The big bang is wrong

  • Thread starter Thread starter I_like_Mike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

I_like_Mike

Guest
It has taken me about a year to look through science and I am wondering why the model that says there was a flood and also a tower of Babel wasn’t presented?

Sure the big problem is and has been getting the shape right and knowing more about gravity.

But there is a very strange model rejected by the scientists that is very old and has chaotic events causing change that requires God to be a physical presence within and beyond the bounds of the universe.

It is much bigger than we have already seen by telescope but just a bit older. If there is any interest I will write more.

I must say now that it reduces humanity to insignificance while also showing how little we can know about the nature of God.
 
I_like_Mike said:
It has taken me about a year to look through science and I am wondering why the model that says there was a flood and also a tower of Babel wasn’t presented?

Sure the big problem is and has been getting the shape right and knowing more about gravity.

But there is a very strange model rejected by the scientists that is very old and has chaotic events causing change that requires God to be a physical presence within and beyond the bounds of the universe.

It is much bigger than we have already seen by telescope but just a bit older. If there is any interest I will write more.

I must say now that it reduces humanity to insignificance while also showing how little we can know about the nature of God.
Click to expand...
Can you give some more information on this model of creation?

I too have my doubts about the Big Bang. I just tend to have faith that God created the universe, and beyond that we cannot know anything for sure.
 
In a forum like this, it’s somewhat nonproductive to say that I have my doubts about something or such, like I have reasons to disbelieve the big bang.

At the very least, we’re talking about the well-trodden subject and debate of creation versus the big bang theory (actually it was silent – I forget why) .

We’ll get to the point much quicker if you express your true ideas and any evidence you have for them.

Even the ‘big bang’ is a mysterious subject, for a number of reasons. What preceded it? Could it happen again? There are doubts about laws of physics applying at all moments of the event, leading some toward a more unified theory of the universe.

Science explains so much of the visible universe, that it has developed an accompanying “faith” that it will eventually explain more, perhaps everything.

Pope Benedict XVI is a world - class intellect (someone else’s statement) and I think that is the fact. In his book, Introduction to Christianity, he distinguishes the domain of faith, and explains how people are essentially beings committed to faith – whatever that happens to be, monotheism, polytheism, or atheism. His discussion might superficially be described as rambling, but he rolls together a discussion of the philosophical ideas involved in belief with the historical considerations and scientific.

Incidentally, the original post offers nothing to support the contention in the title of the thread.
 
Alright here goes:-
Energy built up like a wave. As a sound will of a vibration builds when harmonic.

The first space is unbounded and aether and so fine as to require an act of divine will to compress.

If you like God took of himself and compressed part breathed life into the aether.

Now it is very fine much below 10^-33 for matter or 10^-43 for energy.
From that compression a tearing away or separating from the main like a speaker blowing out and compressing to an ignition point, let there be light.

There is only inflation at less than the speed of light as space is high energy and not yet available to expand into so it must be pushed open.

The edge of the sphere of energy or its surface is governed by the math 4/3pir^2 while volume 1/3pir^3. Since surface is a squared measure to volume cubed the surface cools and falls back in towards the centre.

This happens in many places. There is a density and a flow of energy a compression and flow of the aether that we know as gravity. It connects in many funnels of in-falling energy density.

So there was an accumulation of energy, ordained by God.
There was a compression, the breathe of life by God.
There was a spark, let there be light.
There exists a shape, complex and beyond our knowing, the evidence of that is in the power of zero point energy as described in quantum.

The space is formed and flowing before the stars appear and so the redshift we see is the expansion of the whole of our universe and it is bounded within God who is infinite.

That is why the background heat is so small because the universe God gave us is so huge.

There is more should I continue?
 
I will add a bit more in that I trust the scholars of the Bible to have explained it as it happened in the best words they had. My best words unfortunately have not met with scientific community approval. They do not endorse God.

For the ancients the best description of a flow they could remember is of water. This is why the aether is where “God moved over the waters”.

