Errr...the Big Bang was NOT an explosion! You could have google wiki for an explanation:
"The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distances between comoving points. In other words, the Big Bang is not an explosion in space, but rather an expansion of space."
-
In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 871 on Fri Apr 19, 2024 12:00 am
Both science and religion are wrong
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
-
-
Getting Comfortable
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:09 am
- 1
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Gender:
Re: Both science and religion are wrong
I always think there's really no point in looking for a reliable way to decide about the existence of god, Jossef. Because, if he exists, his nature is evidently far beyond our ability to grasp, and finding him would be of absolutely no practical benefit to us.jossef wrote: Both science and religion are wrong when they try to talk about the existence of God and creation and when they try to define existence; and here is why, and I would be happy if someone could prove me wrong!
And if he doesn't exist, then looking for proof of his existence is pointless.
In any case, if he does exist, he doesn't exist on earth. I mean, have you seen the James Webb telescope images?!
Last edited by LanDroid on Fri Jul 29, 2022 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Fixed quote format for clarity.
Reason: Fixed quote format for clarity.
-
-
Getting Comfortable
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:09 am
- 1
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Gender:
Re: Both science and religion are wrong
Roy, what does wiki say about the "space" outside that expanding space? There must have been a lot of room already, if space could just expand into it. That "room" was space, too. An explosion of matter into space makes more sense to me.DB Roy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 07, 2022 9:57 pm Errr...the Big Bang was NOT an explosion! You could have google wiki for an explanation:
"The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distances between comoving points. In other words, the Big Bang is not an explosion in space, but rather an expansion of space."
- DB Roy
-
Beyond Awesome
- Posts: 1011
- Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
- 9
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 602 times
Re: Both science and religion are wrong
No, space itself expanded. There was no space to be expanded into. The expansion is still ongoing just at a slower rate than initially. It does not appear that matter existed at the instant of the Big Bang. The only kind of matter there was at that point was called QGP or Quark-Gluon Plasma which was in the form of a liquid. It existed within the first 0.000001 of a second after the Big Bang so an explosion of matter as the cause of the Big Bang seems unlikely.John Windo wrote: ↑Fri Jul 29, 2022 6:28 am Roy, what does wiki say about the "space" outside that expanding space? There must have been a lot of room already, if space could just expand into it. That "room" was space, too. An explosion of matter into space makes more sense to me.
-
-
Getting Comfortable
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:09 am
- 1
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Gender:
Re: Both science and religion are wrong
"There was no space to be expanded into."
See, that doesn't make sense to me. It simply cannot be true. The only remotely reasonable statement that's ever made about the universe is that it is an infinite, mostly-empty space. If there was no space to begin with, then nothing existed, nothing at all. There was nothing to expand. A physical phenomenon such as expansion cannot exert its effect on nothing.
We will never know where and how that space originated, we can only speculate on the Matter that came to reside in it, (it may have been the result of random pockets of energy coalescing, I don't know.)
If this expansion of space, (which just means "room"), is still going on today, then there must still be somewhere for it to expand to. Otherwise you're talking about an area that exists butting up alongside an area that doesn't exist.
I don't know what to say about the hypothetical Quark-Gluon Plasma... Sounds like an ice-cream flavour.
See, that doesn't make sense to me. It simply cannot be true. The only remotely reasonable statement that's ever made about the universe is that it is an infinite, mostly-empty space. If there was no space to begin with, then nothing existed, nothing at all. There was nothing to expand. A physical phenomenon such as expansion cannot exert its effect on nothing.
We will never know where and how that space originated, we can only speculate on the Matter that came to reside in it, (it may have been the result of random pockets of energy coalescing, I don't know.)
If this expansion of space, (which just means "room"), is still going on today, then there must still be somewhere for it to expand to. Otherwise you're talking about an area that exists butting up alongside an area that doesn't exist.
I don't know what to say about the hypothetical Quark-Gluon Plasma... Sounds like an ice-cream flavour.
- PeterDF
-
Freshman
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 5:29 pm
- 20
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
- Gender:
- Contact:
Re: Both science and religion are wrong
This is a classic case of where the traditional understanding of our everyday reality does not fit with current theories of how the universe works. Space is not expanding into something because as far as we can ever be aware there IS only spacetime. (There may be other universes, but science has not yet gathered enough evidence to be able to say.) It is not meaningful to speak about what is outside of the universe's spacetime. It is not something, and it is not nothing either. I do sympathise with those that fail to get this. It is an extraordinarily hard concept to get your head round, but that is where the current evidence seems to point.John Windo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 4:13 pm "There was no space to be expanded into."
