Big Bang relation to creation myths.

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Xelasnave.1947, Dec 13, 2018.

  1. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,601
    I have no problem with a quantum foam I use it all the time..no sorry I am thinking of that fancy soap☺.
    A quantum foam is a something...an environment where particles pop in and out is something.

    I dont like using a term that describes something that can not exist...nothing always contains something...to say the universe came from nothing for me is the same as saying it came from something.

    If you find the most remote place in our universe, lets be specific and select the Bootes void...and in there find the most empty place ...there is still something to be found.

    I visualise a point and imagine what particles or energy could pass through it on only one tradjectory...(both ways as well) there must be a lot...both ways..think of all we must observe or would observe if there and able to do so...start with CBR there is plenty of that but add the countless photons and maybe the odd particle of which there could be many...and nutrinos by the bucket load...and then realise through this point where we look for nothing there is are a geometrically infinite number of trajectories each of which has the traffic I mention...when you think about it for a while you wonder how does it all fit...and that is the closest to nothing we can imagine...its lots of something..in fact a little part of the universe from all places passes thru that point...and right alongside is another point enjoying the same traffic flow.

    I dont know what we need for a quatum foam but if we simply settle upon "points" containing something very quickly I can imagine a situation where I wonder how all these "points" travelling presumably along every trajectory avaiable can fit...we deal with something which non thinkers casually call nothing...in my view.

    We always deal with something.

    Should be more. I really enjoy anything I find of his.

    Of late I have been saying to believers that the Universe is eternal and as such there has never been a point of creation and therefore not need for a creator.

    Now they dont like that and say but the universe can not be eternal and actually hint at the BBT but cant quite bring themselves to cite it☺ but I put it to them ..what makes more sense...an eternal universe with no creator or a finite universe created by an eternal being who popped out of eternity after a long long time...actually popped out after an eternity☺...they are not happy with an eternal universe but dont see a problem of an eternal being in the least.

    I find that funny.

    I dont see a quantum foam as nothing.

    I dont see quantum fluctuations as nothing.

    Something from nothing implies magic.

    But I do think we are in agreement here.

    Why would you think that? ☺
    Well yes I am and I think that entirely reasonable.

    To me religion is a conn and anyone involved as an employee or advocate is by extention a con artist.

    If he is a scientist I see that as entirely inconsistent with his "faith".
    I know I am too harse but I can not for a moment understand how someone with access to the history could stay with the church.

    Bill Maher said once " if there is a turd in the pool would you not get out" ...ok too idealistic too unrealistic and too old and cranky...me not him☺
    Yes. And what a brave man he must have been.
    I imagine his work would not be well received by most other priests or any of the congragation actually.

    In spite of my presentation I have read all about him...I read about all the folk in science I like to know all about them ...just a thing with me.
    But thanks for all this stuff I will look at it all again as I really do enjoy it all.
    I propose a sainthood...the saint for confidence☺

    OK just between you and me I will admit he was a most impressive man....what he did on both counts is really having a go.
    He mustta had a skin full the BBT does not deal with creation only with the evolution of the universe.

    Maybe he was sucking up to George because he did not want George to take him to task again on his own theories.
    Which sortta lends some cred to my claim that the church was trying to get God in the back door dont you think?

    Well of course he would have to say that ...if not he would not have held any hope of scientific recognition.

    He was indeed a great man and I think we can all be greatful that such a clever confident man was able to have influence over perhaps the most influencial man on the planet...that certainly takes a certain something.

    Much better to day thank ...er who do you thank when an atheist..thanks to the GP, the surgeon the wonderful ladies working in each ofctheir offices, the manufacturer of pain killers the net especially wiki and youtube most under praised in my view, and above all to my wonderful friends here.
    Alex
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,601
    Apparently it would be only a very small opperation☺.

    Not my joke a mate said it one day at the pub and was sprayed with beer from those with a glass to their lips.

    Alex
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,992
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2018
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,205
    You should be able to 'Unlike' it.
     
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  8. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,601
    Yes I can but I feel like that would be like giving a gift and then taking it back.
    Alex
     
  9. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,601
    I have been reading about BBT its conception and development.

    One interesting thing...
    Apparently both BB Model and the Steady State Model relied upon an expanding universe...I should have picked up on that years ago so although not a surprise to others it was a huge surprise for me ... as I have mentioned we all interpret stuff thru our own filter so perhaps harbouring a concern with BBT (at that time but basically in favour of it) I simply assumed steady state would not include expansion...it seem the Static Universe has no expansion.

    Well reading stuff, as you do when recovering from a small surgery, I came across the following and was taken with Hubbles reluctance to flat out endorse and expanding universe.
    So what do we make of that?
    The article reported his position incorrectly or dispite his observations he did not like the expanding universe idea...or was he a man that could look at both sides and entertain both as posible...I think his legal background may have him aware that being 50% wrong all the time is the way to go...☺

    From .https://www.britannica.com/biography/Edwin-Hubble

    Starting with Albert Einstein’s 1917 paper “Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur Allgemeinen Relativitätstheorien” (“Cosmological Considerations on the General Theory of Relativity”), a number of physicists, mathematicians, and astronomers had applied general relativity to the large-scale properties of the universe. The redshift-distance relation established by Hubble and Humason was quickly meshed by various theoreticians with the general relativity-based theory of an expanding universe. The result was that by the mid-1930s the redshift-distance relationship was generally interpreted as a velocity-distance relationship such that the spectral shifts of the galaxies were a consequence of their motions. But Hubble throughout his career resisted the definite identification of the redshifts as velocity shifts. Hubble hoped to shed light on this issue by investigating the numbers of extragalactic nebulae that lay at various distances in space. Hubble conducted these studies in part with the distinguished mathematical physicist and chemist Richard C. Tolman. Writing in the mid-1930s, however, Hubble and Tolman stressed the uncertainty of the observational data.
    They declined to choose publicly and unambiguously between a static and a non-static model of the universe. (Hubble later argued that the evidence seemed to favour the concept of a stationary universe, but he did not definitely rule out an expanding universe.)

    Alex
     
  10. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,601
    The tired light idea has been pushed aside and labled crank science in effect but the conclusion that the universe is expanding relieves heavily on how we interprete red shift...or so I believe...
    I mentioned at some stage earlier or questioned...could we observe a gallaxy in effect crossing from the observable universe to the universe beyond.
    I wonder what velocity we would be dealing with...how fast does the observable edge receed...
    Are we able to observe gallaxies at that range?

    Now that would be a cool time lapse ... recording a gallaxy as it disappears forever...assuming that the universe is expanding of course.

    I wonder if such an observation is possible...I may ask on my astronomy forum even assemble a crew to take some photos ...

    Alex
     
  11. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,601
    Also if we could observe that far back would we expect to see gallaxies tightly packed given we observe them well into the past and therefore they will be much closer to each other.
    Alex
     

Share This Page