Jump to content

God And The Big Bang


Olavarria

Recommended Posts

So, if i understand correctly, about 7 billion years ago niether space, time or matter existed. This universe did not exist. What existed was a singualirty of condensed energy the size of my thumb nail. Suddenly it exploded, and for the first miliseconds of time all that existed was time and energy.

7 billion years later, here we are chatting on the FAIR message board about the BoM, polygamy, Mitt Romney and comparitive linguistics. From light beams to Her Amun.

If asimo had a creator do you and I? http://world.honda.com/ASIMO/

ASIMO-stairs.jpg

139918782_8757f9be1f.jpg

Whether or not their is a multiverse and how that factors into LDS theology is a different matter

Link to comment

The universe is actually 13.7 billion years old to within 1% accuracy, (which we know thanks to the amazing precision of WMAP.)

It's honestly hard to say what the universe was time = 0 seconds. We can start to say what occurred within the first fraction of a second, but behind that, it's still a bit confusing. Usually, scientists don't spend much time speculating what the universe was at time = 0. They just keep using what they know to extrapolate back as close as they can get to that time.

I'd recommend reading up on a simple site that explains more of it. For exampe, wikipedia is always a good option. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Link to comment

So, if i understand correctly, about 7 billion years ago niether space, time or matter existed. This universe did not exist. What existed was a singualirty of condensed energy the size of my thumb nail. Suddenly it exploded, and for the first miliseconds of time all that existed was time and energy.

There is a new wrinkle in the big bang theory, based on string theory, where there are multiple universes. Two superstrings (branes) bumped together to cause the big bang. Thus, time and space already existed.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010922/bob9.asp

do a search on "brane". I think this would be consistent with LDS cosmology -- endless in time and space.

Link to comment

There is a new wrinkle in the big bang theory, based on string theory, where there are multiple universes. Two superstrings (branes) bumped together to cause the big bang. Thus, time and space already existed.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010922/bob9.asp

do a search on "brane". I think this would be consistent with LDS cosmology -- endless in time and space.

And universes are being created and destroyed all the time.

Link to comment

...here we are chatting on the FAIR message board about the BoM, polygamy, Mitt Romney and comparitive linguistics. From light beams to Her Amun.

The moderators would tell you that MADB is no longer affiliated with FAIR.

Matter always existed; gravity is a by-product of matter. Energy does not exist independent of matter. Matter is the driving force of the universe. That is why I do not believe in an incorporeal God. If God does not exist in some form of matter then He is nothing. Intelligences therefore must have material natures; spirits must have material natures.

Before God said, â??Let there be light.â? He said, â??Let it matter!â?

Link to comment
There is a new wrinkle in the big bang theory, based on string theory, where there are multiple universes. Two superstrings (branes) bumped together to cause the big bang. Thus, time and space already existed.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010922/bob9.asp

do a search on "brane". I think this would be consistent with LDS cosmology -- endless in time and space.

And universes are being created and destroyed all the time.

Colliding branes, strings and multiple universes are ( despite the press) just speculative theories backed up with some cool math but almost zero experiment.

physics is in a state of partial sensory deprivation right now and we all know what that leads to. Perhaps the new Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will let in a little light.

Link to comment

So, if i understand correctly, about 7 billion years ago niether space, time or matter existed. This universe did not exist. What existed was a singualirty of condensed energy the size of my thumb nail. Suddenly it exploded, and for the first miliseconds of time all that existed was time and energy.

7 billion years later, here we are chatting on the FAIR message board about the BoM, polygamy, Mitt Romney and comparitive linguistics. From light beams to Her Amun.

This picture is cool in my opinion. The universe is a green dragon.

The moral of the feeling amazement is not that there must be a traditional creator (who created him?) but that we should never underestimate complexity. It contains the divine seeds of structures unimaginable.

Link to comment

After God's .002 second interaction to start the universe, he was never heard from again. :P

The basic fundamental laws also had to take time to form.

http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/timeline/

Some individuals say the big bang theory isn't based in science but is just another religious explanation that explains nothing

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bang.html

Link to comment

Matter always existed; gravity is a by-product of matter. Energy does not exist independent of matter. Matter is the driving force of the universe. That is why I do not believe in an incorporeal God. If God does not exist in some form of matter then He is nothing. Intelligences therefore must have material natures; spirits must have material natures.

Before God said, â??Let there be light.â? He said, â??Let it matter!â?

In fact, energy is not a substance. Energy is a property of matter and mass is a property of matter. Energy can be interchanged with the property of mass, but not the matter itself. In Einstein's famous equation, E=mc^2, m does not stand for matter, it stands for mass. The fundamental unit of mass is kg. Energy is kg*m^2*sec^-2. C is in m*sec^-1. The equation clearly demonstrates the relationship between the two.

