My Big Bang Opinion
Posted on: September 30, 2007 - 10:39am
Offline
My Big Bang Opinion
I'm not telling anyone "this is how it is", I would just like some input because I know I have very limited knowledge on the subject. That's why it's an opinion not a theory.
I think the universe has just always existed. Well the void anyway. And I think there is a net value of 0 matter in the universe due to equal parts anti-matter and matter. So in my opinion nothing was actually created there was just a highly improbable random event that separated the two components. Of course given an infinite amount of time even the least probable event will necessarily occur and *poof* here we are.
Gordon H. Clark wrote:
To [Logical Positivists], speaking of God is like saying that the typewriter is the bluish-green sound of the square root of minus one.
This quote is full of win.
- Login to post comments
this theory...has no evidence going for it. but it is a pretty good excuse to pull out when people question Genesis. There is no spirituality to this opinion. it's pure...well...there was no logic reasoning to this...
whatever. all in all, a good excuse to avoid debating GOD.
Hmm, well I would be forced to ask what you mean exactly by "the universe has just always existed"? Due to the current expansion of the universe, actually the space between galaxy clusters expanding rather than the galaxy clusters flying away from each other, well that points to everything arriving back at the same point billions of years in the past. So it did exist back then, but Time was a spatial dimension and everything was compressed to an extremely tiny point I've been led to believe.
I would also ask you what you mean by "void". Space?
Also as for anti-matter, I've read before that anti-matter has been created very briefly in specialized scientific labs before. However, just because the possibility of antimatter existing doesn't mean it still does exist in the universe.
I read once that there may have been a massive amount of anti-matter and matter. However they all interacted and exploded each other and the reason why we can't find anti-matter so far naturally in the universe is that there was more matter than anti-matter, so everything we see is the little bit more matter that existed. Eh, but that was just an old theory and may be obsolete and proven false by now.
Hehe, I remember reading about some parents not allowing their kids to watch the first moon landing because of some speculation that the moon may be anti-matter. They didn't want their kids to watch the astronauts explode.
What a hoot.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
The OP is not entirely correct, and the post that followed it:
Was garbled nonsense.
Now,
All the Big Bang theory states is that the universe expanded outwards 13.7 billion years ago from a very dense, extremely low entropy prior state. Many theists miscontrue the Big Bang as ex nihilo, "out of nothing". It is not the case. There are certain models postulating pre-Big Bang occurances, the boundary condition in Hartele-Hawking, brane cosmology, etc. But the BB itself says nothing about the creation of the universe. It simply describes an expansion occurance 13.7 billion years ago from a prior state, and the model describes occrances from the Planck time onwards from this prior state, that we can describe events from the Planck Time until the end of BB nucleosynthesis.
The laws of General Relativity break down as you approach the prior entropy state, until Planck Time. According to BB theory, nothing can be known about the pre-Planck Time existence, all we know is that the universe expanded outwards from some prior very low entropy state when presumably the symmetry in the four disngaged fources were unified. There was no matter, it would have been too excited and broken down, due to Planck's Constant. This system was extremely unstable and collapsed into our present system. Remember, when one intuitively speak of "time" you are speaking of time as a progression. I am referring to the Lorentz Manifold, the causal structure. This applies to Minkowski and Non-Minkowski space. So, it is unhelpful to say that time "did not exist" before BB.
The gist is that all the BB says is that the universe expanded from a symettrical low entropy state which may have been a false vacuum which inflated, via which the force disengagement could have been created and matter could form since it is no longer too excited below Planck temperature. This circumvents SLOT because the system in question was lower entropy than the current one.
According to this formula: Tp=mpc^2/k=r(hr)c^5/Gk^2, matter breaks down at the Planck Temperature, 10^32K. It is nonsense to speak of matter being "hotter" since temperature is a measure of particle kinetics. In the low-entropy state, there wasn't any matter, it becomes interchangeable with energy.
However, the proposition that "God" is the solution to this, as the first poster seems to be wedded to the delusion, can be destroyed by reductio ad absurdum:
The Paradox of the Cosmological Argument Version 2.0
And by the fact that it has no proper functioning reasoning model associated with it:
The Distinguishing Between Metaphysical and Empirical propositions and their Epistemic Justifications
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
so god is trying to figure out what it is ? cool ... Hellow I am what I am , so what is that?, curious about me, GOD ...
does god laugh at it self ?
Atheism Books.