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

[Charlemagne_II]

Carnelian
**
Of course the Big Bang theory is not one we as Catholics have to agree with but it is worth recalling it was proposed by a member of our own clergy and it contains nothing in contradiction with the faith. **

If anything, it confirms our faith.

Genesis, 1000 B.C. : “Let there be light.”

Carl Sagan in* Cosmos*, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

 

[Sunlight]

That’s the craziest website I’ve seen in awhile. I’m afraid to click on anything. What’s their agenda?

Im not sure, I just saw that direct link with another links to that page on another forum discussing the big bang theory. That particular page seemed legit to me but apparently it’s not.

 

[Sunlight]

Sunlight:

True. But that was NASA!

God bless,
jd

Yes, you are right! I would agree with NASA before anything else. I guess I will delete that other link from my history, it just seemed so sincere and genuine. Ahh well.

 

[J_Peterson]

Im not sure, I just saw that direct link with another links to that page on another forum discussing the big bang theory. That particular page seemed legit to me but apparently it’s not.

The page you linked was fine but the home page was very confusing and had a lot of ads. I hope I didn’t offend you.

 

[JDaniel]

Yes, you are right! I would agree with NASA before anything else. I guess I will delete that other link from my history, it just seemed so sincere and genuine. Ahh well.

Sunlight:

A good handle for a good person. Not because you agreed with me, but because you exhibit a rare sincerity and more than a modicum of goodness. (Makes me a tad jealous!)

God bless,
jd

 

[theblindlead]

check out the guy who won the nobel prize for physics this year basically what he did was prove that there isn’'t a breathing universe. basically there haven’t been multiple big bangs there was only one. he proved that the universe will continue to expand and never collapse upon it’s self. pretty near stuff.

i would post a link but i’m lazy so deal if your interested i’m assuming that you have fingers and google…so you can “make it happen captain” yourself

 

[Sunlight]

The page you linked was fine but the home page was very confusing and had a lot of ads. I hope I didn’t offend you.

Oh you didn’t offend me, not at all. I totally understand what you are saying and agree with you, the home page is confusing. I think it’s a site that anyone can pay to advertise on so that’s why there are a lot of ads. Im not sure though but it is very strange I have to admit.

 

[Sunlight]

Sunlight:

A good handle for a good person. Not because you agreed with me, but because you exhibit a rare sincerity and more than a modicum of goodness. (Makes me a tad jealous!)

God bless,
jd

Thank you so much! That was very sweet of you to say

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Please answer this question:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=677822
Thanks

 

[itullian]

i wonder if this theory will be overturned for something else.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

i wonder if this theory will be overturned for something else.

It is very doubtful this theory will ever be overturned. I think most every astrophysicist/astronomer accepts the Big Bang as creating at least this universe–some of them accept the ludicrous multiverse theory or the equally ludicrous re-bounding universe.

Alternative models have been posited–see Alfven’s plasma cosmology or Zwicky’s tired light as an example of the more interesting ones–but these alternative models have some massive holes in the theories that make them quite unusable.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Originally Posted by itullian View Post
i wonder if this theory will be overturned for something else.

Not likely, but you never know. Einstein’s relativity theory overturned what were considered settled laws of physics in his day. The problem with overturning the Big Bang theory is that it has been visibly and auditorily proven to have occurred. What has not been proven is why it occurred. That is very likely beyond proof so far as physics is concerned.

 

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by itullian View Post
i wonder if this theory will be overturned for something else.

Not likely, but you never know. Einstein’s relativity theory overturned what were considered settled laws of physics in his day. The problem with overturning the Big Bang theory is that it has been visibly and auditorily proven to have occurred. What has not been proven is why it occurred. That is very likely beyond proof so far as physics is concerned.

Even it is explained scientifically there will still be the question of why it occurred.

 

[greylorn]

i wonder if this theory will be overturned for something else.

It was effectively overturned about a half-century ago, but the overturning has been met with considerable disfavor, because it contradicts the cherished dogmas of religionists and atheists alike. Troublesome theories, however effective they might be, are initially only accessible to open minds, which are in limited supply.

This July you might check Amazon for a copy of Digital Universe-- Analog Soul, if you are prepared to re-examine everything you’ve been taught except mathematics, logic, and classical physics.

BTW the theories involved in that book have been mostly presented here on CAF, albeit in scattered bits and pieces as appropriate to various conversations.

 

[greylorn]

Even it is explained scientifically there will still be the question of why it occurred.

A really good theory must also explain the phenomenon of consciousness, which may lead to some interesting answers to the “why” question.

 

[yppop]

It was effectively overturned about a half-century ago, but the overturning has been met with considerable disfavor, because it contradicts the cherished dogmas of religionists and atheists alike. Troublesome theories, however effective they might be, are initially only accessible to open minds, which are in limited supply.

This July you might check Amazon for a copy of Digital Universe-- Analog Soul, if you are prepared to re-examine everything you’ve been taught except mathematics, logic, and classical physics.

BTW the theories involved in that book have been mostly presented here on CAF, albeit in scattered bits and pieces as appropriate to various conversations.

GL,
Where did you get the title of that book, which I am assuming is yours? Sounds more like a title for a book that I might have written and not one based on aeons and beons? Please tell me that a **digital universe **and an **analog soul ** is not about a reality that emerges from the duality of discrete and continuous space.

Yppop

 

[Anselm33]

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?

do you mean Sungenis pseudo-physicists or do you mean qualified physicists? There are many cosmologists/physicists who aren’t, for philosophical/theological reasons, happy with the idea of a Beginning (because that implies a Creator) and who posit multi-universe or cyclic universe theories, but these aren’t and can’t be confirmed by data. The COBE background microwave radiation and the Hubble red-shift confirm (amongst many other data) the origin from nothing.