When an atom is split the atom breaks into various subatomic particles and large amounts of energy are released. The mass of the subatomic particles is less than the mass of the original atom. Mass has been exchanged to energy according to Einsteins equation. This energy consists of high energy photons. A photon is an ultra-low mass particle with a very high energy. Photons move at the speed of light, their velocity and frequency characteristic of their energy. When physicists capture and slow a photon down in the laboratory an interesting thing happens to it; it becomes more massive.

The mass/energy physical laws are where creation ex nihilo really gets into trouble. Eternally existent matter is consistent with physical law. Both the big bang theory and brane (superstring) theories posit that matter pre-existed the advent of our universe, in the former all matter was packed into the singularity in an exotic unimaginably dense form, in the latter it existed within the branes in the superverse.

One of the most baffling discoveries of modern astronomy is so called "dark matter." It has been dubbed dark matter because it cannot be seen. We know it exists because we can measure its gravitational effects. But that is the only way it can be detected. It is known that it can pass through what we know as normal matter without affecting it in any way except gravitationally. By observation of its gravitational effects we know it has mass and substance. The discovery of dark matter must give many LDS physicists pause: D&C 131:7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

Link to comment

Matter always existed; gravity is a by-product of matter. Energy does not exist independent of matter. Matter is the driving force of the universe. That is why I do not believe in an incorporeal God. If God does not exist in some form of matter then He is nothing. Intelligences therefore must have material natures; spirits must have material natures.

Before God said, â??Let there be light.â? He said, â??Let it matter!â?

As I understand the state of cosmological theory (a few years ago :P), the early universe was extremely hot and dense, and therefore there was no matter. The universe was essentially a very dense, hot, photon soup. When it had expanded and cooled enough, matter then started to coalesce from this photon soup.

Link to comment

In fact, energy is not a substance. Energy is a property of matter and mass is a property of matter. Energy can be interchanged with the property of mass, but not the matter itself. In Einstein's famous equation, E=mc^2, m does not stand for matter, it stands for mass. The fundamental unit of mass is kg. Energy is kg*m^2*sec^-2. C is in m*sec^-1. The equation clearly demonstrates the relationship between the two.

When an atom is split the atom breaks into various subatomic particles and large amounts of energy are released. The mass of the subatomic particles is less than the mass of the original atom. Mass has been exchanged to energy according to Einsteins equation. This energy consists of high energy photons. A photon is an ultra-low mass particle with a very high energy. Photons move at the speed of light, their velocity and frequency characteristic of their energy. When physicists capture and slow a photon down in the laboratory an interesting thing happens to it; it becomes more massive.

The mass/energy physical laws are where creation ex nihilo really gets into trouble. Eternally existent matter is consistent with physical law. Both the big bang theory and brane (superstring) theories posit that matter pre-existed the advent of our universe, in the former all matter was packed into the singularity in an exotic unimaginably dense form, in the latter it existed within the branes in the superverse.

One of the most baffling discoveries of modern astronomy is so called "dark matter." It has been dubbed dark matter because it cannot be seen. We know it exists because we can measure its gravitational effects. But that is the only way it can be detected. It is known that it can pass through what we know as normal matter without affecting it in any way except gravitationally. By observation of its gravitational effects we know it has mass and substance. The discovery of dark matter must give many LDS physicists pause: D&C 131:7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

How do you know the gravitational effects are not energy, or mass, and not matter?

Are you saying that matter has mass, but mass does not have matter?

Link to comment

As I understand the state of cosmological theory (a few years ago :P), the early universe was extremely hot and dense, and therefore there was no matter. The universe was essentially a very dense, hot, photon soup. When it had expanded and cooled enough, matter then started to coalesce from this photon soup.

A photon is a particle matter with an ultra small minuscule almost non-existant but not quite zero mass, but very high energy. Since photons move at the speed of light (under normal circumstances) the various energy levels of photons exhibit as frequency. Lower energy photons are infrared and visible light, high energy photons are x-rays and gamma rays, but they are the same basic particle.

Incidentally, the "hot photon soup" notion is being questioned. There are two satellites in orbit right now that are measuring how much the Earth is frame dragging. The satellites have already proved that it is. If the Earth is frame dragging, then so is the solar system. And if the solar system, then so is the galaxy. And if the whole galaxy is frame dragging, then the entire universe must be frame dragging. Frame dragging much more sensibly explains why we see a red shift and why that red shift is greater for objects that are farther away. To fit red shift into the big bang theory we have to believe that something is causing the universe to accelerate, a notion that violates known and proven laws of physics. No mathematical gymnastics and bending of the laws of physics is required if frame dragging causes the red shift - but that would mean that the big bang theory is a colossal huge pile of hooey. And that gives the creatio ex nihilo advocates heartburn.

How do you know the gravitational effects are not energy, or mass, and not matter?

Are you saying that matter has mass, but mass does not have matter?

