Origin of the Universe

Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Origin of the Universe

"In the beginning, there was nothing.  Then God said, "Let there be light!"  And there was light." 

So begins the Old Testament.  And, I'm sorry, but if you read any further, you need to have your head examined to find out how you can walk upright without a brain.  In the beginning, was there nothing, or was there God?  If he said "Let there be light!", who was he speaking to?  Does God talk to himself?  Where did God come from?  If the answer is "God is eternal, always was and always will be", why don't we just skip the God BS and apply that statement to the universe instead?  "The universe is eternal, always was and always will be" makes a lot more sense!  On the face of it, these 17 words are so utterly preposterous and nonsensical as to make it clear that the book you are holding is worthless, you might as well read something more entertaining like The Silmarillion by J. R. R. Tolkein. 

"In the beginning, there was nothing.  Then there was a Big Bang.  Then there was matter, energy, space and time." 

I'm sorry, but this statement is every bit as preposterous as the first one!  It makes no sense at all, and again fails to explain what existed before this big bang or what caused the big bang to occur. 

IMHO, the cosmologists are completely off their rockers, off track, barking up the wrong tree, on a wild goose chase.  And I think I know why: they began with the preconception that the universe is finite -- because they were raised to believe so, thanks to Christianity!

I have confirmed this in one particular case:  Albert Einstein.  Einstein was troubled by the fact that all the objects in the observable universe seemed to be standing still.  Given gravity and the enormity of time, they should all collapse together.  When he was told that the observable universe was not standing still but in fact appeared to be expanding, he was greatly relieved.  And, being the greatest mind of his time and considered infallible, the fact that Einstein was relieved at this development told cosmologists that they were on the right track -- and they've been heading down that track ever since.

 But it's clearly the wrong track.  If you toss the Bible in the trash where it belongs, the universe is obviously infinite in both space and time.  There is no end in any direction, and there was no beginning and will be no end in time.  And if Einstein had believed that, his reactions would have been exactly the opposite: there would be no problem with the objects in the universe appearing stationary, as each one is surrounded by an infinite number of other objects in all directions, and there is no net gravitational pull it in any one direction.  Conversely, when he heard that the universe appeared to be expanding, that would be mildly troubling, and would lead one to want to know why.  It would be clear, though, that if any such expansion were actually going on, it would be a local phenomenon, and would have no bearing on the universe as a whole.  Something that is infinite cannot be expanding.

 It would be wonderful if the cosmologists would start over with the reasonable preconceptions that the universe is infinite in space and time and proceed to try to explain their observations accordingly.  Apparently light, once emitted, doesn't travel indefinitely without end, but rather gradually loses energy and shifts towards the red end of the spectrum until it ceases altogether.  Evidently the Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't hold on a universal scale, somehow order increases, probably in the aggregation of new stars and planets from interstellar dust.  Most notably, everything -- everything -- is cyclical; if it's happening now, it's happened before and will happen again.  It'd be wonderful to delve into theories about all these things, if only the cosmologists would get their heads out of that Big Bang garbage and get to work on reality!

 Needless to say, the Big Bang theory isn't helping the atheism cause at all.  It doesn't help to point out that the Old Testament is hogwash when the current "science" on the subject is also hogwash.

 --  Kirbert


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Kirbert wrote: In the

Kirbert wrote:
In the beginning, there was nothing. Then there was a Big Bang. Then there was matter, energy, space and time."

I'm sorry, but this statement is every bit as preposterous as the first one!

Not really. Here, take a look:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions This page presents a brief overview of some cosmological models for how a universe might be generated. None of these models violate any laws of physics.

I plan on adding some more info concerning scientific ex nihilo accounts for the universe. Again, none of these theories violates any laws of physics.

Quote:

It makes no sense at all,

Really?

Well, here's a counter proposal for you to consider: perhaps they don't make sense to you, because you don't really understand what cosmologists are actually saying...

Perhaps, just perhaps, some of the brightest minds in the world: Hawkings, Linde, Guth, Ferris, Greene, have all managed to avoid coming up with cosmological models that make 'no sense at all', and that, in actuality, you don't really know what they actually do say.

What do you think?

Quote:

and again fails to explain what existed before this big bang

You're off the mark several levels.

1) Brane theory holds that there was 'something' before the big bang, and accounts for what this 'something is - look into it.

2) Hawking's theory holds that the universe is finite but boundless timewise, ergo the part of your question relating to 'before' the big bang makes no sense in his model.

3) Smolin points out that there are three possible ways to decribe the nature of a singularity (i.e. beginning point), not just one.