From the ‘first day’ the light and heat would be too much for us so it spread widely. That is the dark epoch we know of after the start of the universe. It is during this time all the cooling flows fall inwards and join. They are in fact massive event horizons. We see them as quasars which burn brighter than whole galaxies.

These to collapse and form smaller flows. Because we are within the palm of God’s hand or if you like within and made from God the very essence of God we are fully contained and known. The smaller flows are the filaments of density seen in gravitational lensing. When the whole of our observable universe is tested this way we see vortexes and a massive ripple that matches the expansion and contraction times hypothesised. This happens in the first half a billion years.

Redshift matches the ripple as the quasars were the first energy to become gravitationally strong enough to start drawing in the universe. The expansion stops and slows until the five billion year mark then starts again at the eight billion year mark. It is the inflow of the infinite unbounded around our universe adding mass to that which first came into being.

As a totally linked structure all time and gravity and thus the shape of space is joined and known. This is why John the Divine was able to see Revelations. Under normal circumstances we would have had millions of years but have performed energy experiments that have created highly dense matter within our earth that will consume it. Each unexplained lost energy spike is a wormhole to either the interior of our world or recorded as a short high energy gamma ray burst from space. The heat in the particle accelerators reaches as high as two trillion degrees for 10^-23 of a second.

So the wormhole gives a burst or can close forming a micro massively dense object that we know better as a black hole. They do exist in nature we see them as sunspots here this is from the on-line encyclopedia Wikipedia. It looks and is what it is and can be ejected. They do burst upon reaching a certain size where it can trigger earthquakes from five and higher on the Richter scale. In some cases the moon helps us throw one out as their orbit can not exactly match the earth. We will experience more earth events as we make more micro black holes.

Quantum is a link to all energy and all matter so that when a micro black hole exists of our own doing it can take from any source. Be it a car or a tree a river a building or even us. For the most part that which is taken is small and providing it is not from a brain connection or optic nerve will heal much like any small sore. But over time the rate increases until we are no longer able to live on the earth. If however we complete the machine that creates the next step larger, then we can bypass Revelations straight to fireball like extinction.

I have tried to explain this to scientists since I first started looking into this a year ago. It is unfortunate that astronomy was an interest that came late in my life. I am glad to be back in the Catholic faith as it is one that does not condemn others to hell. I do believe that since our understanding of God is so small that it takes all faiths and even then we do not have more that a tiny piece of the picture.

God bless all of you.
 
Crumpy said:
In a forum like this, it’s somewhat nonproductive to say that I have my doubts about something or such, like I have reasons to disbelieve the big bang.

At the very least, we’re talking about the well-trodden subject and debate of creation versus the big bang theory (actually it was silent – I forget why) .
(snip)
Click to expand...
It would have been silent as the universe was formed and compressed, the aether if you like. The only things that could have existed before that point is time, gravity and vibration which interestingly could also be a measure of thought.

In the standard model from bang onwards it would have been noisy as all forms of energy would have crashed into existence in an explosion that relies on infinite smallness or the burst of everything from an improbable zero point.

With the breath of God version the start is silent as no medium for us is available until there is enough compression to carry a sound wave. From there all energies take their turn forming and yes it would have been noisy and then bright from a certain point onwards but no physical ears or eyes to witness the event, just vibration or the knowing of a thing in thought from time undefined before our time.

The big bang would have been noise and light as an energy source but not detectable until some point after it happened when there was space formed for that energy to exist in. I disagree with the model as it starts time from that improbable point and by accepting it denies the very existence of God before time, our time and since the beginning of time of which we know not.

That means our beginning is with the breath of God and our end also takes us back complete to that stage of time gravity and vibration. God exists before, during and after. The potential to start again is there as at some point of compression all forces within the bit that is our universe within the unbounded outer would again compress to form a new beginning.

We would not know whether we were first nor that we shall be the last but that before the beginning of our time and beyond the point where we are no more there will be God.

