Saudi Arabia equates atheism with terrorism in new law

Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Saudi Arabia equates atheism with terrorism in new law

Excerpt:

The new law considers a terrorist anyone who:

Calls for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based;

Anyone who disregards their loyalty to the country's rulers;

Anyone who aids [terrorist] organisations, groups, currents [of thought], associations, or parties, or demonstrates affiliation with them, or sympathy with them, or promotes them, or holds meetings under their umbrella, either inside or outside the kingdom;

Those who seek to shake the social fabric or national cohesion, or anyone who harms the unity or stability of the kingdom by any means;

Attends conferences, seminars, or meetings inside or outside [the kingdom] targeting the security of society, or sowing discord in society;

Incites or make countries, committees, or international organisations antagonistic to the kingdom.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/saudi-arabia-new-law-sees-atheism-terrorism-1442819

When the war starts in earnest, Saudi Arabia will make a good target for a few nukes.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:His post

Old Seer wrote:
His post #85.

In post 85 I said a chimp would be as successful as a uneducated human in attempts to build a skyscraper, aeroplane, or computer. In other words, neither chimp nor human could accomplish it. Context is very important.

I make no real comparison between chimp and human intellect. No comparison is possible as yet.

Building computers, skyscrapers, and aeroplanes is not particularly difficult. Provided you have the education and necessary materials, it is so easy that we build millions every year.

But all these require a very high and specified level of education. Without that education, construction of the aforementioned would be impossible.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Old Seer

Vastet wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
His post #85.
In post 85 I said a chimp would be as successful as a uneducated human in attempts to build a skyscraper, aeroplane, or computer. In other words, neither chimp nor human could accomplish it. Context is very important. I make no real comparison between chimp and human intellect. No comparison is possible as yet. Building computers, skyscrapers, and aeroplanes is not particularly difficult. Provided you have the education and necessary materials, it is so easy that we build millions every year. But all these require a very high and specified level of education. Without that education, construction of the aforementioned would be impossible.

I think the point both of us made is that in order for chimps to have this education they need communication abilities. This of course comes from DNA and DNA is an item which comes from millions of years of evolution.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:The buffaloe

Old Seer wrote:

The buffaloe and the deer and whatever still have a social order as your society. That's  the point, not to what degree they are the same not why a smaller is the dominant ior not.. When a buffaloe doesen't get along with the others it's for the same reason in your society.You're not showing me anything new. Bulls have temperment, and not all are the same degree. Some don't socialize to the same degree as others---just as in your society. I'm focused on why they have problems.

No shit they all have social structures. A social structure is nothing other than a pattern of relationships. Between any two beings that interact, you have a social structure. Anarchy is by definition a social structure. The only way to escape that is to avoid interacting with any other being. Good luck with that. My only point, and the reason I got involved was to point out that the alpha-omega social structure is not universal, (which was more aimed at the lurkers than anyone) and not even common. Variations of the family unit are far more common. 

Your further claim that problems all occur because of the same problems is just as simplistic. Social and individual conflicts have a large numer of variables that cause them. I don't really feel like dealing with it, so I will excuse myself  and watch Vastet win.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Yes we know this.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

The buffaloe and the deer and whatever still have a social order as your society. That's  the point, not to what degree they are the same not why a smaller is the dominant ior not.. When a buffaloe doesen't get along with the others it's for the same reason in your society.You're not showing me anything new. Bulls have temperment, and not all are the same degree. Some don't socialize to the same degree as others---just as in your society. I'm focused on why they have problems.

No shit they all have social structures. A social structure is nothing other than a pattern of relationships. Between any two beings that interact, you have a social structure. Anarchy is by definition a social structure. The only way to escape that is to avoid interacting with any other being. Good luck with that. My only point, and the reason I got involved was to point out that the alpha-omega social structure is not universal, (which was more aimed at the lurkers than anyone) and not even common. Variations of the family unit are far more common. 

Your further claim that problems all occur because of the same problems is just as simplistic. Social and individual conflicts have a large numer of variables that cause them. I don't really feel like dealing with it, so I will excuse myself  and watch Vastet win.

What we're saying is---social relationship problems are the result of the personal characteristics that are in play in a society. My social structure is not the same with those outside my as it is with those that I'm in with. IE--we don't compete, dominate, have any authority, engage in trdatory processes,  have no boss or dominant members, no central decision makers, Alpha Smurf is all of us combined not one person,  etc. We have no social problems in our society. It's eaier for us because we areen't in close proximity to one another and retired. On the back of my RV trailer I have a sign---I'm retiried, I don't have to be a prick anymore. We identyfy ourselves from two different sets of characteristics that all beings are made up with. There are what we refer to as possitvie traits and negative traits. We don't relate to each other with the negative traits. Understanding what the traits are allows us to choose the manner of society we prefer to be in. What we're observeing is--the world only knows of one society and we know of two. We're attempting to introduce others to ours. Your society operates in both negative and positive traits with a preference to the negative. In your society no one has to love one another even though you do, but it's not nececissary for it's operations. In our society it's a must. Existing with a preference of the negative interferes with the love and careing of one another, and hence---social realtion problems. The problems between us are because of his competive nature being in play. All he has to do is disagree and leave it be. I go on to claify and try to use a different approah the other aquire an understanding. Notice the differences in attitudes. I'm being mistaken as an attacker when I'm not attacking. We know why that also to but it may take a long explaination.

I'm not trying to win, I'm informing of our findings from studies we're undertakin, not compete. To us we are correct but we don't think anyone has to agree. The individual has to change their minds not us for them. If one doesn't agree thay don't, what's to win or loose.

My download on pigs shows us to be correct according to someone else's knowledge. What goes for pig society goes for all societies that are the same pattern as the pigs. The consequences are the same, except when certain traits are put aside and not in effect. It's a matter of relationship preferences.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Agree.

Vastet wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
His post #85.
In post 85 I said a chimp would be as successful as a uneducated human in attempts to build a skyscraper, aeroplane, or computer. In other words, neither chimp nor human could accomplish it. Context is very important. I make no real comparison between chimp and human intellect. No comparison is possible as yet. Building computers, skyscrapers, and aeroplanes is not particularly difficult. Provided you have the education and necessary materials, it is so easy that we build millions every year. But all these require a very high and specified level of education. Without that education, construction of the aforementioned would be impossible.

I apologise for the misunderstanding. Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: This is

Old Seer wrote:

 

This is where we do agree. The god idea has to go.

 

                        Then why does your tag identify you as theist or are you just being coy ?

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I had that discussion

With a moderator a few months back, not in protest mind you, I requested it be changed. But nada. We don't see the possiblity that there's a super human anything or anyone, and we are of no specific religion. Also we cannot find any difinative reference to such a creature in the bible. We determined that the Euros merely attached their old religious beliefs to the book which don't apply. The question is---waht is "God". After considerable study we determined from how the Label "God" is applied and used it reduces to a meaning--force. In the book it gets down to equating to People. It takes quite a bit of study to understand this. The moderator determines that if we still (I hope I get this right) recognise an existance of god we are considered Theist.

 As we,ve determined- God is all forces in the universe, that is, any thing that is an application of force. That is derived from the understanding that we are all ruled and subject to natural forces that are in operation in the universe. ( I may not have expressed this correctly) That includes a forces of physics, biology, mental  and everything created by the universe. Every thing created by the universe is ruled and exist within or under force. The term "God" isn't necessary, only the term "Force" is. In the case of people the forces that are applied on us are God. In other words God equals Force, that which rules. We use the term God to explain the transition of the term God to the term force. None of the forces are derived from intelligence--they just are.

We also see that the term as used in the bible is also recognized as force by the writers (we have a very diferent intepretation of the book as you can guess.) Applications of force overall is recognised but they deal with specific forces as their main concern. It seems if we recognise the term "god" in any light we are considered theists. If one studies the term as the Euros apply it  also denotes force. The Euros attach their religion to the book and it doesn't belong there. They interpreted it to fit their ideas. The mind set of middle eastern people are quite different that Westerners, and being ignorant of physics and the sciences they equate natural physical forces to be initiated by an intellegent being. To make things short, if we use the term attached to our info we are considered Theist. If asked if I believe in god--I would say no. There's no sense in believing in something I can't control because I'm subject to forces no matter what. On the other hand--do I believe there is a god--yes--but it's force, but I don't need to believe "In" force. Believing something "is"and believing "In"  is a difference. We say we're atheist and don't believe "IN" any god force or otherwaise.

