The Big Bang thread..................................

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

itullian

Guest
i’ve been thinking about it.
scientists say everything in the Universe was compacted into a spec as small as an atom.
how can everything be in such a small space?

what did it explode into, nothing?
how can you expand into nothing if nothing is there to expand into? not even space.

just thinking.:confused:
 
itullian said:
i’ve been thinking about it.
scientists say everything in the Universe was compacted into a spec as small as an atom.
how can everything be in such a small space?

what did it explode into, nothing?
how can you expand into nothing if nothing is there to expand into? not even space.

just thinking.:confused:
Click to expand...
There are 2 answers:

  1. *]It cannot be: it is impossible, for no one can do that.
    *]It can be done. God’s Power is much greater than that. He can make appear an Universe out of being no Universe. He can make the Big Bang that started with th whole Universe compressed at a size smaller than an atom.

    I choose the second answer.
 
itullian said:
how can you expand into nothing if nothing is there to expand into? not even space.

just thinking.:confused:
Click to expand...
Because the laws of physics says so. The universe is constantly expanding, The “nothing” becomes more and more space as the universe expands. In other words, it creates more space as it expands. When it gets to the point where it can’t expand anymore, then it contracts, becomes the dreaded “black hole”, consuming itself at an ever increasing rate and we are history.
At least that’s the way it was explained to me.
 
itullian said:
how can everything be in such a small space?

what did it explode into, nothing?
how can you expand into nothing if nothing is there to expand into? not even space.

just thinking.:confused:
Click to expand...
It’s not really described as an explosion, but a rapid expansion. It’s said to be an expansion of space-time. While there is some evidence to support it no one really knows for sure. But right now I don’t think there are any other models of explanation for the process of the development of the universe that are supported/inspired by observation and data collection.
 
what is really interesting is that the universe is not expanding from 1 single point necessarily. think about it your wish no space it all before the big bang, so there was no place for that atom sized spec to exist. Also we think about it being very dark before the big bang…that is not true either. Darkness also implies as space for the darkness to exist. There was * almost nothing* beforethe big bang. No, space, no time, no up or down or sideways. Happily though, there was God.
 
I’m surprised no one has bothered to mention that the Big Bang theory is the product of a Catholic priest, Fr. Georges Lemaitre, and that it supports the idea that the universe had a beginning, i.e. before the “singularity” from which it exploded, it did not exist.
 
physicist don’t accept the big bang theory anymore. I can post some links to why it’s not accepted as a possibility if you want?
 
itullian said:
i’ve been thinking about it.
scientists say everything in the Universe was compacted into a spec as small as an atom.
how can everything be in such a small space?

what did it explode into, nothing?
how can you expand into nothing if nothing is there to expand into? not even space.

just thinking.:confused:
Click to expand...
Peter:

You are correct, IMHO. Consider the atom: of what does it consist? If you said, for starters, a nucleus, that would be correct. Now, of what does the nucleus consist? If you said protons and neutrons, you’d be correct again. Now, of what do protons and neutrons consist? If you said “quarks,” again you’d be correct. Now, what are “quarks?” If you said “point particles,” you’re on your way to the prize. What are “point particles?” Simply dimensionless exigencies of negative mass. (Proton = 1.67 x 10[SUP]-27[/SUP] Kg)

OK. What else? Of course: electrons! What are “electrons?” Quite simply, point particles. In fact point particles of even less mass than protons and neutrons. Consider also that the electron shell averages 50,000 times the size of the nucleus. So, even in the atom, what we have is particles without dimension and a bunch of continuous space. Remember, from mathematics (or, geometry, as the case may be) while a line segment has “points” it does not consist of points. A larger line segment consists of smaller line segments. Why? Simply, because line segments have dimension.

This is to point out what dimensionality is, and what it means to be “dimensionless.” You could, theoretically, stack a billion points up, one on top of another, and never achieve any dimension, i.e., no magnitude. Now, if space consists of areas of nothingness (continuous space) and point particles, then one can conceive a huge yet finite number of them within a singularity. A gentle nudge, by God IMO, and out they go, rapidly making discrete space as they advance - out into Infinite Nothingness. Since time is not an exigency, per se, but is a correlate of motion, time is simultaneously tracking. God is Infinite Nothingness, without derogation. God is the Infinite Nothingness that fills the place wherein the electrons exist, in atoms. I use “Infinite Nothingness” here to signify what its appearance is to us at our level of sight. We may call this level the explicate level. What we see and what science reveals is at the explicate level. God Creates at the implicate level. Upon our deaths, I think we’ll be able to see the “implicate.” If we make it to the Vision.

God bless,
jd
 
Sunlight

**physicist don’t accept the big bang theory anymore. I can post some links to why it’s not accepted as a possibility if you want? **

This is cartoon logic! 😃
 
All is possible by God and yet it is far beyond us, I think we will never really understand it all, but after all - life is for learning 😉
 
Sunlight

The lead signature on the letter opposing the Big Bang theory from 33 top scientists is Eric J. Lerner (who is certainly no top scientist). This crackpot physicist has been chronically involved in a number of rebellious movements, including participating in a 2011 Occupy Wall Street protest.

Edward L. Wright, who is a top physicist (NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for his work on COBE, in 1992. Named the CSEOL Distinguished Scientist of the Year in 1995) has faulted Lerner for serious mistakes in his calculations.