I will say that I believe in physical evolution as we are only the beautiful handiwork of our Lord and therefore as malleable as He may desire that we could be given the freedom to be. But the presence, the thought and the very existence of God is from eternity past to eternity future and that we have been given the gift of life and by the grace of God the privilege to do the living of that life as we would. That in the absolute encapsulation of a measured and known amount of existence all of our thoughts decisions and actions be known and yet we have the freedom of choice to make them even though they be known.

To not believe in evolution is to disbelieve the master craftsman has the right to paint the picture. Leonardo worked on the ‘Mona Lisa’ for the whole of his life, the Mona Lisa was subject to many changing appearances before we have what is that work of art today, but Leonardo da Vinci was subject to the changes applied to him as the art work of God.

Please note this is intended as a physics description only with the best I can put together with my belief in that there is God.

The right to believe is given to those who believe and the description that any faith organisation chooses to promote is the right of that organisation. In the scientific forums I have left out the references to God as is required in promoting an idea to those forums. But because I am a catholic I need to write more than just the physics of ds^2 = x^2 + y^2
I need to say that I believe in God and that the Bible has given us the best description possible for humanity to pass on in such a way as could be understood without the need to know quantum mechanics or general relativity.
 
From a pure physics point of view this model was rejected because it means a balance of matter to anti-matter within linked systems. Put simply half our galaxy would be matter and this is the part we are in and the other spiral arm is anti-matter.

If you like this point is the cornerstone. The direction if this is accepted is very different to the one that we currently know. As the universe compresses the world becomes heavier due to the infall of neutral matter. This adds matter to the atoms that we are made of. Eventually isotopes of the elements will take on more neutrons and also as charge compresses the elements themselves change in disruptive electrical discharge as they move up the line on the periodic table.

So eventually hydrogen will accept a neutron as its natural state and then at some time change to helium. Iron as the most stable of elements will give way to chromium and so on.

This change is gradual but an indication that the universe as we know it will change and we will adapt. This gives rise to the ‘Tower of Babel’ situation as a time of electrical disturbance disrupted the thinking of the builders. Each of us forms our own connections and it is a known phenomenon that when a person has been subjected to high voltage shock there is a change in the personality and associated confusion.

Our history shows a clear and regular pattern through the fossil record and so like the cycle of the ice ages these times can be known. There would be indications of a charge build up just as human hair stands on end when charged. This would account for the tree of life descriptions not as a pagan legend but as an observation remembered in human oral history passed on from those who experienced it.

As for being in a flow there are further complications as the magnetic pole history attests to and that is there is also a time of reverse charge. Consciousness and life continue forward, people still age but the disturbance is general and not just limited to the least stable of the elements. The fossil record indicates these times as being of great stress to life. The God given gift of intelligence if applied to any situation will best prepare us to face those challenges as they arise.

With the very atoms of our makeup changing over the millions of years we will eventually need to adapt to become living beings based on heavier elements than just hydrogen and carbon. This prospect of becoming robots is not an immediate problem for ours or many generations but it does mean that sometime in the very far distant future we need to have a plan to be what we wish to become. Either that or plan not to become anything other than an interesting part of the fossil record for that which may not come.

It sounds a bit extreme but is the very long term over millions of years outcome that this model of the universe describes. It hurts to present it this way and it would be wrong not to tell you of my thoughts. I sincerely pray that better minds than mine can look at this and determine what to make of it.

Michael
 
:hypno:

Dude, I appreciate your calm, sincerity, and kindness, but… oh hell, there just isn’t a nice way to put this.

The reason your ideas haven’t met with scientific approval is because they’re wrong. Sorry. You’re barking up the wrong tree – religion doesn’t have to concern itself with how God did it, only why and/or that he did it. There’s no need to try to shoehorn God into every single thing directly; can’t he work from a distance if he wants?

Science is not out to shove God aside; it’s trying to understand nature, and the divine is simply out of its sphere. As far as observation, hypothesis, and experiment have determined, there was probably some kind of big explosion at the beginning. Was it God with an overloaded bike pump? Maybe! But the question of God is where science takes a step back and says ‘whoa, hands off, not our problem, give it to the theologians’. Science is concerned with natural processes, not divine.
 
Thank you Mirdath you are most correct in this.
Science is concerned with natural processes, not divine.
Click to expand...
There are scientific forums that have made it very clear they are not interested in the divine.

I started with an idea that related to gravity between galaxies, so a physics notion if you like. I appreciate that science does concern itself with the natural processes. Just reading about the amazing array of new and exciting discoveries that are being made is inspiring.

I did start with the idea along the lines of ‘Twistor Theory’ to try and describe natural processes. I find delight in being alive in this world God has given us. So I write here as a catholic so that if there was anything to the model I have looked at then out of pure respect and courtesy I wish to give thanks to God.

When one explores an abstract idea it is not unusual to encounter skepticism. That is fine because if reality is stranger than fiction then it gets weirder still.

I will say for this model it predicts the ‘Nemesis’ is Jupiter as the Jovian barycenter of mass in a binary Sun - Jupiter system is well outside the surface of Jupiter. Nemesis in physics is presumably a heavy remnant of a star some few light years away that we haven’t detected yet.

So the next big event in a gravity density model would most likely be the ejection from the red spot of an object such as a comet or perhaps a new asteroid or meteor.

I am waiting a reply from the science forums on just how many ‘new’ near earth objects or meteors have come past us from extremely close to the proximity of Jupiter.

In fairness the model is considered wrong by scientists in fact I have had this pointed out quite a few times. The problem is that there are very few sites dedicated to discussion of hypothetical models in science. Strangely enough it is seen as blasphemous to the noble cause of science 🙂
 
Mirdath said:
:hypno:

Dude, I appreciate your calm, sincerity, and kindness, but… oh hell, there just isn’t a nice way to put this.

The reason your ideas haven’t met with scientific approval is because they’re wrong. Sorry. You’re barking up the wrong tree – religion doesn’t have to concern itself with how God did it, only why and/or that he did it. There’s no need to try to shoehorn God into every single thing directly; can’t he work from a distance if he wants?

Science is not out to shove God aside; it’s trying to understand nature, and the divine is simply out of its sphere. As far as observation, hypothesis, and experiment have determined, there was probably some kind of big explosion at the beginning. Was it God with an overloaded bike pump? Maybe! But the question of God is where science takes a step back and says ‘whoa, hands off, not our problem, give it to the theologians’. Science is concerned with natural processes, not divine.
Click to expand...
Right on the money. 👍

(I’ll have to ponder about the bike pump a bit…)
 
I see things differently to others perhaps and maybe try to ask a few good questions such as:-

Why do any of us see anything at all would be a good question.

Surely the improbability of a photon hitting anything even when in the abundance of light and matter, say from the sun or a beam of electrons from a CRT tube could be in question due to the tiny space that real matter occupies.

Has that ever been questioned?

Yet when light falls on an object we see it from the surface only. One could presumably think why not struggle to see the object at all or at best as translucent as photons passing into depth and being re-radiated outwards should theoretically give a view of any ‘solid’ object as being from where ever the photon interacts with the electron and is re-emitted.

Maybe I don’t see enough but I do question what I do see and for the rest I give thanks and praise to God.

Cheers Michael N
 
I think that the big bang is possible, in a way us humans think.

God created everything in 6 days.

Can we build a skyscraper in 6 days? I doubt it, yet God created everything in 6 days. I would say that is a big bang.

😃
 
ljprevo said:
I think that the big bang is possible, in a way us humans think.

God created everything in 6 days.

Can we build a skyscraper in 6 days? I doubt it, yet God created everything in 6 days. I would say that is a big bang.

😃
Click to expand...
If one took a clock that could work in the greater unbounded area to tell the time it would read differently. This model of the universe suggests exists then that time from creation to completion may just measure a week.

As a medium for conducting a wavelength is compressed the wave travels faster. Example a normal wave may travel on the surface at a few miles per hour where a tidal wave moves at many hundreds of miles per hour at depth.

As time is compressed by the breathe of God into our lives we live within fractions of a second by comparrison to God’s time.

A description of time is that in the blink of an eye God can do more than man could achieve in ten thousand years and that ten thousand years for God is but the blink of an eye.

Some interesting mathematics on that using the time for an eye blink of 1/40 of a second gives the universe a time of 24 billion years and this is from my reading of the Old Testament.

Every time we fail to credit God for being so far ahead of us and above us we fail to give credit to God.

It is nice to be reminded in such a gentle manner of just how well set out this life for us is and all we have to do is embrace it, live it and be eternally grateful.

Cheers Michael N
 
I attended a Catholic university, and (though not a science major) took an astronomy class taught by (I’m told) a devout and conservative Catholic.

He taught modern science with gusto – especially the Big Bang theory – and my impression was not “Wow, this is a really godless theory”. On the contrary, my eyes were wide open and my mouth agape at the idea that God’s creation could be so unfathomably complex.

Wow. All the matter in the universe – ALL of it – compressed into a singularity of such infinite density that the laws of physics, energy, and time as we know them are entirely inapplicable. And then – BANG! It explodes with enough energy to scatter every bit of matter that will ever exist so far that we cannot, billions of years later, measure the scope of the universe or even trace it back to its physical point of origin.

And – here’s the best part – the theory is unable to account for how that singularity got there in the first place, a question easily answered if one has faith.

This kind of thinking leads me even to marvel at the wonder of a flower, or an apple, or the physics that make baseball and music work.

Science is not to be feared; it is to be respected as a means to better understand the glory of our Creator. The Big Bang theory does not preclude the existence of God; rather, I think, it argues in favor of it.

Peace,
Dante
 
If there was a big bang it is because God created it.

That is entirely the point. Modern science has this thing that T = 0 meaning there was no time before the beginning of the universe and so no God to create it. That is wrong. God is eternal to eternal meaning there was time and God before any of the universe was made and will be time and God eternally after the universe is gone.

T = 0 is the biggest con job that has ever been put to us and the science then fails to provide an answer to the next big question, why Revelations. We will not know the time for that is known only to God but the description is very accurate. A world wide electrocution. We are getting set to experiment with energy beyond our knowing and building devices that we just do not know the capability of.

We do not read the book and we do not look to signs and portents. The imagery of the motorcycle culture is of a burning head rider. One who does not stop. If the comet Holmes was any indication of power injected into an object, a very cold object then to build similar devices on earth means a man made potential for disaster, our own doing.

Will we get out of our cars and kneel before the breath of God. Will we remove our shoes when standing on holy ground.
Will we prepare candles or even do modern things like put anti static straps on cars. Will we be prepared for thousands of tonnes of old oil set free from the hulls of sunken ancient war forgotten shipping.

We experiment with life and cloning, we actively profess the new discoveries and think ourselves above God. This is wrong. With the universe so large the clearest road to the ‘world’ facing Revelations is by our own hand, warned by God and yet we ignore our duty to care for this earth. God set man above all that fly, that walk or run, all that swim and all that creepeth or crawl not to exercise dominion over but to be caretaker of. We do not even take care of our own.

Even more recent good people, popes and visionaries have carefully confirmed God as knowing all things and for all time. Take a most interesting one, a good man 500 years ago a healer who cared for victims of the plague, one who did not contract the disease himself although in daily contact. He pointed out we would face end times and troubles for the world due to our experimenting with forces beyond our control, not adding to the book but confirming it as right.
 
I_like_Mike said:
Modern science has this thing that T = 0 meaning there was no time before the beginning of the universe and so no God to create it. That is wrong. God is eternal to eternal meaning there was time and God before any of the universe was made and will be time and God eternally after the universe is gone.
Click to expand...
I’m really not sure what your point is, but this statement seems to be arguing against something which neither science nor religion affirms.

Science makes no assumptions at all about the state of the universe “before” the big bang.

And religion asserts that God exists outside of time: time is a property of the material universe, not of God, who has no extensiion in time or space. Eternity does not mean infinite time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top