4) Ex nihilo theories would hold that nothing existed in the first place!

Quote:

or what caused the big bang to occur.

Well, the first problem here is using 'causality'... if something 'caused' the universe, then there was 'something already existent.

Now, brane theory can deal with this... as can any multiverse theory. But ex nihilo theories would hold that talking about 'before' and'causality' are basic errors... there wouldn't be anything prior to the big bang to cause anything!

Quote:

IMHO, the cosmologists are completely off their rockers,


I'd hardly call this a humble opinion.

Quote:

And I think I know why: they began with the preconception that the universe is finite -- because they were raised to believe so, thanks to Christianity!

Why not read what a cosmologist actually says before you psychoanalyze their errors? You might find out that these errors don't actually exist in their work in the first place.

Quote:

I have confirmed this in one particular case: Albert Einstein.


Hardly a modern cosmologist.... in fact, hardly a cosmologist at all....

Quote:

Einstein was troubled by the fact that all the objects in the observable universe seemed to be standing still. Given gravity and the enormity of time, they should all collapse together.

Actually, this is an old error, the problem and the solution predate Einstein.

I think you are talking about the universal constant.

Quote:

When he was told that the observable universe was not standing still but in fact appeared to be expanding, he was greatly relieved.

Really?

Quote:

And, being the greatest mind of his time and considered infallible,

Infallible?! No. Come on. Proving Albert wrong became a hobby for the quantum physicists. Neils Bohr in particular ate Einstein's lunch on a regular basis. If their debates were a boxing match, the ref woulda stopped it in round 1.

No one considered Einstein infallible.

Quote:

the fact that Einstein was relieved at this development told cosmologists that they were on the right track

Where on earth do you get this from?

Quote:

- and they've been heading down that track ever since.



But what do you base this judgement on? What if your basis itself is flawed?

Quote:

But it's clearly the wrong track. If you toss the Bible in the trash where it belongs, the universe is obviously infinite in both space and time.

Oh, obviously.... of course.

Actually, big bang theory demonstrates that our universe is in fact finite... all matter must have been relegated to an infintesimal point.... so I really don't know what grounds you are holding to here....

Of course, you could employ Hawking's finite but boundless model, but I doubt that's on your mind here.

Quote:

There is no end in any direction, and there was no beginning and will be no end in time. And if Einstein had believed that, his reactions would have been exactly the opposite: there would be no problem with the objects in the universe appearing stationary, as each one is surrounded by an infinite number of other objects in all directions, and there is no net gravitational pull it in any one direction.

Actually, that doesn't solve the problem! If that were the case, then all matter would still coalesce in one point! Newton's argument for an infinite static universe fails!

Here's why:

"The failure of Newton's reasoning is an illustration of how careful one has to be in thinking about infinity. From a modern viewpoint, an infinite distribution of matter under the influence of gravity would unquestioningly collapse. One way to correctly understand the problem is to imagine approaching the infinite distribution of matter by considering a succession of fintie spheres with larger and larger radii. Suppose that two spheres of mass A and B have the same density of matter, but sphere B has twice the radius of sphere A. Suppose further that each sphere consits of a distribution of particles such as stars, that are very small compared to the distances beween them. Since the stars will not start to press agianst each other when the spheres begin to contract, there will be no pressure forces to resist their contraction. It can then be shown that gravity will cause both spheres to collapse in exactly the same amount of time! We can imagine doubling and redoubling the size of the sphere in a vain attempt to avoid the obvious, but the time required for the collapse will not change! Since an infinite distribution of matter can be defined as the limit of a sphere when the radius is increased indefinately, it follows that the infinite distribution of mater will collapse in the same time as any finite sphere."

- Alan Guth.

As Guth says "If you are able to grasp this, pat yourself on the back, as you are able to recognize a problem that the great Sir Issac himself couldn't grasp!"

By the way, if you are thinking "if the matter is spread evenly throughout an infinite universe, how would it choose a center to collapse?" - here's the answer: matter can contract uniformly without choosing a center... each observer would view himself as the center.... think of it as reverse expansion phenomena....

I ask you to read "The Inflationary Universe" by Alan Guth for more on this.

Quote:

Conversely, when he heard that the universe appeared to be expanding, that would be mildly troubling, and would lead one to want to know why. It would be clear, though, that if any such expansion were actually going on, it would be a local phenomenon, and would have no bearing on the universe as a whole. Something that is infinite cannot be expanding.

You need to bone up on cosmology before you continue.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.