New ''theory'' about the Big Bang being a ''change of phase''

DE might well be Einstein's CC, which would mean that what he inferred as his greatest blunder was no blunder at all.

In my simplistic layman's way of thinking, I propose the following.....

The Inflationary epoch that occurred at just after the BB, can be likened to the impetus that begins any explosion....It is the brief period of greatest force that initiated the expansion.
Then it started to slow and the expansion proceeded at a more sedate pace, with gravity dominating over the DE/CC that started the expansion, due to the greater mass/energy density of the Universe.
Gradually as the mass/energy density decreased and lessened with the continued expansion of space/time, the DE/CC component started to take over from gravity trying to halt the expansion rate, and consequently we see that expansion rate accelerating...which is the epoch we find ourselves in now.

So in essence, the Universe/space/time that we see and are a part of, is a never ending struggle between the DE/CC component pushing all the matter/energy apart, and the gravitational force of the mass/energy of the Universe, trying to halt that expansion.

The above description seems to make sense to my way of thinking, so what do you think?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

See my previous post.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Our planetary system, our solar system, our galaxy, local group of galaxies, and even further afield, are a region of space where the total gravity of the mass/energy densities, overcome or decouple us from the overall space/time expansion caused by the DE or CC.
Other distant local groups are likewise affected, but it is the greater overall picture where we see DE/CC take control.

So I'm not to sure how bouncing laser beams off the Moon would tell us anything about DE/CC, which locally speaking, we see no effect from.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

'Expansion' is better than explosion. But I don't think the analogy with phase change in water speaks for or against the rate of the expansion. Also, keep in mind that this coincides with the creation of space, which is beyond our ability to intuit. Add to this the creation of time and we lose the ability to draw a distinction between cause and effect. In a sense, causality is the creation of time. That is, the seminal moment would appear to be eternal (suspended in time) and therefore contemporaneous with all time slices of the space-time continuum that follow. This might be the more significant question for folks pondering the creation question since it's beyond science. Or perhaps I should say that science has given us some pretty good clues about how to address the question of creation. If we ponder just the creation of time, it defies the conventional sense of a Creator. That is, it makes no sense to wonder how God might be suspended in time. It certainly unravels all conventional definitions of God. Among the fallacies of an all powerful Being - God can't kill Himself, for example (excluding the analogy with Jesus) - God can't create without time. There can be no waving of the wand, as it were, without a clock ticking. Otherwise the wand is eternally suspended at the commencement of the act, just as the first "UL" of the utterance "Let There Be Light" (that might be heard by the angel on a pin "somewhere" in the vicinity) would be suspended at the outset of any actual vibration that might be called sound (which is obviously impossible in a vacuum anyway). I think all questions of creation boil down to this, which nicely avoids having to be too steeped in physics to carry it to lively conversation. Creation per the Big Bang seems to require God to be present throughout time, but never actually capable of doing anything as He is frozen. And yet all time slices that ever were and ever will be seem to emanate from this frozen seminal moment - in static sense, not one that amounts to anything being created. In this sense I don't think the BB contradicts an eternal universe at least as I've limited that definition, and I think it pretty well disproves the any conventional definition of God. Obviously a frozen God is problematic for any conventional religious views on creation. For reasons like this I'm more inclined to regard BB as a definitive contradiction of the existence of God, although I normally argue the question is moot from the get-go.

I realize this wasn't the direct thrust of your OP, but it's the subtext for creationists such as yourself (clearly you're not a Creation Science nut, and I do tend to blur the distinction by sometimes calling Creation Science folks Creationists, when clearly they are a subset of all Creationists). In any case it's a realm of inquiry that takes us to the more critical question: what does "the creation of time" really mean, and what are its implications for someone contemplating the creation of the universe?

 

Not just your way of thinking, I've read similar explanations. Yes, this makes sense to me from what I've read about dark energy.
If 70% of the universe really is dark energy, that's a sobering thought no?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Lol @ "frozen God" Aqueous!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Har har har

I'm glad you chimed in and I will reply more later.