Understand though--I may not have made this very clear to the moderator, and as you can see, it can get very hard to explain. So I just let it be--it's OK--I merely submited to the "forces" applied.  Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Well, okay.  Whatever

  Well, okay.  Whatever you choose to believe is not an issue to me personally.   As an atheist ( and former Christain of 25 years )  I am not automatically "offended" by someone else's religious / philosophical choices regardless of my skepticism.   The only strains of religion that I find repugnant are the three Abrahamic religions which, because of their doctrines,  are utter garbage.  The rest of the world religions seem somewhat benign by comparison.  

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh hell's bells

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Well, okay.  Whatever you choose to believe is not an issue to me personally.   As an atheist ( and former Christain of 25 years )  I am not automatically "offended" by someone else's religious / philosophical choices regardless of my skepticism.   The only strains of religion that I find repugnant are the three Abrahamic religions which, because of their doctrines,  are utter garbage.  The rest of the world religions seem somewhat benign by comparison.  

 

We definetly agree with that. We don't regard Christianty as Christianity. It,s a religion in name only.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Well, okay.  Whatever you choose to believe is not an issue to me personally.   As an atheist ( and former Christain of 25 years )  I am not automatically "offended" by someone else's religious / philosophical choices regardless of my skepticism.   The only strains of religion that I find repugnant are the three Abrahamic religions which, because of their doctrines,  are utter garbage.  The rest of the world religions seem somewhat benign by comparison.  

 

The rest of the word religions seem somewhat benign by comparison? Really? Islam too?


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:The

digitalbeachbum wrote:

The rest of the word religions seem somewhat benign by comparison? Really? Islam too?

                             As stated above I object to the three Abrahamic religions.   Islam, Christianity and Judaism. 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:As we,ve

Old Seer wrote:

As we,ve determined- God is all forces in the universe, that is, any thing that is an application of force. That is derived from the understanding that we are all ruled and subject to natural forces that are in operation in the universe. ( I may not have expressed this correctly) That includes a forces of physics, biology, mental  and everything created by the universe. Every thing created by the universe is ruled and exist within or under force. The term "God" isn't necessary, only the term "Force" is. In the case of people the forces that are applied on us are God. In other words God equals Force, that which rules. We use the term God to explain the transition of the term God to the term force. None of the forces are derived from intelligence--they just are.

We also see that the term as used in the bible is also recognized as force by the writers (we have a very diferent intepretation of the book as you can guess.) Applications of force overall is recognised but they deal with specific forces as their main concern. It seems if we recognise the term "god" in any light we are considered theists. If one studies the term as the Euros apply it  also denotes force. The Euros attach their religion to the book and it doesn't belong there. They interpreted it to fit their ideas. The mind set of middle eastern people are quite different that Westerners, and being ignorant of physics and the sciences they equate natural physical forces to be initiated by an intellegent being. To make things short, if we use the term attached to our info we are considered Theist. If asked if I believe in god--I would say no. There's no sense in believing in something I can't control because I'm subject to forces no matter what. On the other hand--do I believe there is a god--yes--but it's force, but I don't need to believe "In" force. Believing something "is"and believing "In"  is a difference. We say we're atheist and don't believe "IN" any god force or otherwaise.

I know this is completely off the OP... but So are you like a believer in Spinoza's god? Also you mention that "everything created by the universe..." but then say "none of the forces are derived from intelligence..." This I find a contradiction. Don't sweat it, I used to say the same thing and it is common for atheists to say "when the big bang was created.." or "when the universe was created..." when you use the word created you automatically signify a creator thus intelligence. I use the words FORMED, MATERIALIZED, DEVELOPED or or TOOK SHAPE.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
We accept

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

As we,ve determined- God is all forces in the universe, that is, any thing that is an application of force. That is derived from the understanding that we are all ruled and subject to natural forces that are in operation in the universe. ( I may not have expressed this correctly) That includes a forces of physics, biology, mental  and everything created by the universe. Every thing created by the universe is ruled and exist within or under force. The term "God" isn't necessary, only the term "Force" is. In the case of people the forces that are applied on us are God. In other words God equals Force, that which rules. We use the term God to explain the transition of the term God to the term force. None of the forces are derived from intelligence--they just are.

We also see that the term as used in the bible is also recognized as force by the writers (we have a very diferent intepretation of the book as you can guess.) Applications of force overall is recognised but they deal with specific forces as their main concern. It seems if we recognise the term "god" in any light we are considered theists. If one studies the term as the Euros apply it  also denotes force. The Euros attach their religion to the book and it doesn't belong there. They interpreted it to fit their ideas. The mind set of middle eastern people are quite different that Westerners, and being ignorant of physics and the sciences they equate natural physical forces to be initiated by an intellegent being. To make things short, if we use the term attached to our info we are considered Theist. If asked if I believe in god--I would say no. There's no sense in believing in something I can't control because I'm subject to forces no matter what. On the other hand--do I believe there is a god--yes--but it's force, but I don't need to believe "In" force. Believing something "is"and believing "In"  is a difference. We say we're atheist and don't believe "IN" any god force or otherwaise.

I know this is completely off the OP... but So are you like a believer in Spinoza's god? Also you mention that "everything created by the universe..." but then say "none of the forces are derived from intelligence..." This I find a contradiction. Don't sweat it, I used to say the same thing and it is common for atheists to say "when the big bang was created.." or "when the universe was created..." when you use the word created you automatically signify a creator thus intelligence. I use the words FORMED, MATERIALIZED, DEVELOPED or or TOOK SHAPE.

at this time that the material universe was created at/by the big bang. We don't swear to it but it's the best bet going. A part of my post does look hypocitical, but what I means is, the universe wasn't created by an intelligent being. We see intelligence appearing in the universe after a brain is formed and evolution causes an intelligence to exist.

Spinozas God, No, God in its most used term tells us that a person is expeiencing and witnessing the effects of force. Force itself is god as it's used. Intelligence was not needed to create the universe--in our understanding. We determined that about 1990 or abouts. People don't realize when they talkl god they're talking force.

My favorite eggzample: It's 15000 years ago and you and your buddies are out on a hunt with thunderstorm moving toward you. Bang, Crash, a suuden straitline wind blows a tree down in front of you. What are you to make of this. You have seen the effects of force. If the tree fell on you you experience the effects. If you conclude that "god" did the deed then---god is force. god is that which rules. The situation was ruled by force. If you are gettiing close to the tree and the wind only takes the tree down partially the force of the wind caused you to change course. You had to make an adjustment according to what the force of the wind dictated. 1- the tree partially fell, 2-youwinessed the situation, 3- you were caused deviate from you intended course, equalling the wind ruled the situation---the wind is god. Actually it gets right down to following the causes all the way back through to a beginning----universal law. Considering you know nothing about physics and a little about the nature of thingsn what you determine is has to be invented. If the only thing you can attribute the circiumstances as caused by god--then god also has to be a product of ignorance. If one determines that the situation was caused by an intelligence--then you're really loosing. You have someone you can blame things onto.

Religions are a direct result of ignorance of how the universe works. The universe is responsable for the existance of all good and all evil. Evil is nothing more then what harms you---An evilo happened upon you if the wind blew the tree down on you and you were hurt--the situation cased the evil. Evil = bad things that happen to you.There's no need to use the term God in the place of force, we think it's just temporary and will pass away, at least I think so. If it stays then everyone knows what it pretains to.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Well, okay.  Whatever you choose to believe is not an issue to me personally.   As an atheist ( and former Christain of 25 years )  I am not automatically "offended" by someone else's religious / philosophical choices regardless of my skepticism.   The only strains of religion that I find repugnant are the three Abrahamic religions which, because of their doctrines,  are utter garbage.  The rest of the world religions seem somewhat benign by comparison.  

 

That could simply be a result of the tenuous grasp other religions have on their followers in the face of the abrahamic majority. Other than East Asian religions, I don't think any religion has been left even partially intact by the spread of the abrahamic. Wicca is a great example. It's current teachings are based on writings made in the 20th century. All the original material has been lost, probably forever.

There is scientology (which is easily a contender for most disgusting religion of the day), but it came around after christianity was mostly tamed, in the heart of the christian world, and thus never had to deal with the full power of abrahamic authority being used against it. I doubt it would have survived intact if it had started a hundred or so years earlier.

I think that the religions which were subdued and criminalised by the abrahamic faiths cannot be properly contrasted with the abrahamic faiths. There's really no way to know how they'd be if they'd been left alone.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:at this time

Old Seer wrote:

at this time that the material universe was created at/by the big bang. We don't swear to it but it's the best bet going. A part of my post does look hypocitical, but what I means is, the universe wasn't created by an intelligent being. We see intelligence appearing in the universe after a brain is formed and evolution causes an intelligence to exist.

You are using "created" again. The Universe can't create anything and you stated it previously that it is what it is; "None of the forces were derived from intelligence, they just are".

An apple is an apple. We give it the name apple. We see it as we see it. The apple doesn't know it is an apple, it just is.

