect either. When you point this antenna at known sources like stars, etc. you can detect other radiation that comes directly from them.

But the background radiation is a puzzle. Until one theorizes that there was a point source that radiated equally in all directions - an isotropic source. That explains the observation.

Gravity is not like that. Gravity is observable directly to be caused by known existing bodies. This is the basis for interstellar inertial navigation. There is a map of the gravitation fields of the know objects that is used as a basis for inertial navigation. There is no background gravity coming from all directions. This is in concert with the big bang theory since matter was not formed initially - so now isotropic source of gravity. Just radiation.

Regarding dark matter, That has not been observed and is just a theory to try and explain some things. Simple alternate theories exist too.
 
Interesting thread.

If there is a God, it’s logical that he made His creations measurable for his thinking creations.

It’s also logical to take care of simple non-living matter creation with an act, vs multiple acts, shaping each one individually.

With the first piece of material, time starts, and God would be transcending Into time to create from that point. Probably why the Bible uses time in the creation section.

God would be the big banger.

I find another key question to be - if it is true that a cause is needed for matter to move, why do some folks accept the exception to physics with ‘no first cause’?

Seems like there must be a first cause to hold physics logic constant on the subject.

Perhaps there are folks that hold the acceptance of ‘first cause’ and a rejection of God.

Typically, I see ‘no first cause’ a lot which makes me wonder why here accept this exception to physics, but not other exceptions that were actually observed by humans.
 
KingCoil said:
Dear readers here, I like to have your (name removed by moderator)uts so that I can learn from you all.

Here is my stock knowledge:

Big bang fact is the objective event of the universe having begun to exist, it has not always existed.

Big bang theory is the explanation from scientists how the fact (event) came about.

So, please give me your (name removed by moderator)uts and we can exchange thoughts: so that we both you and I will profit with coming to consensus in knowing with certainty that the big bang is or is not a fact.

If you don’t have any personally thought out knowledge to share, then by all means give your (name removed by moderator)uts from your sources, but and forgive me please also put the notice that you are just reporting from your sources — no need to state your sources because that will take time and labor, just say from what you read or heard, etc.

And I will not dispute your sources because that – the way I see it, it is an unprofitable exercise, because then we will be into a useless competition of citing links and text excerpts.

Now, if it is from your own personally thought out knowledge, what I call stock knowledge from keeping in touch with developments in science, then I love very much for us to work together to come to concurrence on what should be our mutually agreed on stock knowledge.

If you don’t understand something from the above words, please ask me to explain.

KingCoil
Click to expand...
The only thing the big bang supports, if anything, is the idea that our particular universe is not eternal.

Now, if the sum of physical reality is contained within our universe alone, and it could be determined that physical reality began to exist, then certainly this would be definitive evidence that the universe does not have a physical cause. Logically speaking this would mean that whatever caused the universe to exist it did not have a physical nature. In fact it would have a “Supernature”.

However, science has not yet provided any evidence that would support that conclusion.

The BigBang theory should not be touted as evidence of a non-physical cause. Better that somebody prove the impossibility of a multiverse before jumping to conclusions and disappointing alot of people who really thought that the bigbang is proof when its not.
 
Thanks so much for your participation in this thread, everyone.
KingCoil said:
*Re: Big bang fact vs big bang theory.

Enumeration of selected texts courtesy of yours truly.
*
Dear readers here, I like to have your (name removed by moderator)uts so that I can learn from you all.

Here is my stock knowledge:
  1. Big bang fact is the objective event of the universe having begun to exist, it has not always existed.
  2. Big bang theory is the explanation from scientists how the fact (event) came about.
  3. So, please give me your (name removed by moderator)uts and we can exchange thoughts: so that we both you and I will profit with coming to consensus in knowing with certainty that the big bang is or is not a fact.
If you don’t have any personally thought out knowledge to share, then by all means give your (name removed by moderator)uts from your sources, but and forgive me please also put the notice that you are just reporting from your sources — no need to state your sources because that will take time and labor, just say from what you read or heard, etc.

And I will not dispute your sources because that – the way I see it, it is an unprofitable exercise, because then we will be into a useless competition of citing links and text excerpts.
  1. Now, if it is from your own personally thought out knowledge, what I call stock knowledge from keeping in touch with developments in science, then I love very much for us to work together to come to concurrence on what should be our mutually agreed on stock knowledge.
If you don’t understand something from the above words, please ask me to explain.
Click to expand...
Those of you who have exchanged thoughts with me before will find what I am going to do now to be déjà vu, the procedure that is; so please be patient.

Fact and theory are concepts in our mind, let us first work together to concur on the concepts in our mind of fact and of theory, in connection with the big bang, of course not to already concur on their existence outside our mind in objective reality: the matter of existence comes later.

But we have to also concur on the concept of big bang in our mind.

Talking now only in our mind, we ask ourselves what is the big bang, what is a fact, and what is a theory.

After we have come to concurrence on the concepts in our mind, then we will proceed to look up the realities in the objective world outside our mind that correspond to the concepts in our mind.

Is that all right with everyone?

Anyway, you can present your critique of my procedure, just the same when you react to the present post.

Allow me now to present to everyone the concepts in my mind of what is the big bang, what is fact, and what is theory – you will notice, I am just going to repeat thoughts already expressed in my OP:

The big bang = the universe having begun to exist, it has not always existed.

Fact = an objective event observed by man or inferred from his observation.

Theory = an explanation from scientists why and/or how a fact (event) came about.

I will now try to get your concepts of the big bang, of fact, and of theory in your posts.

See next posts from me.

KingCoil
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top