You guys are awesome; I wasn't sure if I should post this but the discussion has cleared away some confusing points for me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I agree with that.

true

I guess, from the sense of a first ''event'' causing a second ''event,'' and the second ''event,'' only occuring because of the first one. That's the actual definition of causality, so what was the first event? The Big Bang, or what caused it? Put aside God for a moment, (you brought him into this discussion, I'll have the record show

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) how can something be 'uncaused,' if causality needs those two things to happen? I'm a little confused on that point, just from a general understanding of cause and effect, especially in terms of the Big Bang Theory.

Well, perhaps...but, if we say 'nothing' came before the Big Bang to 'cause' it...that only means science under current terms, can't define it (yet)

You're right, it doesn't make sense, because God wouldn't be 'suspended in time.' That is your manmade view of God, doing the posting there.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In your manmade thinking, you are right, it does. lol You're trying to define God, with scientific approach or definition.

When I think of God, I imagine him to be infinite, and eternal. He created time, he didn't create because of it.

Again, applying a scientific approach to figuring out God.

Any conventional definition using science, yes.

Keep in mind something. Many 'creationists' believe in the Biblical 'version' of it. I don't. I believe in science, and frankly, I don't believe science has limits. I once posted that early on here, that I thought science has 'limits,' but I've since tweaked that a bit. Instead, I believe science has NO LIMITS, but mankind will not reach the limits of which science can offer to answer all of these ''mysteries'' of the universe. Man will never reach infinity, because it's impossible. And God, should he exist...represents Infinity.

That's ok, I think you're a closet Creationist.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm oddly pleased that you took this direction, although true, it wasn't my intent. I can have a conversation without bringing the 'God-factor' into it. lol But, for the sake of this specific discussion, it definitely relevant, because as a believer in God, I do believe there is a higher power that set in motion...the universe as we know it.

And...as we don't know it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You answered all of my questions, thank you. When I say ''popular,'' it is my way of saying, ''widely accepted.'' I want to say I posted the same word before in another thread, and we had this same conversation.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I realize there is a lot of bs out there, and I'm learning to steer clear of it, and find sources I can trust. When in doubt, it's nice to have a forum such as this to ask questions. I really appreciate your input, and your answers are very 'easy' to understand.

That's great news! What does 'well received' mean exactly? Did you place at all in the comp?

True.

I like this website...'how stuff works.'

Here's an article about 'peer reviews,' and all that's involved. For anyone interested, eh hem...common_sense_seeker: http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scientific-peer-review.htm

 

Try doing some research before you start making illiterate assertions. You're woefully poor at the most basic concepts so put a cork in it. Read the standard model of modern cosmology and then realize the Classical Big Bang theory is the original framework for the standard model of cosmology. It's about all the scientific research leading to this model whose original framework is the Classical Big Bang theory. Get it? Cosmology is a work in progress. Wow how confusing that must be for you.

 

You're full of crap just as I suspected. Take your crank theory out of this section of the forum.

 

Thanks for the encouragement quarklet! Much appreciated. Good luck to you too.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thanks for the bringing this to my attention! It fits with my model of two mirror fractal structures of 'threads of threads' imploding upon themselves. A dark flow of 2500 galaxies moving in one direction would fit with the anisotropic collision and recoil.

Edit: I can even predict a Dark Flow of around the same number of galaxies in the opposite direction! They may be too far away for us to detect at the moment but detectable in the future.
Having read some more on Dark Flow, the graviton emission before implosion would also have been anisotropic, which would make the Dark Energy of wraparound gravitons equally anisotropic.

 

Thanks sweetie, I got many good comments in the talks before the competition was over. Everyone has to judge everyone else's essay as well as a panel of official judges. The standard was *very* high with typical entries being from physics professors etc. I rated well with the non-professionals but slipped down the table when the mainstream pros came in towards the end. I was pleased with comments about how I'd "dropped a screw in the competition" by coming up with the Archimedes graviton screw idea. I was very pleased overall that I'd managed to convey my loose ideas into a coherent but rather short essay. I've built on the foundations of the two essays since and now have a much clearer understanding of my own mind-model of everything.

 

Abuse

Brucep: You can disagree firmly without losing your temper. If Sense wants to toot his horn here in Alternatives, so what? And by the way, patience and persistence will lead the thirsty to water more often than will the whip. Making people angry doesn't lead to reason but only to more anger...

 

That's the Big Question that motivates both religion and science. I think it speaks to the nature of human reason more than anything else. We demand that everything have a cause. Yet we know from physics that time is a relative thing; we understand, for example, that causality apparently vanishes in the proximity of a black hole or within very small distances approaching the wavelength of an elementary particle. We might also ponder the loss of causality for the photon . . .which apparently lives frozen in time.
The Big Bang is the seminal case for making an exception to conventional wisdom about causality. Given that time was created at the outset of the expansion, then there simply can be no cause for the Big Bang. In a sense, it "always was and ever shall be". It stands frozen in time - in a sense it never happened, and is always happening. From this ever-present "cause" there is a peeling off of time some ~13.8 billion years ago, followed by the history that brings us up to present day. But I think the best conclusion we can draw from this is that the universe is uncaused.

(Noting you posted a smiley there) Guilty as charged. With you I know I'm not inviting trolling since you are level-headed and able to express your religious beliefs without losing touch of your intellect and reason. I'm sure that's the way it is among most religious people. After all, fundamentalism is a rather late phenomenon in the history of religion, so the nuts it produces simply haven't had time to perpetuate themselves nearly as much as the orthodox believers such as yourself. But I do think that the notion of God is relevant here, which is why I mentioned it. The idea I am proposing is that (ignoring the mootness of argument) any ideation that places God at the moment of the Big Bang is contradicted by the statement that time is created in the Big Bang. That is, even God cannot exist outside of time. You can model God as a sentient photon and you'll get the same result. The photon certainly interacts with the world, in perhaps the most basic physical interaction of all (the electron-photon interaction), which gives rise to just about every property of matter and energy at our macro scale of existence. Interestingly enough, there is even an argument for concluding that all photons are time-shadows of one original photon, which can "be everywhere at once" due the timeless nature of the world it inhabits. So far this makes a pretty good physical model for God. But then it breaks down when we try to superimpose the quality of sentience. There simply can be no sentience without time. It takes a moment--it takes a history of moments--to construct any element of conscious will that we might associate with God. And even that requires the passage of time. Bring time to a standstill, and there can be no Will that creates anything. It's one thing to say that the lack of causality precludes the notion of Divine Creation, but it's utterly devastating to the religious proposition to say that time stands still at the onset of the Big Bang. It impoverishes even God - robs Him of any time to have any Will to do anything. There simply is no power that can be ascribed to God to overcome this obstacle. In the first place, the power was created by the authors of the religions who gave gods anthropomorphic traits. "Will" (to create) is fundamentally human (animal); it's rooted in our biology, based on the propagation of "action potentials" in living neurons--and that takes time. There simply is no such thing as "will" without the passage of time.

That's the crux of the matter. Hopefully my discussion above addresses this. The key is to grapple with the meaning of timelessness. As hard as it is for the naysayers (Creation Science folks) to respond to the facts of science without having to manufacture junk science and then try to dress it up as the real thing -- here they are completely out in left field on this. While they will try to harp on the issue of "something out of nothing" I doubt they have even bothered to take on the underlying issue, which is time out of timelessness. As long as they skirt around this more central concept, they will never be responding to the evidence that confronts their dishonesty. Of course that comes with practicing science without a license, so to speak.