See, that doesn't make sense to me. It simply cannot be true. The only remotely reasonable statement that's ever made about the universe is that it is an infinite, mostly-empty space. If there was no space to begin with, then nothing existed, nothing at all. There was nothing to expand. A physical phenomenon such as expansion cannot exert its effect on nothing.
At the instant of the big bang, the universe would have been a quantum object, and the current understanding of quantum mechanics suggests that quantum objects can pop into and out of existence without any cause. Again this is highly counter-intuitive to human beings, but that just demonstrates that human intuition is not geared to easily understand these apparent realities, either at the very small, quantum, level or in the larger realm of Einsteinian general relativity.
-
-
Getting Comfortable
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:09 am
- 1
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Gender:
Re: Both science and religion are wrong
I'm sure you didn't mean to sound condescending, Peter. But you've reiterated exactly what I said. I questioned Roy's claim that "space expanded" by saying that there must have been infinite space already.
When I say "space" I mean "room", an "empty place", etc.. He said that space had a beginning, then got bigger. That's like saying a particular volume of empty space in the room I'm in, suddenly got bigger; that makes no sense, quantum or otherwise.
Mind you, I'm not arguing for a "Creator", I'm arguing for common sense.
When I say "space" I mean "room", an "empty place", etc.. He said that space had a beginning, then got bigger. That's like saying a particular volume of empty space in the room I'm in, suddenly got bigger; that makes no sense, quantum or otherwise.
Mind you, I'm not arguing for a "Creator", I'm arguing for common sense.
- Robert Tulip
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6502
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
- 18
- Location: Canberra
- Has thanked: 2730 times
- Been thanked: 2666 times
- Contact:
Re: Both science and religion are wrong
Hi John, welcome to Booktalk, and thanks for engaging on this fascinating material. It reminds me of a conversation I had with astronomers years ago on the question "Is Gravity a Force?" To common sense, the answer is obviously yes, but for the astrophysics of relativistic space-time the answer is no.John Windo wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 3:59 pm I'm sure you didn't mean to sound condescending, Peter. But you've reiterated exactly what I said. I questioned Roy's claim that "space expanded" by saying that there must have been infinite space already.
When I say "space" I mean "room", an "empty place", etc.. He said that space had a beginning, then got bigger. That's like saying a particular volume of empty space in the room I'm in, suddenly got bigger; that makes no sense, quantum or otherwise.
Mind you, I'm not arguing for a "Creator", I'm arguing for common sense.
Similarly, your idea that there is something outside space-time seems intuitively plausible with the Euclidean definition of space, but current scientific knowledge of the Einsteinian universe rejects that common sense assumption.
J. B. S. Haldane (1892–1964), the famous Scottish mathematical biologist, wrote that "my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose" (Possible Worlds and Other Essays (1927) ‘Possible Worlds’). The mainstream scientific idea that we cannot speak of space outside space-time is one of those almost unsupposable queer ideas.
-
-
Getting Comfortable
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:09 am
- 1
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Gender:
Re: Both science and religion are wrong
Thanks for the welcome, Robert, and sorry for taking so long to reply.Robert Tulip wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 10:27 pm Hi John, welcome to Booktalk, and thanks for engaging on this fascinating material. It reminds me of a conversation I had with astronomers years ago on the question "Is Gravity a Force?" To common sense, the answer is obviously yes, but for the astrophysics of relativistic space-time the answer is no.
When I say there must be room for the universe to expand into, I mean it simply in the mundane, pragmatic sense, and I'm not talking about a "metaphysical something" that exists "outside" Existence. I'm just talking about space; like the space between cars travelling on the road, and the space behind the TV where the cat always hides, The place where something can be put. What we call the universe is just "all this space". It just happens that the space we're all so familiar with is this planet, this country, this room. That bit of air that's right in front of your nose, about 30 cm from your face, is space. It's the same "thing" as the space that's 999 trillion light-years away from here. It's an empty area where something can go. It isn't intuition that tells me that - it's plain, commonplace observation.
If it were otherwise, we would have to think of our universe as a contained thing, with boundaries and limits. But even if we saw it that way, there still remains the fact that, outside those boundaries, there must be a "place", even if it's utterly empty and devoid of all matter and light.
That's what I meant when I said that Peter's expanding universe must have had "a space" to occupy, a place to expand to. If we could travel the preposterous distances and leave behind all matter and light, we would still be in a "place", a "space", where more matter and light could go if it "wanted to".
-
-
Getting Comfortable
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:09 am
- 1
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Gender: