You're mentioning the right terms and people, but the explanations of the actual physics... yikes.

(For instance, stars and planets not "collapsing" on themselves is a structural issue - it is not because they're in the process of "expanding")

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Not true at all. This "big bang" is still very much a debated thing. Not by "creationists" either. "Creationists" generally want to argue about the age of the Earth not how or why the universe was created.


Here are some important bits from the article I posted. Which was also not a complete reading of it. It's a very long and very interesting read that explains very well how little we know about the "how" of our universe much less the WHY.


But if the universe is made up mostly of repulsive, ubiquitous energy rather than matter, then its ultimate fate isn't inscribed in its shape after all.

The only way to figure out the fate of the flat, empty, accelerating universe, says Turner, is to learn more about the dark energy thats impelling expansion. But even as they begin chasing down Einsteins notion of vacuum energy, physicists are having to grapple with problems that range from the numerical to the philosophical. For one thing, when they attempt to calculate the value of Lambda, the theorists come up with a figure that is 120 orders of magnitude too big. Fitting the known universe with a vacuum energy of that potency would be like filling up a water balloon with a fire hose. "It cannot possibly be correct," says Turner. "If it were correct you wouldn't be able to see beyond the end of your nose, the universe would be expanding so fast." The size of the error has emphasized how poorly physicists understand certain aspects of gravity.


It gets even more embarrasing, because theorists can't explain why the densities of matter and energy are currently so close in value. Theoretically, either of those densities could be anything from zero to infinity, and their ratio could vary accordingly. The odds of their being within a order of magnitude of each other are very low. The precarious balance between matter and energy that exists today in our universe - one third matter to two thirds energy - seems as improbable as the static universe that Einstein struggled to describe. And some find that improbability especially suspicious, because a universe more dominated by dark energy would be inhospitable to life. The excess energy would prevent matter from clumping forming galaxies, stars and planets. Yet here we are.


Nature of the Big Bang


The "big bang" ?

Maybe but it's questionable.

Static ?

Maybe but it's questionable.

Gravity ?

How does it really work ?

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

I can offer a somewhat generalized and simplified explanation (for any physics connoisseurs out there, please bear with the generalities).

In terms of physics mechanics, you originally had Newton's laws. These laws describe quite accurately the motion of bodies that we can observe, from our pens falling off of our desks to the rotation of planets around the sun and their effects on one another. In the early 1900's, during something of a golden age in physics, you had pioneering done on two separate scales. On the one hand, you had the Einstein-fueled breakthroughs relating to relativity - the notion that space and time were not orthogonal in nature but rather interdependent. This describes the "very large". On the other hand, you had physicists investigating the "very small" - they were discovering the nature of atoms and the fact that atoms were composed of even smaller parts (making the name "atom" a testament to irony). This line of study became the study quantum mechanics.

In terms of the large and observable, Newton got it 99% right and Einstein supplied the other 1%. As far as we can tell, all motion on a macro, observable scale is now unambiguously predictable given these sets of rules. In terms of the small (sub-atomic) our observation told us that matter at this level behaves in a completely different manner. For instance, one cannot trace the "flight pattern" of an electron nor can anyone specifically say where an electron will be in one second, as could be done with a thrown frisbee. These two worlds/scales do not behave like one another at all.

As these parallel discoveries were occurring in the early 20th century, it seemed a matter of course that they would be reconciled with one another. However, that never came to fruition with Einstein et. al. nor did it with later pioneers such as Hawking. Everyone was chasing the "Theory of Everything" to provide an overarching description of both quantum and normal mechanics. String/SuperString theory is an example of an attempt at this, but so far, no dice.

So, on to the relevance to the Big Bang. The Big Bang is necessarily and by definition an event that will (in my estimation) require a TOE in order to be fully understood. Put quite simply, the Big Bang resulted from a singularity whose behavior would need to be described by a blend of the quantum and non-quantum levels. It is true that the Big Bang violates the laws of Newtonian/Einsteinian physics, but this isn't a contradiction with modern physics. It's a problem that arises because we currently have one set of rules for things bigger than X and a different set for things smaller than X. We have no set for all things, and we don't really know what happens when things bigger than X interact in lockstep with things smaller than X.

Imagine if I created some arbitrary mathematical language where X$Y means that you add X and Y for numbers greater than 10 and you multiply X and Y for numbers less than 10. Then, what the hell is 4$15?