I mentioned that there are some paradoxes associated with God - there are some things He simply cannot do - which make it logically implausible to argue that god exists. For example, He can't create Himself. It's simply not possible (from the causality standpoint alone) since He would have to exist before He gave birth to Himself which no believer should be expected to rely on. This is why I suppose most religious people (if pressed) would have to assume that He existed forever. But that makes no sense - it simply says there is no way to account for His existence "from nothing". We could go on enumerating the impossibilities that even God cannot overcome (He can't kill Himself, He can't be bad, He can't be stupid, and so on). Above all, God cannot think, act, move or create without a timebase to do it in. And evidently that's not available at the outset of the Big Bang. So we have to conclude that the premise that a divinity could cause the Big Bang is not only moot, but it's impossible. I suppose we could wait for a theologian to try to posit the meaning of God existing outside of time, but it would have to riddled with paradoxes and fallacies just to give it a foundation. This is why I'm saying that the Big Band really puts the nail in the coffin for any argument that God created the universe. Something else is going on out there, and it has nothing to do with Will.

I think the opposite is true. I think the science that leads to the conclusion that time was created in the Big Bang is providing a very useful and necessary principle which invalidates the question of causality altogether and leads us into a deeper inquiry about the nature of causality itself. I think it completely undermines all conventional attitudes on the subject. I think nothing short of an exploration of what timelessness even means will come close to trying to understand creation.

Ha ha. This goes back to the things even God can't do. Maybe now you're catching my meaning. The point is that even God can't live outside of time. It renders Him inert. Once God has a thought, contemplates or wills an act, or actually commits an act, then the clock is necessarily ticking. And that's impossible at the dawn of time itself.

Ha ha. It's not any different than the manmade thinking that requires God to be the surrogate for the Big Bang. There's nothing particularly insidious about that, is there? No, I think we can't draw these strict lines in the sand when it comes down to grappling with ultimate reality. Here we're just stuck with essential facts and we're trying to put the jigsaw puzzle together based on how the pieces fit. In this we are all equal - equally smart and ignorant, equally rational and emotional, and so on. It's just us and the cosmos. What I really set out to do was to begin to define timelessness. For the same reason that God - in the timeless realm that "precedes" the Big Bang - can't lift the magic wand and command "Let there be light!", there can be no question of causality either. Genesis needs to be updated: In the beginning there was no beginning because there was no time. There was no space. There was only Singularity. We can take it from there, but we still won't arrive at the definition of "will" until some approx. 12.5 billion yrs. after time began, when animal life emerged on Earth and "will" became a biological trait to further the survival of animal species.

Do you see the paradox in that now, based on what I've said thus far? Even God can't exist outside of time. It renders him as a frozen hunk of impotence. Even for all of the goodness associated with God, there can simply be no actualization of that good intent, since the hands of time are at a standstill. Notice this has nothing to do with belief, it's just a necessary result of joining various truths into a coherent conclusion about ultimate reality. Interestingly enough, I'm in total agreement with you that any God frozen in time would remain that way eternally. The other weird side of this is that is makes God contemporaneous with every moment "that ever was or ever shall be". But then He's frozen. That pretty well establishes that God can never exist at any time whatsoever, not in the viable sense. He would necessarily be frozen forever. This is kinda what I meant about contemplating timelessness. It drives us to visit some rather nuanced insights onto some of the older ideas.

I enjoy getting that kind of insight from you. I think less about what can't be done and more about the phenomenal mountain of work that can and already has been done, to lift us out of our intellectual poverty into this richer position. We live in an age where we can finally begin to understand how something can exist without being caused.

Actually I came out of the closet when I was a proverbial knee-high, with my own conclusion that all religion is completely an artifact of acculturation. I think my first introduction to world history, and my growing awareness of the geographical distribution of the world religions, was evidence enough of that fact. Of course a thousand more things came later to corroborate my early instincts. But obviously my first instincts were right. If you had been born in Calcutta you would likely be convinced that Krishna rode with Arjuna at the dawn of creation. If you were born in Riyadh you would be convinced that Allah made Adam and later sent The Prophet as his personal emissary to instruct the faithful on the rules of Heaven. And if you were born in the Himalayas you would likely find the source of all wisdom from a young man who went into trance under the Bodhi tree, leaving you with almost no creation myth to speak of as your basis for pursuing self-perfection. And we can go on to include the countless smaller religions that have existed to boot. It's just a matter of culture. If you had been brought up in world that was more rational and more attuned to reserving judgment until the facts are in, no doubt you would count yourself among the smaller number of atheists who are just ahead of their time.

God is conventionally held up as the Power which suspends the laws of nature as it pleases Him. (Pleasure of course is completely anthropomorphic.) I suppose we could say God acts indiscriminately but that sort of dismantles all religious notions of Him as well. However, once we start enumerating the things that even He can't do (kill Himself, be bad, be stupid, etc.), we eventually arrive at the part where even He cannot start or stop the passage of time. To do so robs him of all of his powers. This is different than saying God can work miracles. Even miracles are understood to unfold at prescribed times. Jesus purportedly was born and lived in the era of Imperial Rome, was executed as a viable adult, was reanimated and then went tending to mundane affairs for a while before levitating into outer space. In the timeless realm, these events all coincide in the same eternal moment - one which never began or ended, but remains static forever. In the same way that this robs Jesus of the sequence of events leading to the his putative martyrdom, timelessness robs God of the act of creating anything. Besides, there simply can be no creation of time "before there was time". There simply is no "before".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think that the notion of "time" being created at the Big Bang is incorrect. 'Time' is simply relative motion. A void was created first followed by structure and motion. The Big Bang occurred after the creation of a void and the 'eruption' of structure and motion within it imv. It makes more sense to imagine a vast 'sea of energy' being the Eternal and then a bubble/void appearing within it with some energy from the outside getting within. If one believes in God, then the logical place for 'his' existence would be the Eternal and perhaps the creation of the bubble/void was 'his' idea which would ultimately lead to sentient life.

 

"G"od/"U"niverse > God/Universe > local universe( sphere of influence )

I agree

ergo, frequency of events/phenomena as integral whole.

"vast 'sea of energy'" i.e. "vast" is still finite not infinite.

eternal = physical/energy-- i.e finite occupied space ---cannot be created nor destroyed.

Many try to imply that a cosmic 'space' is a something, and what they really mean is, is that 'space' is gravitational spacetime and many here like to imply infer that gravitational spacetime is infinite.

If we want to have logical conversation--- in addition to common sense ---then those who believe graviational spacetime is infinite really have no idea what it is there believing--- and it is only a believ, as there is no evidence for infinite gravitional spacetime or any kind of occupied space.

So again, to start with logic and we have share common sense agreements on we space is.

0) Non-occupied Space = macro-infinite, non-occupied space
.. a concept few can actually concieve, or so that has been my experience in last 10 years...
..textinconic symbol for this true infinite space ergo tru infinite void is out< >out....

1) Occupied Space = finite occupied space
..occupied via fermions, bosons and gravity...
...>in<....

Texticonic Symbols/Simple as follows:
"G"od/"U"niverse = both 0 and 1 above ergo, out <(>O<)>out i.e occupied and occupied space as cosmic whole the only true infinite and that is the includes infinite nothingness i.e. the true void aka non-occupied space that embraces but does not contain the finite God/Universe of occupied space.


God/Universe = 1 above (>O<)

Metaphysical comes in three distinct cosmic definitions;

A) Metaphysical concepts as mind/intelligence, that complements 1 and 0 above but is not a space, non-occupied or not, it is the ability to have concept of space, non-occupied and/or occupied.

B) Non-occupied space is beyond our finite occupied space we call God/Universe

C) Gravity as the buffer-zone between non-occupied space and fermions and bosons.
....OUT<gravity(>O<)gravity>OUT....

Until the so called science only experts around here can begin to grasp, accept and then acknowledge this simple heirarchy as the overall cosmic heirarchy, they will be operating outside of logic and common sense, to some degree. imho.

When teaching/educating it is best to start with the whol--- nohting is left out( literally ) ha ha! ---show a cosmic heirarcy/list/outline i.e. top > bottom approach to teaching.

Ex Open Systems Interconnection is a 7 > 1 heirarchy used in invention of internet by Charles Bachman 111.

https://www.google.com/search?q=MSI...=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&imgdii=_










I