Forces such are gravity are what they are, they exist with out us having to give them a name or with out us observing them.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh.OK

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

at this time that the material universe was created at/by the big bang. We don't swear to it but it's the best bet going. A part of my post does look hypocitical, but what I means is, the universe wasn't created by an intelligent being. We see intelligence appearing in the universe after a brain is formed and evolution causes an intelligence to exist.

You are using "created" again. The Universe can't create anything and you stated it previously that it is what it is; "None of the forces were derived from intelligence, they just are".

An apple is an apple. We give it the name apple. We see it as we see it. The apple doesn't know it is an apple, it just is.

Forces such are gravity are what they are, they exist with out us having to give them a name or with out us observing them.

I see what you're getting at, but maybe I don't.

As I understand it without material there is no universe. Material was fomed (caused to exist) out of the big bang. There was no material before the big bang so there couldn't have been a universe existing before the big bang. If there is nothing existing there is no universe. There is the "string theory", but if it's correct then the universe was the string. The question still is---what caused the big bang---I think that's still a problem being worked out. Of course you may kmnow this.

Picture an existing universe. after the material is formed also the planets etc, right. From the material is formed what wasn't so at the big bang, in this case I'm refering to the planets weren't formed. At one time there only existed material which forms all other things, lets say only dust was existing. Dust then is the universe at the time there was only dust. OK--that's the universe, and from that everything esle is formed. Everything after the dust is formed by the universe becasue the big bang is over, and the dust is the universe which everything is being made after that.

For instance, dust is not a planet  and the universe itself "is" the dust (becasue as I understand , no material = no universe). Everything then is formed from the dust which is the universe existing at that time. Everything is formed from the pime materials after the big bang,which I'm useing dust as an example, and the dust is made upof all the  elements that came out of the big bang. Thusly then, the forces (also part of the universe) caused the forming of planets and everything else. Everything then comes from the prime universe---the dust.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer

Old Seer wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

at this time that the material universe was created at/by the big bang. We don't swear to it but it's the best bet going. A part of my post does look hypocitical, but what I means is, the universe wasn't created by an intelligent being. We see intelligence appearing in the universe after a brain is formed and evolution causes an intelligence to exist.

You are using "created" again. The Universe can't create anything and you stated it previously that it is what it is; "None of the forces were derived from intelligence, they just are".

An apple is an apple. We give it the name apple. We see it as we see it. The apple doesn't know it is an apple, it just is.

Forces such are gravity are what they are, they exist with out us having to give them a name or with out us observing them.

I see what you're getting at, but maybe I don't.

As I understand it without material there is no universe. Material was fomed (caused to exist) out of the big bang. There was no material before the big bang so there couldn't have been a universe existing before the big bang. If there is nothing existing there is no universe. There is the "string theory", but if it's correct then the universe was the string. The question still is---what caused the big bang---I think that's still a problem being worked out. Of course you may kmnow this.

Picture an existing universe. after the material is formed also the planets etc, right. From the material is formed what wasn't so at the big bang, in this case I'm refering to the planets weren't formed. At one time there only existed material which forms all other things, lets say only dust was existing. Dust then is the universe at the time there was only dust. OK--that's the universe, and from that everything esle is formed. Everything after the dust is formed by the universe becasue the big bang is over, and the dust is the universe which everything is being made after that.

For instance, dust is not a planet  and the universe itself "is" the dust (becasue as I understand , no material = no universe). Everything then is formed from the dust which is the universe existing at that time. Everything is formed from the pime materials after the big bang,which I'm useing dust as an example, and the dust is made upof all the  elements that came out of the big bang. Thusly then, the forces (also part of the universe) caused the forming of planets and everything else. Everything then comes from the prime universe---the dust.

Any thing created must have a creator.

If by "material" you mean atoms, yes they didn't exist here in this new Universe. However every thing that was needed to create them existed before the big bang.

There is no such thing as nothing because it takes us humans to claim there is nothing. If you had a space with no atoms, no photons, no quarks, etc etc ect, then you would have space with nothing filling it, but an empty set while empty is still a set of nothing.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Material was

Old Seer wrote:
Material was fomed (caused to exist) out of the big bang.

Old Seer wrote:
There was no material before the big bang so there couldn't have been a universe existing before the big bang.

These are speculations, not facts. There is no knowledge of what was, if anything, before the big bang.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Yes, but

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

at this time that the material universe was created at/by the big bang. We don't swear to it but it's the best bet going. A part of my post does look hypocitical, but what I means is, the universe wasn't created by an intelligent being. We see intelligence appearing in the universe after a brain is formed and evolution causes an intelligence to exist.

You are using "created" again. The Universe can't create anything and you stated it previously that it is what it is; "None of the forces were derived from intelligence, they just are".

An apple is an apple. We give it the name apple. We see it as we see it. The apple doesn't know it is an apple, it just is.

Forces such are gravity are what they are, they exist with out us having to give them a name or with out us observing them.

I see what you're getting at, but maybe I don't.

As I understand it without material there is no universe. Material was fomed (caused to exist) out of the big bang. There was no material before the big bang so there couldn't have been a universe existing before the big bang. If there is nothing existing there is no universe. There is the "string theory", but if it's correct then the universe was the string. The question still is---what caused the big bang---I think that's still a problem being worked out. Of course you may kmnow this.

Picture an existing universe. after the material is formed also the planets etc, right. From the material is formed what wasn't so at the big bang, in this case I'm refering to the planets weren't formed. At one time there only existed material which forms all other things, lets say only dust was existing. Dust then is the universe at the time there was only dust. OK--that's the universe, and from that everything esle is formed. Everything after the dust is formed by the universe becasue the big bang is over, and the dust is the universe which everything is being made after that.

For instance, dust is not a planet  and the universe itself "is" the dust (becasue as I understand , no material = no universe). Everything then is formed from the dust which is the universe existing at that time. Everything is formed from the pime materials after the big bang,which I'm useing dust as an example, and the dust is made upof all the  elements that came out of the big bang. Thusly then, the forces (also part of the universe) caused the forming of planets and everything else. Everything then comes from the prime universe---the dust.

Any thing created must have a creator.

If by "material" you mean atoms, yes they didn't exist here in this new Universe. However every thing that was needed to create them existed before the big bang.

There is no such thing as nothing because it takes us humans to claim there is nothing. If you had a space with no atoms, no photons, no quarks, etc etc ect, then you would have space with nothing filling it, but an empty set while empty is still a set of nothing.

 

we (physicists) don't know "what" the creator is. If something existed before the Big Bang (if the theory holds up) then what existed before the big bang was itself the universe--or one can say that, what exists now is a modification of what exited before the big bag. Of couse that would mean that today the universe exists in a different form, that being material. Every thing exiting to day is subject to the laws of the universe (universal law-the laws of physics means the same as universal law). Everything in the universe is subject to those forces . Gravity is a fact of the universe, correct. We are suject to it as it is in control of whether one can stay in one place on the planet, or go off into space.

Then also, it is now seen that there may be now such thing as space, as space has been defined by the absence of anything. But now physicists looking today again say that may not be true.

Light is made by the sun--being that the sun is existing it is already a part of the universe, and being that it is--then light is also made by the universe. Light cannot exist unless something makes it, hence--sun existing makes sun--sunlight is made by the universe through the processes that made the sun.

The thinking of physicists refered to--- "the universe came into existances by the big bag. That implies the universe did not exist previous. If it takes material for there to be a universe it is likely that that what was before the big bag was naot material. That's what the big band does---it causes(d) the persent universe as it's known to "be". It is ageeed by physicists at this time that the laws of physics apply everywhere in the universe.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Old Seer

Vastet wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
Material was fomed (caused to exist) out of the big bang.
Old Seer wrote:
There was no material before the big bang so there couldn't have been a universe existing before the big bang.
These are speculations, not facts. There is no knowledge of what was, if anything, before the big bang.

If phisicicts say or agree in thye theory of the big bang that the forming of material came about by the big bang than there was no material before the big bag, if I understand them correctly. They say the big bang is what brought the universe into existance. The universe came into existance at some time in the past, and since then what is the universe and it's elements casues all other things to also exist. We did't exist when the universe was formed but we became later--thus we were created by the universe and are under and within it's forces.

Being that the universe is expanding brings about the speculation that at one time all matter was at a central point. Agree--- it's speculation. Buit at this time it isn't speculation that the universe exists--correct. But we do know many of the results of it's existance at this time. Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer

Old Seer wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Any thing created must have a creator.

If by "material" you mean atoms, yes they didn't exist here in this new Universe. However every thing that was needed to create them existed before the big bang.

