The opposite actually, I said that gravity was why the planets orbit. Very much like centrifugal force. Kind of like how water stays in a bucket of you seeing it around hard enough. The curvature of space time is like the handle you are holding onto on the bucket. This has nothing to do with your beliefs, I'm not trying to convince you God doesn't exist. It's just that these gravitational theories are pretty well supported. You are correct there is no proof and there probably will never be. These things will always be theoretical. I wouldn't call it a religious belief. Just belief that we don't know. Again this isn't to undermine your belief in God. I can make no claim about SciFi techno babble. Only theoretical physics. Those are based on our current understanding of physics Well, I didn't say gravity therefore big bang. I said gravity might have causes the formation of the singularity. Electromotive force might have causes the big bang. I never said anything about gravity having to do with ancestry or billions of years No not at all. Gravity is the force that keeps planets in orbit. No, actual laws of physics that keeps planets in orbit and that bends space time. Correct, we can actually see that gravity bends space time. Our planet orbits the sun without gravity bending space time that would violate the laws of motion which are also just theoretical physics. Objects don't travel in a curved trajectory unless acted on by an outside forever. You already mentioned centrifugal force and that's exactly correct. Think about the bucket of water I mentioned earlier. If you hold the handle and seeing it over your head the water stays put. Just like the Earth does. Now if you were to let go of the handle the bucket would not continue on it's circular path but would drop right? I posit that gravity is the the force much like the hand holding onto the Earth. This isn't happening by a tether so it has to be some other physical means.
This is a false equivalence. We can observe, repeat, and measure the 'bending' of spectral waves. Projecting this observed phenomenon onto space or time is conjecture. How do you bend 'nothing'? How do you manipulate time, an abstract measurement that is based only on relativity? The abstract concept of time has been the subject of more theoretical speculation, sci fi imaginations, and philosophical surmises than we could even list here. Once you depart empirical, observable scientific methodology, you enter the realm of abstract philosophers.. or new age fantasizers.. or voodoo mysticism. How does one engage in that, and condemn the suggestion of a Creator as 'religion! Not science!'? Techno babble terminology? If i masked the concept of a Creator in techno babble.. singularity, quantum expansion, dark space antimatter.. would that make it more palatable, for anti-Creator indoctrinees?
If the mathematics surrounding gravity as a force in the universe was just conjecture, we would never be able to land a probe on a fast moving asteroid (Ryugu) that was traveling on an elliptical orbit around the Sun. It would simply be impossible to determine where the asteroid would be at the precise moment of interception if Einstein and Newton were wrong.
I had to Google spectral waves because I never heard of that before some phenomenon including wind driven waves and see that has absolutely nothing to do with and the curving of space. Again the reason for the motion of the Earth is gravity. We understand this already we absolutely can reproduce this we've done it probably hundreds of times. So when we put an object in orbit like a satellite it's falling to the Earth because I grab it but the rate at which it's falling is matched by the rate at which it's traveling you will have to explain how that happens how were able to calculate that and make sure they don't fall without mentioning gravity. it's not bending nothing it's bending space-time. SpaceTime is something. If this doesn't work explain how a satellite stay in orbit no that's false space time is the explanation as to why the sun rises everyday or the moon stays in orbit or geosynchronous satellites stay in orbit. Again explain how the orbit instead of just fall why doesn't the moon collide with us? again that's false. These are theories sitar based on observable data not some belief in a deity. We know the moon doesn't collide with the Earth we know satellites don't fall out of the sky we know how to make them not fall out of the sky. We don't know this because of magic we know this because of theoretical physics. experiments have been done it's been tested over and over every time we put a satellite in orbit. If curvature space caused by gravity does not cause the planets to orbit explain what does. I believe God created the universe. So if we start with the singularity there's just random matter in space that's being collapsed by gravity. Maybe God created matter, because no scientific explanation has any idea how it got there. If God is infinite wisdom then he already knows a singularity will expand. This doesn't require you to dump you believe in God. I don't know why people think it does. True people you're the sort of thing to try and make you dump your faith, but don't let these theories challenge your faith. They never did for me even if I accept them. What challenged my faith more than any of this when's my loved ones dying not really any inconsequential theory of physics. I like astronomy so I follow astrophysics as much as I can. I've actually even gotten to see the cosmic background radiation that was discovered in 1964 that supported the big bang theory.
That's really awesome that we went and probes on a fast-moving asteroid. But more than that we would never be able to put satellites in space that didn't need fuel to stay in orbit. So GPS wouldn't exist. Cable television wouldn't exist.
Being not of timespace It is no limited by timespace and matter and doesn't need a separate creator . Guess that is why man exclaims God! He ain't like you I reckon. Why would you think that he was subject to the laws of our spacetime and matter universe?
That is such a cop out and a thoroughly religious answer. Why would such an entity care of humans exclaim it? Are you sure it's a "he"? Well, if it's gendered, it's bound to some biological laws.
By emphasizing the claim that their detailed scenario of creation from nothing is a supposedly adequate explanation of a natural process in which the supernatural plays no part.
They have done it in certain highly developed equipment, the tevetron, the large hadron collider, or one of the others of that sort.
Addressing this issue with no more than emotion doesn't help - it just makes matters worse. Let's remember that theists have science just as much as atheiss have science. I know there are those who would like science to refute your religion. But, science can't do that. Ditching that fact in favor of your purely emotional response is really weak. Instead, you should be pointing out that science has no way of addressing god, a creator, afterlife, or anything else that is supernatural. The advantage of that is that it's actually truthful. Science IS a methodology. And, that that methodology DOES explicitly exclude anything that is supernatural. That doesn't mean you god isn't real - it just means that science can't say anything about your god. You should like that!
The established Theory of the Relativity of Time has been proven by the use of SATELLITES orbiting the Earth. A clock on a GPS satellite GAINS 38 microseconds in a day. If this time dilation differential was NOT adjusted for then GPS would not work. Time EXISTS! It can be MEASURED and it has been DEMONSTRATED to be RELATIVE to the speed differential between two objects. This is basic Science 101 and every child learns this in school. ANYONE can OBSERVE this time dilation effect just be seeing a flash of lightning and then hearing the sound of thunder after a gap in time. The speed of light is faster than the speed of sound so that TIME difference is RELATIVE to those speed differentials. Perhaps the OP's time would be far better spent trying to figure out why only believers in the "voodoo mysticism" of "creationism" have a problem grasping these very basic concepts of Space-Time.
OK, first science does not see this universe as coming from nothing. The "big bang" name came from a person who intended it to be an insult. So, it's pretty easy to read too much into it. It wasn't actually an explosion and nobody actually thinks it came from nothing. Also, no scientist thinks the "big bang"is a complete answer. Science doesn't usually get to provide complete answers, since discoveries almost always lead to more questions. Is the answer adequate? We probably don't need to know more in order to lead successful lives, but science certainly doesn't accept that we know enough about the origin of this universe. Science has no way to test to see if god did something. It simply doesn't have that power. Think about it. In Christianity, God expects mankind to accept him by FAITH alone. The very idea that mankind could test to see if god did somthing would be the same as testing to see if there is a god - something that God certaily does NOT want. So, the fact that science can't do that is actually consistent with Christianity. The fact is that there is a divide between religion and science. The assumptions are different, the logic is different, what is considered evidence is different, what is considered proof is different. Science simply can't address god or any issue pertaining to god - one way or the other. Has scinece figured out that God didn't create the heavens and the earth? I don't believe so. God could have caused the big bang, for just one possibility.
Creation from nothing is not as far-fetched as it sounds, at least starting from the quantum level. Although the quantum vacuum does not contain any ordinary matter, virtual particles (and their anti-matter particles too?) pop in and out of existence, and there are activities of transitory energy fields. So, "nothing" is not pure nothingness, which is probably why it is also referred to as a false vacuum. If the transition from the quantum state to the physical state via tunneling through the barrier is not entirely objectionable, then the immediate question at that point is how does anything grow from such a tiny size to a full-blown universe. The experts assume and propose that the entire energy potential of the universe is packed into that Planck volume, ready to burst forth, first exploding and shortly thereafter inflating. If anything in the process is counterintuitive and malarkey, I'd say that point is where it starts off too damn bazaar and unnatural. It can be accepted only if one is willing to buy into the concept of a super-dense super-small black hole. In nature, creatures do not replicate and grow to their birth size with all of their potential resource requirements compacted within themselves. Some are supported via a placenta, while others are accompanied by egg yolk and egg protein (egg white) and plant seeds have their counterparts. It seems entirely logical to suspect that the germinating seed of a growing universe is initially nourished by some process that is unknown and undetectable by science. Note that many of the renown physicists have not been shy about leaving room for a possible Creator. While each of them have strongly leaned toward preferred variations on how the process of creation proceeded, each one has admitted to running into a number of related unresolved inconsistencies along the way which they freely admit are genuine stubborn mysteries. Stenger is one of the few hard-liners who go out of their way to paint a picture of near-know-it-all competence in explaining how creation happened, and his bias can be discerned in the form of contradictions between statements in different chapters of the same book. For example, he harps about photons being particles, not waves, quoting Feynman's insistence in a lecture to students, but clearly shows light traveling as waves before it hits the two slits. He even states that there is no such thing as wave/particle duality. Worse yet, after he details the interference pattern and the spread of dark and lighter bands in the typical Young's double-slit experiment, he later displays a version where the detectors are built into the screen surface and the hits are dots forming bands without the uneven interference pattern, which he uses to deny waveform relevance. IAW the physics is incomplete and is neither an endorsement of atheism nor a denial of the possible existence of God.
The concept of "nothing" is a theist fallacy stemming from the Genesis creation superstition. Matter/energy exists and a complete vacuum is a hypothetical concept. The size of the singularity is irrelevant IMO. Has anyone tried to calculate the mass of a singularity that contained all of the KNOWN matter/energy in the universe? If we do a thought experiment and try to imagine the formation of the singularity it would have taken time for all matter/energy to condense and it is unlikely to have occurred in a uniform manner. If we use what we know about black holes and extrapolate that then the larger the singularity grows the greater it's gravitational force becomes and the farther out it's event horizon would reach. Neil deGrasse Tyson made the point that there is nothing unique in the universe. If we find one planet around another star then we will find others. The same principles probably applies with the formation of the singularity. The odds are that there was more than one and that they were of different sizes as they probably grew at different rates. We see different sizes of black holes so this is a feasible concept. Now imagine what happens when two of these singularities come within gravitational range of each other. As they approached they would be accelerating towards each other at a velocity that would make for an impact that was probably the trigger for the big bang. If we try and imagine the collision impact the forces involved would instantaneously convert frozen hydrogen into a gaseous state within the combined singularities. That would become an explosive force that could overcome the gravitational forces of the now shattered combined singularities. We already know what happens with nuclear bombs so this would be the mother of all such explosions combined and multiplied by orders of magnitude. Just my own speculations on the matter but they make sense to me.
The latest view is that inflation was preceded by expansion/explosion. Before that there was the singularity, but that is obsolete and replaced by quantum mechanics, i.e. creation from "nothing" (the false vacuum) wherein a waveform energy quantum tunneled through the unphysical barrier and emerged as a physical waveform with all of the potential energy of the entire universe, having the equivalent particle size of the Planck dimension or smaller (half the Planck mass). Note that physics claims that the net energy of the universe has always been zero (something like the enormous difference between rest energy and kinetic energy). Einstein and one other physicist conceived of the singularity concept based on relativity but later abandoned it because of the update by quantum physics.
Thank you! That there are no scientific reviews for what is essentially just another philosophical pseudoscience boondoggle says volumes. I will stick with genuine Science instead.
USfan I'm sorry but this statement is incorrect. Gravities effect on time/space time has been amply demonstrated. You can easily Wiki confirmation of this fact if you wish instead lieu of going to to scientific journals. It has been demonstrated via comparison of times between two atomic clocks. One on Earth and one in orbit around the Earth. The passage of time as recorded by the clock in space (both clocks were synchronized prior to one being placed in orbit) differed. Also participle accelerators have been used to measure the same effect. Physicists have a very good handle of the expected life spans of various sub atomic particles. Those same particles when accelerated to close to the speed of light in an accelerator demonstrate (from the perspective of the human observers) much longer lifetimes than they would if they were 'stationary'. From the particles perspective there is no difference but compared to human observers the rate at which those particles 'experience' time has slowed. And both effects fall precisely within the limits posited by Einstein. And that time effect also impacts space (hence space/time) an observer traveling at close to the speed of light would see distances shrink. For Einstein there is no difference, traveling in space always means traveling in time and vice versa. Try crossing your living room without also experiences the passage of time. And sitting still on your couch won't help BTW - you are still traveling whether you want to or not because the Earth is. There are nay number of Youtube videos about this effect if you are interested.
I would be happy to discuss the very mysterious, abstract concept of time, our perception of it, and the methods we use to define and delineate it, but i am considering the value of my posting, here. Censorship is intolerable, for me. I can handle the insults.. the mocking, heckling, and derision. But using the power of moderation to censor me is more than i can take. I may leave everyone with their comfortable indoctrination, and stop presenting an alternate perspective. I bring intelligent, alternative, educated, eloquent, and hopefully, entertaining posts and threads to a dismal, divided forum, with open minded tolerance and self deprecating awareness of my own limitations. But i can pick up my toys, and go play elsewhere, if my perspective is not wanted, or if there is an Agenda here of confirmation bias.