You are confusing properties with the substance that has the property. White paint is not white, it is paint. There is no substance white; white is the property of the paint. Energy and mass are properties. Energy is matter in motion, it does not exist apart from matter. Mass is a measure of the gravitational interaction over a distance of one object with another. The energy of a system can be changed by changing the distances over which gravity acts on objects in a system. However, this does not change the mass. This is Physics 101 stuff. Freshman physics student constantly get into trouble because they fail to keep physical units straight in their equations. Keeping the units straight plainly demonstrates that energy and mass are properties, not ethereal substances.

Unfortunately, so much of modern theory remains tainted by the false notion of creatio ex nihilo. Joseph Smith declared that matter is eternal, it can be reorganized but it cannot be created and it cannot be destroyed. Whether you call that revelation or just a lucky guess by an ignorant farm boy, even to the atheist, the eternalness of matter squares more with observable facts about the universe than the notion that God spoke the universe into existence out of absolute and utter nothingness.

Link to comment

A photon is a particle matter with an ultra small minuscule almost non-existant but not quite zero mass, but very high energy. Since photons move at the speed of light (under normal circumstances) the various energy levels of photons exhibit as frequency. Lower energy photons are infrared and visible light, high energy photons are x-rays and gamma rays, but they are the same basic particle.

Incidentally, the "hot photon soup" notion is being questioned. There are two satellites in orbit right now that are measuring how much the Earth is frame dragging. The satellites have already proved that it is. If the Earth is frame dragging, then so is the solar system. And if the solar system, then so is the galaxy. And if the whole galaxy is frame dragging, then the entire universe must be frame dragging. Frame dragging much more sensibly explains why we see a red shift and why that red shift is greater for objects that are farther away. To fit red shift into the big bang theory we have to believe that something is causing the universe to accelerate, a notion that violates known and proven laws of physics. No mathematical gymnastics and bending of the laws of physics is required if frame dragging causes the red shift - but that would mean that the big bang theory is a colossal huge pile of hooey. And that gives the creatio ex nihilo advocates heartburn.

You are confusing properties with the substance that has the property. White paint is not white, it is paint. There is no substance white; white is the property of the paint. Energy and mass are properties. Energy is matter in motion, it does not exist apart from matter. Mass is a measure of the gravitational interaction over a distance of one object with another. The energy of a system can be changed by changing the distances over which gravity acts on objects in a system. However, this does not change the mass. This is Physics 101 stuff. Freshman physics student constantly get into trouble because they fail to keep physical units straight in their equations. Keeping the units straight plainly demonstrates that energy and mass are properties, not ethereal substances.

Unfortunately, so much of modern theory remains tainted by the false notion of creatio ex nihilo. Joseph Smith declared that matter is eternal, it can be reorganized but it cannot be created and it cannot be destroyed. Whether you call that revelation or just a lucky guess by an ignorant farm boy, even to the atheist, the eternalness of matter squares more with observable facts about the universe than the notion that God spoke the universe into existence out of absolute and utter nothingness.

So......... is light - energy, matter, or mass?

funny falling robot btw.....lol

Link to comment

So......... is light - energy, matter, or mass?

funny falling robot btw.....lol

The fundamental unit of light is a photon. It is a particle. It has a property of energy and very small almost non-existent mass.

When a photon enters you eye it may strike an electron in an atom in a photo receptor compound in your eye. An electron in that atom acquires the energy and will momentarily enter an elevated energy state and if the energy level is sufficient, the electron is liberated from the atom. It, along with other electrons, makes a neural-electrical current in your optic nerve where it is conducted to the brain. The information is passed thru a series of electrical/chemical interaction until at last the image is processed in the brain. Ultimately, all of these reaction consume and release energy, making heat, releasing the photon as infrared energy (thats what heat is), which could be seen by an eye designed to detect infrared frequencies, starting the whole process over again.

We could get much more technical, I'm just trying to find a simple way to adequately illustrate the differences between matter and the properties of energy and mass and the conservation of both.

Link to comment

The fundamental unit of light is a photon. It is a particle. It has a property of energy and very small almost non-existent mass.

The photon has zero mass in the standard model. I think you are thinking of the neutrino whose mass is very small but possibly non-zero.

Your comments about frame dragging don't square with my understanding either. Are you talking about general relativistic frame dragging such as that caused by rotating blackholes? Do you have a referrence for those claims about frame-dragging causing cosmic red shift?

Link to comment

The photon has zero mass in the standard model. I think you are thinking of the neutrino whose mass is very small but possibly non-zero.

Your comments about frame dragging don't square with my understanding either. Are you talking about general relativistic frame dragging such as that caused by rotating blackholes? Do you have a referrence for those claims about frame-dragging causing cosmic red shift?

Are neutrino's part of a photon, or an element unto themselves?

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...