B
buffalo
Guest
Only if you are looking through the very narrow lens of science.
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Is there compressed time? Is their expanded time? How is time measured? How do we measure time?
J
JimG
Guest
Plasma cosmology seems to be a long way from replacing the standard model. At least that’s the impression I got from this link.
From a theological standpoint, it doesn’t make any difference whether the big bang model or a steady state universe turns out to be correct. Even for a steady state universe with infinite spatial extension, creation ex nihilo is required to explain its existence. The theological alternative would be pantheism. Any universe is still contingent, and requires a Creator to explain its existence.
And speaking of pantheism, freeshoulhope, your insistence that time is God or God is time, to me smacks a little bit of pantheism. Time is a necessity only for physical beings, not spiritual beings. Physical beings need space into which they extend their parts, and time into which they extend their moments. God as pure spirit has no parts and no moments. There is no part of himself which is not all of himself, and no divine moment which is not eternally now.
But time is plugged into the physical equations of the universe. We no longer speak of it as separate from space but as a single entity space-time
From a theological standpoint, it doesn’t make any difference whether the big bang model or a steady state universe turns out to be correct. Even for a steady state universe with infinite spatial extension, creation ex nihilo is required to explain its existence. The theological alternative would be pantheism. Any universe is still contingent, and requires a Creator to explain its existence.
And speaking of pantheism, freeshoulhope, your insistence that time is God or God is time, to me smacks a little bit of pantheism. Time is a necessity only for physical beings, not spiritual beings. Physical beings need space into which they extend their parts, and time into which they extend their moments. God as pure spirit has no parts and no moments. There is no part of himself which is not all of himself, and no divine moment which is not eternally now.
But time is plugged into the physical equations of the universe. We no longer speak of it as separate from space but as a single entity space-time
F
freesoulhope
Guest
Correct. When have i said any different?
W
whosebob
Guest
JMJ + OBT
True enough. But whatever the case – that is, whether or not the Standard Model holds up – I think the SM is going to have to be revised as astrophysics begins to fully encompass the principles of plasma physics. Presently, astrophysics is stuck in a “gravity + magnetohydrodynamics” interpretation of telescopic and other data. And Alfven, the father of modern plasma physics and a Nobel laureate, warned about that very thing at his Nobel acceptance speech. It’s just that at the time there was not a lot of interest in trying to integrate the burgeoning plasma physics, which is or can be analytically and computationally dificult and intensive (of course, so can GR and QFT), into the “big picture” of modern physical cosmology. The astrophysicists still haven’t quite caught up with the implications that 10^19 (yes, nineteen) ampere currents flowing along magnetic field lines in space might have on galactic and intergalactic structures. Yet those currents have been and are observed flowing through the galaxy and between galaxies! Look up “biot-savart force law” to see why this could have incredible importance – in a nutshell, the force between two current carrying “wires” drops off at rate 1/r wherease gravity drops off at 1/r^2.
Of course it’s great and really important to read the critics. And of course Prof. Lerner has his own site and replies to the criticism:
The Big Bang Never Happened
Dr. Wright is Wrong
I agree wholeheartedly. Yet, I think the initial singularity that is the Big Bang provided a nice physical analog with which to anchor one’s belief in the Doctrine of Creation in empirical analysis of the physical universe. I fear that many Catholics who are of a certain “sophistication” would have a hard time in holding fast to that doctrine in a way that feels a bit more like “blind faith,” notwithstanding the philosophical argument. Perhaps you disagree?
In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
IC XC NIKA
F
freesoulhope
Guest
whosebob said:
I agree that, people of faith will cling on to something of science if it strengthen them in Faith, But some will also except ideas that seem to contradict the faith. Since truth cannot cancel out truth,its allways a matter of interpretation. The big bang points towards a beginning rather then a universe thats been around forever. This idea surpports to some extent the christian theological veiw of things.
Your saying the big bang never happened? What your talking about sounds really complex, do you have any links to the laymen interpretation?.
W
whosebob
Guest
JMJ + OBT
Many of the concepts that tend to go hand-in-hand with Plasma Cosmology – intrinsic redshift, quantized redshift, preference to understand spacetime as not having curvature (“euclidean relativity”), and some other stuff – together with PC’s interpretation of the Cosmic Microwave Background and the nature of the universe’s large scale structure (viz-a-viz the plasma physics of “force free filaments”), lead the PC theorists to conclude that there was no “big bang” that started the universe (in term of physical origins).
The best website for a layman is Plasma Cosmology .Net. Use the menu on the left side of each page to work through all of the sections of that website. Do keep in mind that PC is not considered a mainstream scientific theory or discipline by the international scientific community, though many people including myself find the ideas to be compelling.
In Christ.
IC XC NIKA
F
freesoulhope
Guest
whosebob said:
Ive read the artical about the big bang never happening. But it doesnt mean the big bang never happened. It could mean that the “voids” that are spoken of, where there before the big bang occured.
W
whosebob
Guest
JMJ + OBT
Thanks for the feedback.One thing that I wanted to suggest to you – and it’s not a personal criticism, and may be helfpul to other forums members as well – when you reply to someone’s post, you should edit the quoted text to limit it to only that portion which you are commenting on directly. There is no use in quoting my entire post and putting a small blurb underneath it.
In Christ.
IC XC NIKA
F
freesoulhope
Guest
Sorry man. Its lazyness. 
Godbless.
What about what im saying about the voids? Isnt that possible, or are there other factors, that throw the big bang theory out the window.
Godbless.What about what im saying about the voids? Isnt that possible, or are there other factors, that throw the big bang theory out the window.
W
whosebob
Guest
Sorry man. Its lazyness.
What about what im saying about the voids? Isnt that possible, or are there other factors, that throw the big bang theory out the window.
JMJ + OBT
No problem. 
Just don’t do it again …[kidding]
Well, if most of the observations that are interpreted as direct or indirect evidence of the Big Bang can be or are ultimately explained by other phenomena, then why would there be a need to incorporate the BB initial singularity into a theory of physical cosmology?
Does that make sense?
F
freesoulhope
Guest
Well, If a big bang wasnt the “Physical” cause of the universe, then what other Physical posiblitys are there?
Just throw them at me, im ready to catch!
Just throw them at me, im ready to catch!
W
whosebob
Guest
Well, If a big bang wasnt the “Physical” cause of the universe, then what other Physical posiblitys are there?
Just throw them at me, im ready to catch!
JMJ + OBT
Well … that’s kind of the point. PC advocates would tell you that their theory suggests that empirical observations will never lead one to find a physical cause for the universe; that from a purely empirical perspective, the universe will be understood to have no known spatial or temporal scale.
Which basically leaves you with God as the cause, and the philosophical arguments to back that up.
I have a feeling that most of the PC adovcates, though, are positivists and somewhat anti-religious. Therefore, they would be happy to suggest they are comfortable with the notion that from an empiricist and positivist perspective, the universe is infinite, eternal and without cause.
In Christ.
IC XC NIKA
F
freesoulhope
Guest
Sounds promising. The only battle feild left would be philosophical.
One would just need a philosophical argument to prove that the universe is not eternal.
One would just need a philosophical argument to prove that the universe is not eternal.
F
freesoulhope
Guest
Or rather, not dependent on its self for existents.
J
JimG
Guest
whosebob said:
Yes, the standard model (Big Bang) does have a certain appeal to theists, because it seems to show that the universe had a beginning.
And from what you have said, plasma cosmology apparently entails a steady-state type of universe, which has more of a natural appeal to positivists or even atheists.
(I recall many years ago when astronomer Fred Hoyle proposed a steady state model as a purely theoretical concept opposed to the Big Bang model that was then being espoused by physicists such as George Gamow.)
But I don’t think Catholics or the Church should set it’s heart on any particular cosmology. I expect that even the standard model will have to undergo much revision in the coming years.
K
Kirane
Guest
How can someone be both subject to the limitation of time and not subject to the limitations of time. Is it not a contradiciton. We have one person. This one person is simultaneously:
- Subject to the limitations of time.
- Not subject to the limitations of time.
Is this not contradictory ?
F
freesoulhope
Guest
It would be contradictory for an ordinary human being. Jesus on the other hand isnt exactly Ordinary. Im sure God isnt bound by the laws of Physics if he created them. Somtimes its hard to look at God with anything but human eyes. It may have seemed like he was subject to the limitations of time, but that didnt stop him from walking on water. I dare say that God the son wanted to be as a human, so he lived as a human that was subject to the limitations, but that was just his humanity. He himself, is eternal like the father, he has no limits. He lived withing finite time as a human and lived as a human, i think his humanity was limited, like all of us, but i dont think that affected who he was. Somebody please correct me if im wrong, I dont feel i should have commented anyway “im unsure” sorry.
Somtimes its hard to look at God with anything but human eyes. It may have seemed like he was subject to the limitations of time, but that didnt stop him from walking on water. I dare say that God the son wanted to be as a human, so he lived as a human that was subject to the limitations, but that was just his humanity. He himself, is eternal like the father, he has no limits. He lived withing finite time as a human and lived as a human, i think his humanity was limited, like all of us, but i dont think that affected who he was. Somebody please correct me if im wrong, I dont feel i should have commented anyway “im unsure” sorry.
K
Kirane
Guest
Does human reasoning or human logic apply to religious matters?
F
freesoulhope
Guest
I would say that you need reasoning in order to define truth from error, and more importantly revelation from God, including the holy spirit. However i should not have anwsered the post, im not sure of the anwser to your Qeustion 
I have a habit of jumping in to Convesations with lack of knowledge about the topic im trying to anwser. Sorry. Im sure somebody more humble will come along and anwser Your Qeustion.
I have a habit of jumping in to Convesations with lack of knowledge about the topic im trying to anwser. Sorry. Im sure somebody more humble will come along and anwser Your Qeustion.- Status