Lerner has asserted the eternal existence of the universe. This is not even provable! It can only be asserted as an assumption.
 
This is how I understand it, hope it helps you.
According to the prevailing paradigm of the science community there are five basic parts, or elements, of the cosmos/existence, (all things). Time, energy, space, matter, and something that started it (now being considered the big bang). To match that with the first verse, of the first book of a collection of books commonly know as the Bible.
In the beginning (time).
God (something that started it).
Created (energy).
The heaven (space).
And the earth (matter).
The three parts of God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and the other four. Five as in the hand of mankind. And seven as in six days of work and one day rest.

Using basic geometry as an analogy to go from four to seven. There is a point, a line, a plain, and a cube as basic elements that all shapes are made of. A point has no dimension such as height length and width. A line made up of points in a row and has only length for a dimension. A plain made up of lines has two dimensions length and width
And a cube made up of plains having three dimensions height length, and width.

Fourth is time, which would seem to be true because energy, space, and matter would require time to exist. For if there is no time, then there is nothing but the presence of God, the only source of Life.
Time like unto a point has no dimension. Why, because there is no smallest amount of time, there is always a smaller amount of time so there is no smallest increment of time. We perceive time by a certain amount of energy exerted upon a certain amounts of matter through a certain amounts of space and the repetition there of.

Fifth is energy, if only because it seems evident even to science that space and matter is made up of energy. Energy is like unto a line having only one dimension, length, existing from one point of time to another. Requiring points (like a line) of time to exist. Changing configurations of matter and space as every thing continues to return to rest.

Sixth is space, only because space could exist without matter. Space is like unto a plain, made up of lines of energy in a plains like behavior, a blanket like and or fiber like form, as expressed by some in the science community. It maybe possible that it is the behavior of space that keeps matter in constant motion since matter is never still. It is possible that both space and matter are trying, or destined to come to rest.

Seventh is matter, which would require more that one plain of space to have a three-dimensional like, behavior. We perceive the other three through the observed response of matter. Matter is like unto a cube, seemingly to displace more than one plain of space at one time. It may be possible that the smallest unit of matter is like unto a line of energy following its own tail. Like a dog chasing it’s tail. But this line of energy follows itself so tightly that it displace the lines of space that would have occupied the points in time that the
smallest unit is.

The source of Life is not the manipulation of time, energy, space, or matter. the manipulation of time, energy, space, or matter manifests the presents of the source of Life. Even the close proximity to the source of Life. As in what it’s like in heaven as compared to what it is like in earth. The science community insists on tangible evidence. This is the real problem. Because the presence of the power of life is manifest all around us, but the science community considers that a random result of the other four (Time, energy, space,
matter) and life is not a basic element of all things. Rather than a (Time, energy, space, matter) response to the existence and or presence of Life. The argument that a predictable result of matter is the reason for this seems feeble when for centuries mankind has been manipulating living organisms to get a predictable result. And to base an argument the ability to manipulate matter into a configuration known as amino acids is not the creation of life. For amino acids of themselves are not life and are not the origin of life nor a living
organism. No more than purified copper is a penny. Though the manifestation of the presence of life may be evidence, it seems that it’s an issue of interpretation of what is evident. Where as, it could be considered, that if under certain conditions of time, energy, space, and matter, there is manifested the presence of life. Which was already there.
In other words the presence of Life is always there but not always evident to us, unless certain conditions are met.
 
JDaniel said:
SL:

I’ll see your one and raise you another: here

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
The thing is, like most everything you will have experts saying it’s acceptable and you will have other experts saying it’s not. Im not on one side or another regarding this theory. I never really focused much on it but it’s interesting none the less. In my opinion, no one knows for sure what really happened. If it’s a dot or whatever they term it exploded, where did that dot come from? From what I understand, that hasn’t been answered yet? Is that correct anyone know? Sometimes I think we are not privileged to know all to the universe on this earth and that we maybe we will get answers in the spiritual realm when we cross to that side.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Sunlight

The lead signature on the letter opposing the Big Bang theory from 33 top scientists is Eric J. Lerner (who is certainly no top scientist). This crackpot physicist has been chronically involved in a number of rebellious movements, including participating in a 2011 Occupy Wall Street protest.

Edward L. Wright, who is a top physicist (NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for his work on COBE, in 1992. Named the CSEOL Distinguished Scientist of the Year in 1995) has faulted Lerner for serious mistakes in his calculations.

Lerner has asserted the eternal existence of the universe. This is not even provable! It can only be asserted as an assumption.
Click to expand...
I missed reading this post but thank you ! I really don’t follow the big bang theory so this is good to know.
 
Sunlight

**I missed reading this post but thank you ! I really don’t follow the big bang theory so this is good to know. **

👍
 
Sunlight said:
The thing is, like most everything you will have experts saying it’s acceptable and you will have other experts saying it’s not. Im not on one side or another regarding this theory. I never really focused much on it but it’s interesting none the less. In my opinion, no one knows for sure what really happened. If it’s a dot or whatever they term it exploded, where did that dot come from? From what I understand, that hasn’t been answered yet? Is that correct anyone know? Sometimes I think we are not privileged to know all to the universe on this earth and that we maybe we will get answers in the spiritual realm when we cross to that side.
Click to expand...
Sunlight:

True. But that was NASA!

God bless,
jd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top