Einstein on Matter and Spacetime

[Pat_Albertson]

Isn’t the de Sitter solution a subset of FLRW with no matter, just a Lambda constantin time and space, just as the Einstein-de Sitter solution is a subset of FLRW with no cosmological constant, just homogeneous dust?[/qupte]I don’t know, I haven’t looked into it enough.

Surely there are exact solutions for these cases and the subsets are simpler than the FLRW?

 

[wanstronian]

The article is sited with multiple links, and Pope Pius XII must have had a DeLorean to change the Bible, because all the Old Testament references can be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, some dating to 3,500 BC.

The links are to Wikipedia articles on Big Bang Theory, Lemaitre and expansion of space; an irrelevant article in Pravda; an article on astrobiology; a piece by some cardinal that apparently provides a citation that the earth isn’t only 6,000 years old (no argument from me on that one); and a link to an annotated bible.

None of the links justify your assertion that Lemaitre based his Big Bang theory on biblical references, nor do they debunk Lemaitre’s documented discomfort at Pius XII’s declaration that Big Bang Theory proves the Creation story.

There’s no point citing loads of references if none of them support your assertions. It’s like me asserting that unemployment is caused by pixies then citing a Wikipedia article on pixies. Claiming a causal link then simply citing an article on one half of that link does not prove the causation. I know you were only repeating the ArguingWithAtheists website, but you should take care that what you repeat is worthy of repetition.

By the way, I’d not seen the ArguingWithAtheists site. It’s hilarious. If those are the best arguments that theists have to offer then it’s no wonder you keep losing!

 

[EasterBeagle]

The links are to Wikipedia articles on Big Bang Theory, Lemaitre and expansion of space; an irrelevant article in Pravda; an article on astrobiology; a piece by some cardinal that apparently provides a citation that the earth isn’t only 6,000 years old (no argument from me on that one); and a link to an annotated bible.

None of the links justify your assertion that Lemaitre based his Big Bang theory on biblical references, nor do they debunk Lemaitre’s documented discomfort at Pius XII’s declaration that Big Bang Theory proves the Creation story.

There’s no point citing loads of references if none of them support your assertions. It’s like me asserting that unemployment is caused by pixies then citing a Wikipedia article on pixies. Claiming a causal link then simply citing an article on one half of that link does not prove the causation. I know you were only repeating the ArguingWithAtheists website, but you should take care that what you repeat is worthy of repetition.

By the way, I’d not seen the ArguingWithAtheists site. It’s hilarious. If those are the best arguments that theists have to offer then it’s no wonder you keep losing!

Your not making any sense, I think your are mixing up 3 or 4 different members posts into one. And I think you were the only one who mentioned Pius XII, saying he made changes to the Bible to support Lemaitre’s theory. I just asked if he had a flux capacitor to do that because all the same references are in the Dead Sea Scrolls, some carbon dating to over 3,000 years old. Long before Pius XII.

 

[wanstronian]

Your not making any sense, I think your are mixing up 3 or 4 different members posts into one.

It is you who are confused, and badly so.

In post#2, you copied text and links from a page on the ArguingWithAtheists website.
In post #9, I responded to your post, refuting the poor points made in the text that you copied.
In post #12 you responded to me claiming that the article in question was “sited” [sic] with multiple links.
In post #22 I pointed out that the “citations” in the article you replicated do not substantiate the points being made. That’s kinda essential for citations.
In post #23 (to which I am now responding) you are claiming I am responding to other people’s posts. I am not; I am responding to yours.

I’m not sure how you’ve got confused, but the thread is pretty clear.

And I think you were the only one who mentioned Pius XII, saying he made changes to the Bible to support Lemaitre’s theory. I just asked if he had a flux capacitor to do that because all the same references are in the Dead Sea Scrolls, some carbon dating to over 3,000 years old. Long before Pius XII.

I raised Pius because it was there that the myth that Lemaitre based his theory on biblical accounts originated. This was to refute the very first sentence in the article that you replicated. And incidentally, a myth which you have apparently been taken in by, if your subsequent statement in post #18 is anything to go by:

That would still follow Lemaitre’s Bible model .

Lemaitre’s model was emphatically and demonstrably not based on anything in the bible.

I never said Pius made changes to the bible; I said he “retrofitted the biblical account to Lemaitre’s hypothesis.” Meaning he cherry-picked elements of the bible that supported Lemaitre’s hypothesis, then claimed that Lemaitre had derived his hypothesis from those parts of the bible. Lemaitre was displeased with this, but it’s how the myth propagated in the first sentence of the article got started.

I do understand how the use of the word “retrofitted” may have led you to think that Pius changed the bible, so sorry for any confusion (mind you, it’s not like the bible hasn’t been changed multiple times over the centuries to support the policies and ideologies of those in power at the time. This is a fairly-well established fact.)

 

[KingCoil]

Could you give us some background on that, or cite a quotation or source?

I suspect physicists do not agree. According to the theory of general relativity, matter affects space and time. Perhaps also space and time are necessary in order to have matter. To ask whether the existence of one depends on another may be like asking whether the chicken or egg came first.

Atheist evolutionists I have read tend to think that the egg came first before the chicken, because the egg was a freak egg, a fruit of random mutation which just happened to have survived and self-incubated itself into the first chicken, which first chicken also by a freak accident called random mutation already had within itself fertilized eggs, which in turn also laid eggs that developed into more chickens among which are male chickens.

See? You have got to be an atheist evolutionist to see everything so optimistically owing to random freak accidents co-existing in the same space and at the same time as natural selection, but random mutation has a bias in favor of natural selection, to dispense natural selection from further random mutation which means destruction of anything already naturally selected to survive.

You get the idea? that kind of explanation brings up even more questions and impossibilities, like how can natural selection at all occur in the midst of random mutation, unless random mutation takes a sabbatical every so often, for natural selection to proceed and survive and achieve stability?

So, what is my solution to the conundrum, which came first, egg or chicken?

My solution is to imagine that I am an engineer and have to design and produce a chicken that lays eggs which will become chickens, and on and on with succeeding eggs and chickens.

My design of the whole caboodle is to put the first eggs inside the first chicken, and present it as such, a chicken with already eggs inside itself, this chicken with already eggs inside will lay the first eggs which it will hatch into chickens, and that is the start of the eggs-laying chicken.

Why don’t I start with chicken eggs right away which will develop into chickens?

Because eggs have got to be in a safe package, that is where the first chicken comes in as the first thing to come forth in existence in the chicken-egg system, otherwise how can eggs survive by themselves if not already inside a chicken?

And the first chicken will lay the first eggs and hatch them into succeeding chickens, that is now the whole serialized succession of chickens and eggs.

How is that for intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts?

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

So far the first instance of the word experience in this thread is this line from Albertson:

…]
Albertson:

If you want something more familiar from your own experience, something you can more readily imagine, think of a jet of steam leaving a nozzle…

…]

I just want to put in here my thinking about deep and high physics in space and in time in the sub-atomic scale and in the gigantic galaxial scale, both of the universe created by God

We are existing and living in our macroscopic environment as distinct from the sub-atomic environment and the galaxial environment of deep and high physics.

A lot of knowledge about these two environments is founded on experience in our macroscopic environment (yes as distinct also to the microscopic environment of the sub-atomic domain) of things immediately accessible to our senses, and also inferentially by mathematics on the data from our experience.

Now, we will never ever come to exist and to live in the sub-atomic world and in the galaxial world; so that our knowledge of these two worlds are I dare say a minuscule of less than .00000000000000000000000001% of those two realms of objective existence.

And it is all speculations even on mathematics assist of and from the .00000000000000000000000001% of those two realms of objective existence.

My point is this, the real world for us is the here and now of our macroscopic world where our experience is identical to our existence, or the fundamental experience of consciousness is identical to existence and life, for us biological beings.

So what?

So, as we are into God as the creator of the universe, we are in awe and we exclaim in praise to God, saying with the Psalmist:

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. – Psalms 19:1

In particular today we also have access to the sub-atomic realm, and thus we can add to the voice of the Psalmist, "And the deepest abyss of the sub-atomic world shows forth the fantastic intricate subtlety of the Lord."

KingCoil