There is no such thing as nothing because it takes us humans to claim there is nothing. If you had a space with no atoms, no photons, no quarks, etc etc ect, then you would have space with nothing filling it, but an empty set while empty is still a set of nothing.

we (physicists) don't know "what" the creator is. If something existed before the Big Bang (if the theory holds up) then what existed before the big bang was itself the universe--or one can say that, what exists now is a modification of what exited before the big bag. Of couse that would mean that today the universe exists in a different form, that being material. Every thing exiting to day is subject to the laws of the universe (universal law-the laws of physics means the same as universal law). Everything in the universe is subject to those forces . Gravity is a fact of the universe, correct. We are suject to it as it is in control of whether one can stay in one place on the planet, or go off into space.

Then also, it is now seen that there may be now such thing as space, as space has been defined by the absence of anything. But now physicists looking today again say that may not be true.

Light is made by the sun--being that the sun is existing it is already a part of the universe, and being that it is--then light is also made by the universe. Light cannot exist unless something makes it, hence--sun existing makes sun--sunlight is made by the universe through the processes that made the sun.

The thinking of physicists refered to--- "the universe came into existances by the big bag. That implies the universe did not exist previous. If it takes material for there to be a universe it is likely that that what was before the big bag was naot material. That's what the big band does---it causes(d) the persent universe as it's known to "be". It is ageeed by physicists at this time that the laws of physics apply everywhere in the universe.

Creator?

Yes, before the big bang something existed, that is the beauty of it. It took a while but I've finally wrapped my brain around it all.

Your skipping stuff

Light is not made by the sun. etc. etc. etc.

Light can exist with out being made. Humans can create light. etc. etc. etc.

This Universe did not exist previously, that which was needed to create it did exist.

A Universe does not need material to exist. This Universe needed material to exist.

Laws of physics apply every where? in this Universe? Really?

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
here's from online

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Any thing created must have a creator.

If by "material" you mean atoms, yes they didn't exist here in this new Universe. However every thing that was needed to create them existed before the big bang.

There is no such thing as nothing because it takes us humans to claim there is nothing. If you had a space with no atoms, no photons, no quarks, etc etc ect, then you would have space with nothing filling it, but an empty set while empty is still a set of nothing.

we (physicists) don't know "what" the creator is. If something existed before the Big Bang (if the theory holds up) then what existed before the big bang was itself the universe--or one can say that, what exists now is a modification of what exited before the big bag. Of couse that would mean that today the universe exists in a different form, that being material. Every thing exiting to day is subject to the laws of the universe (universal law-the laws of physics means the same as universal law). Everything in the universe is subject to those forces . Gravity is a fact of the universe, correct. We are suject to it as it is in control of whether one can stay in one place on the planet, or go off into space.

Then also, it is now seen that there may be now such thing as space, as space has been defined by the absence of anything. But now physicists looking today again say that may not be true.

Light is made by the sun--being that the sun is existing it is already a part of the universe, and being that it is--then light is also made by the universe. Light cannot exist unless something makes it, hence--sun existing makes sun--sunlight is made by the universe through the processes that made the sun.

The thinking of physicists refered to--- "the universe came into existances by the big bag. That implies the universe did not exist previous. If it takes material for there to be a universe it is likely that that what was before the big bag was naot material. That's what the big band does---it causes(d) the persent universe as it's known to "be". It is ageeed by physicists at this time that the laws of physics apply everywhere in the universe.

Creator?

Yes, before the big bang something existed, that is the beauty of it. It took a while but I've finally wrapped my brain around it all.

Your skipping stuff

Light is not made by the sun. etc. etc. etc.

Light can exist with out being made. Humans can create light. etc. etc. etc.

This Universe did not exist previously, that which was needed to create it did exist.

A Universe does not need material to exist. This Universe needed material to exist.

Laws of physics apply every where? in this Universe? Really?

 

"Big Bang theory" redirects here. For the American TV sitcom, see The Big Bang Theory. For other uses, see Big Bang (disambiguation). Page semi-protected According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. The graphic scheme above is an artist's concept illustrating the expansion of a portion of a flat universe. Physical cosmology

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the early development of the universe.[1] The key idea is that the universe is expanding. Consequently, the universe was denser and hotter in the past. Moreover, the Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe.[2] After the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. Though simple atomic nuclei formed within the first three minutes after the Big Bang, thousands of years passed before the first electrically neutral atoms formed. The majority of atoms produced by the Big Bang were hydrogen, along with helium and traces of lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements were synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.

The Big Bang theory offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and Hubble's Law.[3] As the distance between galaxies increases today, in the past galaxies were closer together. The known laws of nature can be used to calculate the characteristics of the universe in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures.[4][5][6] While large particle accelerators can replicate such conditions, resulting in confirmation and refinement of the details of the Big Bang model, these accelerators can only probe so far into high energy regimes. Consequently, the state of the universe in the earliest instants of the Big Bang expansion is poorly understood and still an area of open investigation. The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the universe; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.

Belgian catholic priest and scientist Georges Lemaître proposed what became the Big Bang theory in 1927. Over time, scientists built on his initial idea of cosmic expansion, which, his theory went, could be traced back to the origin of the cosmos and which led to formation of the modern universe. The framework for the Big Bang model relies on Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity and on simplifying assumptions such as homogeneity and isotropy of space. The governing equations were formulated by Alexander Friedmann, and similar solutions were worked on by Willem de Sitter. In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to faraway galaxies were strongly correlated with their redshifts. Hubble's observation was taken to indicate that all distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: that is, the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity, regardless of direction.[7] Assuming that we are not at the center of a giant explosion, the only remaining interpretation is that all observable regions of the universe are receding from each other.

While the scientific community was once divided between supporters of two different expanding universe theories—the Big Bang and the Steady State theory,[8] observational confirmation of the Big Bang scenario came with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and later when its spectrum (i.e., the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength) was found to match that of thermal radiation from a black body. Since then, astrophysicists have incorporated observational and theoretical additions into the Big Bang model, and its parametrization as the Lambda-CDM model serves as the framework for current investigations of theoretical cosmology.

 

There is no known "creator" of the universe that I know of. I don't know the forces involved.

After the big bang the elements form the materials or a condensation takes place to form, IE- iron, rock etc.

After the material is existing all after that time come into existance from the material.

As much as I know or can tell light has to have a means of being produced, which normally is something that is termed burning. The sun is one item that produces light.

There are still other theoretical ideas of how the universe was created.

Quantam mechanics and such isn't my forte. My interest in physics is more for everyday use, so to speak. I don'tunderstand how something could come from nothing. But, the floks with the proper math can eventually come up with. I theorized at one time that there may be existence itself, or if something can poissibly exist --eventually it will????.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:If phisicicts

Old Seer wrote:
If phisicicts say or agree in thye theory of the big bang that the forming of material came about by the big bang than there was no material before the big bag, if I understand them correctly.

You do not understand them correctly. The big bang theory says only that all the matter and energy we can see, and who knows how much more on top of it, was all released, not created, in a massive explosion about 14 billion years ago. The theory says nothing about where the matter and energy came from, and certainly doesn't stipulate that all matter and energy was created in the explosion. Nor does it say or suggest any conditions that existed previous to the explosion.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I know

Vastet wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
If phisicicts say or agree in thye theory of the big bang that the forming of material came about by the big bang than there was no material before the big bag, if I understand them correctly.
You do not understand them correctly. The big bang theory says only that all the matter and energy we can see, and who knows how much more on top of it, was all released, not created, in a massive explosion about 14 billion years ago. The theory says nothing about where the matter and energy came from, and certainly doesn't stipulate that all matter and energy was created in the explosion. Nor does it say or suggest any conditions that existed previous to the explosion.

I haven't time to cover it all. As far as I know we are children of the big bang. That is if that theory hold up. As I said, this isn't really my subject. From what I understand matter was created from/by the big bang. On this subject I can only quote what I read.

 

History of the Universe - gravitational waves are hypothesized to arise from cosmic inflation, an expansion just after the Big Bang.[9][10][11][12]
External Timeline A graphical timeline is available at
Graphical timeline of the Big Bang

Timeline of the Big Bang

Main article: Timeline of the Big Bang

Singularity

See also: Gravitational singularity

Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[13] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch. This singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang",[14] but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself,[15][notes 1] which can be considered the "birth" of our universe. Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the universe has a calculated age of 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years.[17] The agreement of these three independent measurements strongly supports the ΛCDM model that describes in detail the contents of the universe.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Old Seer

Vastet wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
If phisicicts say or agree in thye theory of the big bang that the forming of material came about by the big bang than there was no material before the big bag, if I understand them correctly.
You do not understand them correctly. The big bang theory says only that all the matter and energy we can see, and who knows how much more on top of it, was all released, not created, in a massive explosion about 14 billion years ago. The theory says nothing about where the matter and energy came from, and certainly doesn't stipulate that all matter and energy was created in the explosion. Nor does it say or suggest any conditions that existed previous to the explosion.

I think the word explosion is incorrect? Isn't it expansion? I mean, there was no detonation from what I understand. One theory, if I remember correctly, said that gravity lost its grip and everything basically escaped.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 The current theory is that

 The current theory is that at the time of the singularity all matter was contained at infinte density in that singularity. As to what we can say about what existed before this point in time, if it even makes sense to refer to something existing before what some consider may be the beginning of Time itself, that is still largely speculative.

As the universe expanded and cooled, sub-atomic particles began to form, and within about three minutes, simple atomic nuclei began to form, but it iwould be thousands of years before neutral atoms appeared, IOW, what we might regard as 'matter'. At least according to current theory. It is not really accurate to refer to the begining of the Universe according to the Big Bang theory as a "massive explosion" - the term "Big Bang" was applied by Fred Hoyle to ridicule that theory in contrast to his theory of "Continuous Creation", which was later found to not be supported by the evidence. There was not an explosion so much as a rapid expansion of space itself.

I note that this discussion has wandered a fair way from the original topic...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer

Old Seer wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Creator?

Yes, before the big bang something existed, that is the beauty of it. It took a while but I've finally wrapped my brain around it all.

Your skipping stuff

Light is not made by the sun. etc. etc. etc.

Light can exist with out being made. Humans can create light. etc. etc. etc.

This Universe did not exist previously, that which was needed to create it did exist.

A Universe does not need material to exist. This Universe needed material to exist.

Laws of physics apply every where? in this Universe? Really?

There is no known "creator" of the universe that I know of. I don't know the forces involved.

After the big bang the elements form the materials or a condensation takes place to form, IE- iron, rock etc.

After the material is existing all after that time come into existance from the material.

As much as I know or can tell light has to have a means of being produced, which normally is something that is termed burning. The sun is one item that produces light.

There are still other theoretical ideas of how the universe was created.

Quantam mechanics and such isn't my forte. My interest in physics is more for everyday use, so to speak. I don'tunderstand how something could come from nothing. But, the floks with the proper math can eventually come up with. I theorized at one time that there may be existence itself, or if something can poissibly exist --eventually it will????.

1 - agreed. no creator.

2 - not entirely, after the big bang things were chaotic and a mess (if you will). Hydrogren is suspected to have formed within a few (3 to 20) minutes after the event. Imagine every thing being super, super, super hot. It's all moving around very quickly and colliding, but as it cools, changes take place. Things start to solidify. Then as it continues, more and more complex things form.

3 - My point is that the sun doesn't create light, it produces photons. Sunlight as we know it is the visible sprectrum of humans which has a variety of filters and other variables before it reaches us. Clouds, rain, etc all have an effect on the electromagnetic spectrum before it reaches our optic nerve. What you see isn't what leaves the Sun. Did you know that the sun is actually white and not yellow? Why is it yellow? Because blue is filtered by our atmosphere. Thus saying that the Sun creates or produces light is an inconsistency with actual science.

4 - The sun does not burn, it is a sphere of fusion. It does not require oxygen to function.

5 - The Universe wasn't created, it formed.

6 - The entire "something from nothing" phrase I've heard from both theists and atheists is silly. Every thing we have here in the Universe was formed from a process, a chain of events, from some thing else, which came from some thing else, etc, etc, etc.. Just as you don't destroy matter or energy, you only convert it.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:  The

BobSpence wrote:

 The current theory is that at the time of the singularity all matter was contained at infinte density in that singularity. As to what we can say about what existed before this point in time, if it even makes sense to refer to something existing before what some consider may be the beginning of Time itself, that is still largely speculative.

As the universe expanded and cooled, sub-atomic particles began to form, and within about three minutes, simple atomic nuclei began to form, but it iwould be thousands of years before neutral atoms appeared, IOW, what we might regard as 'matter'. At least according to current theory. It is not really accurate to refer to the begining of the Universe according to the Big Bang theory as a "massive explosion" - the term "Big Bang" was applied by Fred Hoyle to ridicule that theory in contrast to his theory of "Continuous Creation", which was later found to not be supported by the evidence. There was not an explosion so much as a rapid expansion of space itself.

I note that this discussion has wandered a fair way from the original topic...

Yeah, we got off topic when the subject of the "humans being animals" was discussed.

I won't elaborate on that "before the big bang" subject because it is getting in to a cross over of philosophy.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote: The

BobSpence wrote:

 The current theory is that at the time of the singularity all matter was contained at infinte density in that singularity. As to what we can say about what existed before this point in time, if it even makes sense to refer to something existing before what some consider may be the beginning of Time itself, that is still largely speculative.

As the universe expanded and cooled, sub-atomic particles began to form, and within about three minutes, simple atomic nuclei began to form, but it iwould be thousands of years before neutral atoms appeared, IOW, what we might regard as 'matter'. At least according to current theory. It is not really accurate to refer to the begining of the Universe according to the Big Bang theory as a "massive explosion" - the term "Big Bang" was applied by Fred Hoyle to ridicule that theory in contrast to his theory of "Continuous Creation", which was later found to not be supported by the evidence. There was not an explosion so much as a rapid expansion of space itself.

I note that this discussion has wandered a fair way from the original topic...

The definitions of explosion match with the events of the big bang more accurately than the term expansion does. The big bang was not simply an expansion of space, it was also a release of all the energy we know to exist, in a violent manner.

We also don't technically know with certainty that space ever expanded. It appears to expand, but there are alternate explanations, including the possibility that the visible universe is expanding due to its presence within a space which has achieved higher entropy (which would mean that space is not expanding, merely the contents of that space).

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:BobSpence

Vastet wrote:
BobSpence wrote:

 The current theory is that at the time of the singularity all matter was contained at infinte density in that singularity. As to what we can say about what existed before this point in time, if it even makes sense to refer to something existing before what some consider may be the beginning of Time itself, that is still largely speculative.

As the universe expanded and cooled, sub-atomic particles began to form, and within about three minutes, simple atomic nuclei began to form, but it iwould be thousands of years before neutral atoms appeared, IOW, what we might regard as 'matter'. At least according to current theory. It is not really accurate to refer to the begining of the Universe according to the Big Bang theory as a "massive explosion" - the term "Big Bang" was applied by Fred Hoyle to ridicule that theory in contrast to his theory of "Continuous Creation", which was later found to not be supported by the evidence. There was not an explosion so much as a rapid expansion of space itself.

I note that this discussion has wandered a fair way from the original topic...

The definitions of explosion match with the events of the big bang more accurately than the term expansion does. The big bang was not simply an expansion of space, it was also a release of all the energy we know to exist, in a violent manner. We also don't technically know with certainty that space ever expanded. It appears to expand, but there are alternate explanations, including the possibility that the visible universe is expanding due to its presence within a space which has achieved higher entropy (which would mean that space is not expanding, merely the contents of that space).

I don't know where you got your information from but if it were an explosion there would be a center from which every thing was moving from, but everything in the Universe is moving away from every thing else at the same rate, which is inconsistant with an actual explosion.

That space existed before the big bang and every thing is just moving through the pre-existing space is interesting


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
We can't see the entire

We can't see the entire universe and thus your comment is merely speculation. If you only see a fragment of an explosion, it won't look like an explosion.
Also, everything in the universe is absolutely NOT moving away from everything else at the same rate.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:We can't see

Vastet wrote:
We can't see the entire universe and thus your comment is merely speculation. If you only see a fragment of an explosion, it won't look like an explosion. Also, everything in the universe is absolutely NOT moving away from everything else at the same rate.

Of course not, the shape and size of the Universe is speculation. There are several different models none of which have been accepted as the holy grail.

Please state specifics and sources to why the big bang was an explosion. From what I know of explosions none of the requirements were presented before the big bang to allow for an actual explosion to take place. Unless you are speaking in the terms of "explosion of time and space", but even then that is a vauge and silly opinion.

 

(EDIT)

I found the following which is one of many websites which attempt to explain expansion rather than explosion

 

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-was-the-big-bang-not-an-explosion.362925/


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
This is outside my area

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
If phisicicts say or agree in thye theory of the big bang that the forming of material came about by the big bang than there was no material before the big bag, if I understand them correctly.
You do not understand them correctly. The big bang theory says only that all the matter and energy we can see, and who knows how much more on top of it, was all released, not created, in a massive explosion about 14 billion years ago. The theory says nothing about where the matter and energy came from, and certainly doesn't stipulate that all matter and energy was created in the explosion. Nor does it say or suggest any conditions that existed previous to the explosion.