That is the problem with current physics applied to the big bang.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

I read the article that you posted (though I didn't get the sense you did, since the byline was "Why is the universe expanding faster and faster?" and you were using the article to defend a static universe - not to mention that you bolded "seems as improbable as the static universe that Einstein struggled to describe"). The problem you're having here is that you've decided there's no such thing as the Big Bang because that contradicts God or something, so you also believe you have to argue in the face of all other mainstream science. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing specifically about an expanding universe that requires a "Big Bang", so you're barking up the wrong tree.

If you're going to listlessly argue against things and conflate terms, I can at least help you figure out which things threaten the God-concept of your universe and which don't, thus minimizing the number of pointless battles you'll feel obliged to undertake.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

I think the Universe is really from Kenya. Why won't it just reveal what happened in the first 10−43 seconds of its existence? What's it trying to hide?

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

The plot thickens...

This issue isn't going away.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

I know it seems like the article is a writing in support of this "big bang" (which is a theory that is much more acceptable to religious people actually) but the real point of it is that we still don't really understand the how, much less the why, of its existence. In the end, the writing really doesn't support the "big bang." That's not what it's even about.




Thanks for your offered assistance. I know it started (in another area) being about God and all, but now we're really argueing something different. The lack of 100 % proof for this "big bang" theory.

Not all physicists (even atheist physicists) agree that the "big bang" is how the universe started. It's sort of beyond arguing about God or religion at this point. What it's really about is the fact that, like a goldfish that can't understand the nature of the bowl or tank it's in, we still don't and maybe can't understand the nature of the "tank" we're in.

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

Too funny.

It all started when Barry Soetoro (AKA Barack H. Obama) was born in Kenya.

To two homosexual men I might add

See, homosexuals can reproduce

Barack H. Obama is the proof. No wonder he's taken a pro gay position on so many homosexual issues

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

"We can see how this would fool the untrained eye..."

Jesus Christ, you really didn't read your article. The article doesn't "seem" for or against the big bang, nor is it (though in the part that you copied, it seems to take the Big Bang as a matter of course). It's discussing practical challenges in reconciling observations with hypotheses about the mathematical equations that describe the geometry of the universe.

But Skynet said something about the "static universe" being wrong, and you disagreed with her, citing an article that agrees with her. Don't copy-paste and highlight articles, insisting that I read them if you're not going to bother reading them yourself.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Yes, I know

I wish I had the entire writing because it later talks more about the doubts about the big bang that are brought forth because of dark matter and energy.

Is all it basically does is show us the many ways and reasons that we still have no idea how or why the universe exists and works the way it does.

Just make sure you know that God had nothing to do with it

Sorry, had to add that

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

Yes, there are a lot of things left to be discovered. I'd imagine that's something that will always be true.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Here:


Very Dark Energy | Cosmology | DISCOVER Magazine


Found it online. Lets have a look.

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

Here we have some from the peice that I apparently left out:

--------------------------------------------------------------

In the last 75 years, astronomers have radically revised their conception of the cosmos. Edwin Hubble showed in 1929 that the universe was not static but expanding— it was getting bigger all the time, as if some primal explosion were driving its contents apart. That primal explosion came to be known as the Big Bang, and the expanding universe was its love child. For 50 years, Big Bang cosmology reigned.

Then, three years ago, light from distant, dying stars revealed that the edges of space are rushing away from one another at an ever-increasing rate. The cosmos, it seems, is not just growing but growing faster and faster. The bigger the universe gets, the faster it grows. Some ubiquitous, repulsive force is driving at the margins of space, stomping on the accelerator. And there are no red lights in sight. That mysterious propulsion looks a lot like lambda.


Today's cosmologists are calling this force dark energy: "dark" because it may be impossible to detect, and "energy" because it's not matter, which is the only other option. Despite the sinister connotations, dark energy is a beacon that may lead physicists to an elusive "final theory": the unification of all known forces, from those that hold the components of atoms together to the gravity that shapes space. Meanwhile the notion of dark energy has helped reconcile a puzzling suite of recent observations about the shape and composition of the cosmos.

In fact, the future of physics and the fate of the universe may ultimately depend on a kind of antigravity that has heretofore been a subject of mere conjecture. The experts think they know what role dark energy plays in the cosmos. Now all they have to do is figure out what dark energy is.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Very interesting stuff.

What this shows us is that our interpretations of what we may be seeing might not be correct. We're stuck in space and time really and can't escape that "cage."

These are all theories that cannot be proven.

They certainly don't disprove a "God."

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

I'm still at a complete lost as to how proving or disproving God has anything to do with this discussion.

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

I don't know but I'm off to Kenya.

For pizza

And ice cream.

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.