I think the word explosion is incorrect? Isn't it expansion? I mean, there was no detonation from what I understand. One theory, if I remember correctly, said that gravity lost its grip and everything basically escaped.

of physics. I can understand it more then I can discribe it. Reading the posts below I find it interesting---the difference between expansion and explosion. I learned something today.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: of physics.

Old Seer wrote:

of physics. I can understand it more then I can discribe it. Reading the posts below I find it interesting---the difference between expansion and explosion. I learned something today.

I was very interested in the Big Bang for a while, researched it, joined in on a few forums for physics and science so I could ask serious scientists my lame, n00b questions then got bored with it.

Here is a really good example of the statistics of the Big Bang. I always like to blow people's minds when I try to explain how hot it was at less than a billionth of a second after the even started.

 

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBhistory.html I love the 10^-32K. It just blows my mind to know that kind of heat existed.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Outstanding.

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

of physics. I can understand it more then I can discribe it. Reading the posts below I find it interesting---the difference between expansion and explosion. I learned something today.

I was very interested in the Big Bang for a while, researched it, joined in on a few forums for physics and science so I could ask serious scientists my lame, n00b questions then got bored with it.

Here is a really good example of the statistics of the Big Bang. I always like to blow people's minds when I try to explain how hot it was at less than a billionth of a second after the even started.

 

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBhistory.html I love the 10^-32K. It just blows my mind to know that kind of heat existed.

1 billion degrees. I have a hard time managing that. This is the deepest I've ever gotten into understanding/learning about  the big Bang I haven't developed an interest it.I tend to not be interested if something isn't immediatly use. In your opinion do you rate the big bang high as the way things went, or favor another or so so. 

I also have a problem with infinitly dense and infinitely hot/temperature. I can't imagine that. Thanks a bunch

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer

Old Seer wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

of physics. I can understand it more then I can discribe it. Reading the posts below I find it interesting---the difference between expansion and explosion. I learned something today.

I was very interested in the Big Bang for a while, researched it, joined in on a few forums for physics and science so I could ask serious scientists my lame, n00b questions then got bored with it.

Here is a really good example of the statistics of the Big Bang. I always like to blow people's minds when I try to explain how hot it was at less than a billionth of a second after the even started.

 

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBhistory.html I love the 10^-32K. It just blows my mind to know that kind of heat existed.

1 billion degrees. I have a hard time managing that. This is the deepest I've ever gotten into understanding/learning about  the big Bang I haven't developed an interest it.I tend to not be interested if something isn't immediatly use. In your opinion do you rate the big bang high as the way things went, or favor another or so so. 

I also have a problem with infinitly dense and infinitely hot/temperature. I can't imagine that. Thanks a bunch

I need to correct myself, it is 10^32 not 10^-32.... gotta be careful with those negatives

Do you mean how things happened?

Based on what I have read, based on what I've been told and based on my awareness of my physical surroundings/understanding of science, I believe that the big bang was an event which took place much like a rubber band breaking. Energy was in a condition of being stored and was then released. The density of the event was massive, beyond normal understanding, thus the heat was that high also. As things cooled, things formed, as things formed, other things formed (etc etc etc).

Eventually you have heavier and heavier things being created, then dust, then rocks, then asteroids, then small planets, then large planets, then a star, rinse and repeat.

The Universe is expanding and faster than expected because of dark matter. The expansion of the Universe will eventually bring about the big chill where all atoms will be pulled apart until there is no matter left. The Universe will evaporate (I use this term loosely) and nothing will be left except the same energy which existed before the Universe formed. Rinse and repeat.

Universes are created and destroyed all the time, some die quickly, some survive a long time, some are empty, some are crowded.

Technically speaking, this Universe has been created previously and you and I have had the conversation previously.

<sits back to wait for the barrage of insults>

(PS - edit) oh and in the very, very beginning, it was like 10 trillion degrees.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The page you linked to was

The page you linked to was written and contributed to by idiots who fail at English. The term 'explosion' is not limited to the criteria they seem to think, or that you have accepted. Explosion is far more accurate than expansion if one is looking for a single term to quantify the event. The term 'explosion' automatically includes expansion as part of the definition, and the extreme heat and pressures found in the aftermath are far more common in explosions than expansions.

Attempting to use any term by itself to explain the event is tricky, because we have no words for things we've never experienced, and to this day the big bang model can not describe the events from the big bang until after 10^-43 seconds had passed. We haven't even experienced it indirectly, let alone directly.

Personally, I do not see the term 'expansion' to be any better at describing the event than 'hot'. Whereas explosion automatically includes most of the conditions of the time, and thus is a more accurate term, even if still inaccurate.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Old

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

of physics. I can understand it more then I can discribe it. Reading the posts below I find it interesting---the difference between expansion and explosion. I learned something today.

I was very interested in the Big Bang for a while, researched it, joined in on a few forums for physics and science so I could ask serious scientists my lame, n00b questions then got bored with it.

Here is a really good example of the statistics of the Big Bang. I always like to blow people's minds when I try to explain how hot it was at less than a billionth of a second after the even started.

 

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBhistory.html I love the 10^-32K. It just blows my mind to know that kind of heat existed.

1 billion degrees. I have a hard time managing that. This is the deepest I've ever gotten into understanding/learning about  the big Bang I haven't developed an interest it.I tend to not be interested if something isn't immediatly use. In your opinion do you rate the big bang high as the way things went, or favor another or so so. 

I also have a problem with infinitly dense and infinitely hot/temperature. I can't imagine that. Thanks a bunch

I need to correct myself, it is 10^32 not 10^-32.... gotta be careful with those negatives

Do you mean how things happened?

Based on what I have read, based on what I've been told and based on my awareness of my physical surroundings/understanding of science, I believe that the big bang was an event which took place much like a rubber band breaking. Energy was in a condition of being stored and was then released. The density of the event was massive, beyond normal understanding, thus the heat was that high also. As things cooled, things formed, as things formed, other things formed (etc etc etc).

Eventually you have heavier and heavier things being created, then dust, then rocks, then asteroids, then small planets, then large planets, then a star, rinse and repeat

To my understanding, the first macro-objects would have been stars. It's hard to form asteroids and planets out of hydrogen, helium, and lithium.

The first generation of stars were exclusively these elements, and were the first producers of heavier elements. The second generation of stars, created from the debris of the 1st generations remains after they all went supernova, contained sufficient elements when they also exploded to create our solar system and others.

It is possible that black holes existed previously to or simultaneously with the first stars, but no other celestial objects were likely existent before the first supernova. Well, nebulae, but I don't really consider a nebula an object. Still, there could be debate on that point.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:The page you

Vastet wrote:
The page you linked to was written and contributed to by idiots who fail at English. The term 'explosion' is not limited to the criteria they seem to think, or that you have accepted. Explosion is far more accurate than expansion if one is looking for a single term to quantify the event. The term 'explosion' automatically includes expansion as part of the definition, and the extreme heat and pressures found in the aftermath are far more common in explosions than expansions. Attempting to use any term by itself to explain the event is tricky, because we have no words for things we've never experienced, and to this day the big bang model can not describe the events from the big bang until after 10^-43 seconds had passed. We haven't even experienced it indirectly, let alone directly. Personally, I do not see the term 'expansion' to be any better at describing the event than 'hot'. Whereas explosion automatically includes most of the conditions of the time, and thus is a more accurate term, even if still inaccurate.

Gravity lost control. Expansion took place. Super, uber, ultra heated energy started to cool. As it cooled, things slowed down. Material of various sorts started to form. It cooled more. Expansion gave more room. More cooling. More forming. Expansion continued. More and more things started to form. More and more cooling. Rinse and repeat.

What made gravity loose control? Dunno. Too many ideas out there. However, even if you believe in string theory, the expansion of space and time took place with a collision, thus setting off the chain of events. However, you still don't have a center of detonation. What you have is an external event causing one force to release what it once contained.

I'll wait for you to start providing some evidence. In the mean time...

http://www.livescience.com/32278-was-the-big-bang-really-an-explosion.html

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/relativity-space-astronomy-and-cosmology/history-of-the-universe/big-bang-expansio...

http://www.science20.com/quantum_gravity/blog/big_bang_was_not_explosion_however_explosion_metaphor_what_big_bang_was-78575

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Expansion_of_space

Keep in mind that it was Hoyle that caused this "big bang" name to be applied. He wasn't a fan of the theory because he thought it opened a loophole for creationists.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/a_mile_or_two_off_yarmouth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:digitalbeachbum

Vastet wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

Eventually you have heavier and heavier things being created, then dust, then rocks, then asteroids, then small planets, then large planets, then a star, rinse and repeat

To my understanding, the first macro-objects would have been stars. It's hard to form asteroids and planets out of hydrogen, helium, and lithium. The first generation of stars were exclusively these elements, and were the first producers of heavier elements. The second generation of stars, created from the debris of the 1st generations remains after they all went supernova, contained sufficient elements when they also exploded to create our solar system and others. It is possible that black holes existed previously to or simultaneously with the first stars, but no other celestial objects were likely existent before the first supernova. Well, nebulae, but I don't really consider a nebula an object. Still, there could be debate on that point.

I agree. Asteroids, planets, etc formed when the density was less and things started to cool dramatically. Early on the denisty of the Universe was causing extremely hot conditions and materials like iron and nickel couldn't form yet. It would be millions of years before the first planets formed.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
AsI can best see it

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
The page you linked to was written and contributed to by idiots who fail at English. The term 'explosion' is not limited to the criteria they seem to think, or that you have accepted. Explosion is far more accurate than expansion if one is looking for a single term to quantify the event. The term 'explosion' automatically includes expansion as part of the definition, and the extreme heat and pressures found in the aftermath are far more common in explosions than expansions. Attempting to use any term by itself to explain the event is tricky, because we have no words for things we've never experienced, and to this day the big bang model can not describe the events from the big bang until after 10^-43 seconds had passed. We haven't even experienced it indirectly, let alone directly. Personally, I do not see the term 'expansion' to be any better at describing the event than 'hot'. Whereas explosion automatically includes most of the conditions of the time, and thus is a more accurate term, even if still inaccurate.

Gravity lost control. Expansion took place. Super, uber, ultra heated energy started to cool. As it cooled, things slowed down. Material of various sorts started to form. It cooled more. Expansion gave more room. More cooling. More forming. Expansion continued. More and more things started to form. More and more cooling. Rinse and repeat.

What made gravity loose control? Dunno. Too many ideas out there. However, even if you believe in string theory, the expansion of space and time took place with a collision, thus setting off the chain of events. However, you still don't have a center of detonation. What you have is an external event causing one force to release what it once contained.

I'll wait for you to start providing some evidence. In the mean time...

http://www.livescience.com/32278-was-the-big-bang-really-an-explosion.html

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/relativity-space-astronomy-and-cosmology/history-of-the-universe/big-bang-expansio...

http://www.science20.com/quantum_gravity/blog/big_bang_was_not_explosion_however_explosion_metaphor_what_big_bang_was-78575

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Expansion_of_space

Keep in mind that it was Hoyle that caused this "big bang" name to be applied. He wasn't a fan of the theory because he thought it opened a loophole for creationists.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/a_mile_or_two_off_yarmouth

An explosion is material that is the cause. Expantion is when it's not, things fly appart. From my point of view I agree. If the means holding (gravity) is removed things come apart. Such as, a bunch of magets held together loosing their magnetism and the remaiining comes apart. Or if the remining is heated they are forced apart. I may be wrong but that's how I see it.

I do have problems with all the theories.IE--if gavity collapsed at the big bang then gravity should have been destroyed (I think).if so why do we have gravity presently. Unless gravity once again is made by the big bang. If I understand this correctly--gavity didn't cause the big bang the absence did. I don't know really

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
You don't need

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

of physics. I can understand it more then I can discribe it. Reading the posts below I find it interesting---the difference between expansion and explosion. I learned something today.

I was very interested in the Big Bang for a while, researched it, joined in on a few forums for physics and science so I could ask serious scientists my lame, n00b questions then got bored with it.

Here is a really good example of the statistics of the Big Bang. I always like to blow people's minds when I try to explain how hot it was at less than a billionth of a second after the even started.

 

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBhistory.html I love the 10^-32K. It just blows my mind to know that kind of heat existed.

1 billion degrees. I have a hard time managing that. This is the deepest I've ever gotten into understanding/learning about  the big Bang I haven't developed an interest it.I tend to not be interested if something isn't immediatly use. In your opinion do you rate the big bang high as the way things went, or favor another or so so. 

I also have a problem with infinitly dense and infinitely hot/temperature. I can't imagine that. Thanks a bunch

I need to correct myself, it is 10^32 not 10^-32.... gotta be careful with those negatives

Do you mean how things happened?

Based on what I have read, based on what I've been told and based on my awareness of my physical surroundings/understanding of science, I believe that the big bang was an event which took place much like a rubber band breaking. Energy was in a condition of being stored and was then released. The density of the event was massive, beyond normal understanding, thus the heat was that high also. As things cooled, things formed, as things formed, other things formed (etc etc etc).

Eventually you have heavier and heavier things being created, then dust, then rocks, then asteroids, then small planets, then large planets, then a star, rinse and repeat.

The Universe is expanding and faster than expected because of dark matter. The expansion of the Universe will eventually bring about the big chill where all atoms will be pulled apart until there is no matter left. The Universe will evaporate (I use this term loosely) and nothing will be left except the same energy which existed before the Universe formed. Rinse and repeat.

Universes are created and destroyed all the time, some die quickly, some survive a long time, some are empty, some are crowded.

Technically speaking, this Universe has been created previously and you and I have had the conversation previously.

<sits back to wait for the barrage of insults>

(PS - edit) oh and in the very, very beginning, it was like 10 trillion degrees.

to sit back and worry about any insults from me.

I'm haveing a problen comprehending 10 trillion degrees.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Gravity lost control. Expansion took place. Super, uber, ultra heated energy started to cool. As it cooled, things~snip~

Are you unaware that this describes the aftermath of an explosive event? In fact, this description would match up to the description of a super nova and the aftermath. The fact that it is applicable to the universe itself instead of the objects within the universe does not alter the fact that the facts known of the big bang closely match the definition of an explosive event and its aftermath. Expansion is insufficient to explain the event. The lack of an apparent epicentre does not preclude the use of the term 'explosive'. Explosion is a more accurate term than expansion.

By the way, your description of the events is grossly inadequate. I feel obligated to explain it so you understand more clearly what actually happened, in the prevailing theory.

The temperature, as pointed out, was extreme. It was so hot that all the material that makes up protons and neutrons (gluons, quarks) could not actually form, which meant atoms could not form. As the expansion of this plasma cooled, it eventually cooled enough for the basic atomic element of hydrogen to form. The universe continued to cool, and for a brief period it passed through conditions perfect for fusing hydrogen into helium, everywhere. About 25% of the hydrogen in the universe fused into helium, with traces of lithium. A great deal of time after that, the universe cooled sufficiently for electrons to bond with the hydrogen and helium, and gravity allowed for stellar nurseries to form out of the great clouds of hydrogen and helium that formed as the expansion cooled the universe. Those nurseries were where the first stars were born, and began to fuse heavier elements out of the hydrogen and helium. As those stars burned, they emitted light that caused an ionization throughout the universe, which cleared the hydrogen 'fog' that had prevailed since it had been cool enough to form. As they exploded, they littered the universe with the elements that would make up the second generation of stars, which were, for the most part, the first lights in the universe that could be seen from a significant distance. As these smaller, heavier stars fused yet heavier elements and also exploded, metals became common enough for planets and moons to form in abundance. Though it is possible that planets could have formed with the first stars, they would have been gas giants and as short lived as their stars were.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:digitalbeachbum

Vastet wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Gravity lost control. Expansion took place. Super, uber, ultra heated energy started to cool. As it cooled, things~snip~
Are you unaware that this describes the aftermath of an explosive event? In fact, this description would match up to the description of a super nova and the aftermath. The fact that it is applicable to the universe itself instead of the objects within the universe does not alter the fact that the facts known of the big bang which were, for the most part, the first lights in the universe that could be seen from a significant distance. As these smaller, heavier stars fused yet heavier elements and also exploded, metals became common enough for planets and moons to form in abundance. Though it is possible that planets could have formed with the first stars, they would have been gas giants and as short lived as their stars were.

 

Yep already knew all of this... still waiting on your evidence


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: An explosion

Old Seer wrote:

An explosion is material that is the cause. Expantion is when it's not, things fly appart. From my point of view I agree. If the means holding (gravity) is removed things come apart. Such as, a bunch of magets held together loosing their magnetism and the remaiining comes apart. Or if the remining is heated they are forced apart. I may be wrong but that's how I see it.

I do have problems with all the theories.IE--if gavity collapsed at the big bang then gravity should have been destroyed (I think).if so why do we have gravity presently. Unless gravity once again is made by the big bang. If I understand this correctly--gavity didn't cause the big bang the absence did. I don't know really

I'll need to respond later. going on trip and house sitter bailed. Gotta make phone calls for a back up plan.

BTW - I'm really vague often. I do this to not be too long on my discussion and I often edit incorrectly or leave out steps. It isn't deliberate just an example of my inability to be patient with discussions

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I understand

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

An explosion is material that is the cause. Expantion is when it's not, things fly appart. From my point of view I agree. If the means holding (gravity) is removed things come apart. Such as, a bunch of magets held together loosing their magnetism and the remaiining comes apart. Or if the remining is heated they are forced apart. I may be wrong but that's how I see it.

I do have problems with all the theories.IE--if gavity collapsed at the big bang then gravity should have been destroyed (I think).if so why do we have gravity presently. Unless gravity once again is made by the big bang. If I understand this correctly--gavity didn't cause the big bang the absence did. I don't know really

I'll need to respond later. going on trip and house sitter bailed. Gotta make phone calls for a back up plan.

BTW - I'm really vague often. I do this to not be too long on my discussion and I often edit incorrectly or leave out steps. It isn't deliberate just an example of my inability to be patient with discussions

 

It's a problem we all have. Writing can get to be quite a chore. At Times it takes me an hour or more to make out a post and in the end I scrub the whole thing. Some take to long--to many exactitudes---to much minusica---- and rto far to go to get it finished. Space Key don't work right-- pressing two keay at a time---I really didn't mean this, then pace around trying to figure out wordings for an alternatitive---baaaahhh baaaah===OUT IT GOES.   Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 The "Big Bang" is not an

 The "Big Bang" is not an accurate description of the current theory of the origins of the Universe, it is a label originally applied to the theory by Fred Hoyle, who did not accept the hypothesis and intended to somewaht ridicule it. It has stuck because people got used to it, it is 'catchy' and the expansion does have a superficial resemblance to the violent, destructive events we call 'explosions' in which a small part of the universe expands suddenly and violently into the syrrounding space, disrupting any existing adjacent structures.

In the case of the Big Bang theory, there was no existing structure or space for it to 'explode' into, space itself was what was expanding, and not in the more chaotic, destructive way characteristic of actual explosions. The energy in the Universe was there from the very earliest moment of the expansion. Not sure it is makes much sense in this context to say it was 'released' - in ordinary contexts, that refers to the energy converting from one from a stored form, such as the chemical energy in a chemical explosive or fuel, to the thermal and kinetic energy of the expanding gases.

In the expanding Universe the energy from the singularity begins to 'condense', first into basic matter particles (quarks, neutrinoes, etc), then into atoms, then into molecules, pretty much the reverse of what happens in a normal explosion. As space expanded, energy was NOT being 'released'. It also applies to the whole of our Universe, and means that we can no longer observe much of 'our' universe, namely those parts which are far enough away that the expansion is increasing from Earth is increasing faster than the speed of light, so light from those regions can never reach us.

More recent observations show that the expansion is acually accelerating, driven by what is called 'Dark Energy'. This further complicates the whole picture.

This discussion has driven me to seriously start reading a book I acquired earlier this year - 'A Universe from Nothing - Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing', by Laurence Kraus. That should bring me up to date with the current state of understanding on this topic by those who are actually studying and contributing to it.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Vastet

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Gravity lost control. Expansion took place. Super, uber, ultra heated energy started to cool. As it cooled, things~snip~
Are you unaware that this describes the aftermath of an explosive event? In fact, this description would match up to the description of a super nova and the aftermath. The fact that it is applicable to the universe itself instead of the objects within the universe does not alter the fact that the facts known of the big bang which were, for the most part, the first lights in the universe that could be seen from a significant distance. As these smaller, heavier stars fused yet heavier elements and also exploded, metals became common enough for planets and moons to form in abundance. Though it is possible that planets could have formed with the first stars, they would have been gas giants and as short lived as their stars were.

 

Yep already knew all of this... still waiting on your evidence

If you did, you wouldn't have made such glaring errors earlier.

Evidence for what? I haven't said anything that requires evidence.

@ Bob; at no point did I imply any continual or constant release of energy. The release, if there was one, occured at the moment the event occured. As we cannot know what exactly happened, criticism of the use of the term 'release' is pointless and based on opinion, not fact. The term release is as good as any other in the vacuum of knowledge regarding exactly what took place.

All of this arguing about release and explosion is pure semantics, and noone has anything that will convince me to use less effective terminology. Give it up, because I won't.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
OK, excellent--but

BobSpence wrote:

 The "Big Bang" is not an accurate description of the current theory of the origins of the Universe, it is a label originally applied to the theory by Fred Hoyle, who did not accept the hypothesis and intended to somewaht ridicule it. It has stuck because people got used to it, it is 'catchy' and the expansion does have a superficial resemblance to the violent, destructive events we call 'explosions' in which a small part of the universe expands suddenly and violently into the syrrounding space, disrupting any existing adjacent structures.

In the case of the Big Bang theory, there was no existing structure or space for it to 'explode' into, space itself was what was expanding, and not in the more chaotic, destructive way characteristic of actual explosions. The energy in the Universe was there from the very earliest moment of the expansion. Not sure it is makes much sense in this context to say it was 'released' - in ordinary contexts, that refers to the energy converting from one from a stored form, such as the chemical energy in a chemical explosive or fuel, to the thermal and kinetic energy of the expanding gases.

In the expanding Universe the energy from the singularity begins to 'condense', first into basic matter particles (quarks, neutrinoes, etc), then into atoms, then into molecules, pretty much the reverse of what happens in a normal explosion. As space expanded, energy was NOT being 'released'. It also applies to the whole of our Universe, and means that we can no longer observe much of 'our' universe, namely those parts which are far enough away that the expansion is increasing from Earth is increasing faster than the speed of light, so light from those regions can never reach us.

More recent observations show that the expansion is acually accelerating, driven by what is called 'Dark Energy'. This further complicates the whole picture.

This discussion has driven me to seriously start reading a book I acquired earlier this year - 'A Universe from Nothing - Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing', by Laurence Kraus. That should bring me up to date with the current state of understanding on this topic by those who are actually studying and contributing to it.

is it actually true in your understanding that the universe came from nothing. On a PBS program (I forget the title) I got the impression that space is something but it's not known what it is. What this gets me to thinking is space "is" something. In high school back in the 50s we were taught that space is a vaccum containing nothing. It looks as though that has changed to--space is something. This has really gotten interesting.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:BobSpence

Old Seer wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

 The "Big Bang" is not an accurate description of the current theory of the origins of the Universe, it is a label originally applied to the theory by Fred Hoyle, who did not accept the hypothesis and intended to somewaht ridicule it. It has stuck because people got used to it, it is 'catchy' and the expansion does have a superficial resemblance to the violent, destructive events we call 'explosions' in which a small part of the universe expands suddenly and violently into the syrrounding space, disrupting any existing adjacent structures.

In the case of the Big Bang theory, there was no existing structure or space for it to 'explode' into, space itself was what was expanding, and not in the more chaotic, destructive way characteristic of actual explosions. The energy in the Universe was there from the very earliest moment of the expansion. Not sure it is makes much sense in this context to say it was 'released' - in ordinary contexts, that refers to the energy converting from one from a stored form, such as the chemical energy in a chemical explosive or fuel, to the thermal and kinetic energy of the expanding gases.

In the expanding Universe the energy from the singularity begins to 'condense', first into basic matter particles (quarks, neutrinoes, etc), then into atoms, then into molecules, pretty much the reverse of what happens in a normal explosion. As space expanded, energy was NOT being 'released'. It also applies to the whole of our Universe, and means that we can no longer observe much of 'our' universe, namely those parts which are far enough away that the expansion is increasing from Earth is increasing faster than the speed of light, so light from those regions can never reach us.

More recent observations show that the expansion is acually accelerating, driven by what is called 'Dark Energy'. This further complicates the whole picture.

This discussion has driven me to seriously start reading a book I acquired earlier this year - 'A Universe from Nothing - Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing', by Laurence Kraus. That should bring me up to date with the current state of understanding on this topic by those who are actually studying and contributing to it.

is it actually true in your understanding that the universe came from nothing. On a PBS program (I forget the title) I got the impression that space is something but it's not known what it is. What this gets me to thinking is space "is" something. In high school back in the 50s we were taught that space is a vaccum containing nothing. It looks as though that has changed to--space is something. This has really gotten interesting.

As I hinted above, I need to read more of that book by Kraus before can honestly answer this in any depth. Einstein's theories certainly seem to require that space is 'something', at least according to my current understanding. I think that all the science around the expanding Universe would also require it.

The most basic observation that supports the idea of the universal expansion of space is the red-shift of the spectrum of light from distant stars, and the consistant increase in red-shift with increase in the estimated distance to those stars. Empty space contains no matter, but it pretty much always does contain gravitational, electromagnetic and other fields which are associated with particles, both 'matter' particles such as neutrinos, or the more substantial ones such as electrons, protons and neutrons, and 'energy' particles such as photons.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology