# Big Bang



## Scott (Mar 20, 2006)

News on the Big Bang. What do you guys think?


----------



## JohnV (Mar 20, 2006)

> the universe experienced an explosive growth spurt within its first trillionth of a trillionth of a second "” a fleeting moment of hyperexpansion known as inflation. During this interval, the universe's volume probably increased by a staggering 1060 times (that's a 1 followed by 60 zeroes) or more, from the size of a marble to the size of today's visible universe.



Isn't that faster than the speed of light? What does that do to modern physics theories of relativity?


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> Isn't that faster than the speed of light? What does that do to modern physics theories of relativity?



That's the first thing I thought too. That is much faster than light. Seems like the first 13.7 billion years happened in a flash. Maybe even a day or two. Or on Day Three. :bigsmile:

Such speeds confound relativity. I'd have to do more calculations, but even if the universe expanded at the speed of light, under relativity, and from our perspective, it could have taken a few hours for the stars in the heavens to form.

Vic


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> > the universe experienced an explosive growth spurt within its first trillionth of a trillionth of a second "” a fleeting moment of hyperexpansion known as inflation. During this interval, the universe's volume probably increased by a staggering 1060 times (that's a 1 followed by 60 zeroes) or more, from the size of a marble to the size of today's visible universe.
> ...



Thereis one thing faster than the speed of light, the sovereign command of God.


----------



## Scott (Mar 21, 2006)

Do you guys believe in the Big Bang? If not, what do you believe? If so, does you understanding differ from the popular one now?


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 21, 2006)

Yes, I believe in the Big Bang, but no the popular one. God said, "Let there be. . ." and BANG, it was.

Vic


----------



## biblelighthouse (Mar 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> > the universe experienced an explosive growth spurt within its first trillionth of a trillionth of a second "” a fleeting moment of hyperexpansion known as inflation. During this interval, the universe's volume probably increased by a staggering 1060 times (that's a 1 followed by 60 zeroes) or more, from the size of a marble to the size of today's visible universe.
> ...




That question sounds good at first, but I think it is actually a category mistake.

Relativity describes the speed of light *within* space. It is a speed barrier for anyone traveling from point A in space to point B in space.

But we are now talking about space *itself* expanding. And as far as I know, the speed of expansion of the universe is unrelated to relativistic speed-of-light barriers that exist within space.

I don't know of any laws of relativity that would be broken if the expansion theory were true. 

The speed of light remains intact, and Einstein has no need to roll over in his grave.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Mar 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> I don't think the expansion theory has any bearing on the validity of the Genesis account of creation, either.



 I agree. It has no bearing on it whatsoever.



> _Originally posted by joshua_
> God created a mature earth, and yet it could be expanding from that particular point.



Or, perhaps the Big Bang was part of God's method in creating the universe!

The inflation theory fits easily within a single fraction of a second, not to mention a whole day:



> the universe experienced an explosive *growth spurt within its first trillionth of a trillionth of a second* "” a fleeting moment of hyperexpansion known as inflation. During this interval, the universe's volume probably increased by a staggering 10^60 times (that's a 1 followed by 60 zeroes) or more, *from the size of a marble to the size of today's visible universe. *



Who is to say that the inflation theory isn't true? God could have lit the fuse to the big bang, and then a "trillionth of a trillionth of a second" later, the universe was enormous, ready for God to spend the rest of the day creating things in it.

There are lots of trillionths of seconds in a single day. Who is to say that the universe's "inflation" didn't happen in the first second on the first day in Genesis? Maybe God's "Let there be light" fiat is just what lit the fuse to this great explosion.


I think we should judge science by Scripture, not Scripture by science. But why try to introduce tension between the two when it is not necessary?

[Edited on 3-21-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Scott (Mar 21, 2006)

Joe: Would the formation of stars and the like relative to the planets and days fit the Genesis order of creation? Don't know - just asking.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> That question sounds good at first, but I think it is actually a category mistake.
> 
> ...



I see your point, Joseph, but I somewhat disagree. Space, at least as physicists define it, is defined by what is in it. So if the universe exanded so quickly in so short of a time, objects and/or energy within the universe move away from other objects, etc., at a rate faster than light's speed.

But I concur with the other things you wrote. When God said "Let there be light", it was. I tend to think that the moment of creation very much was a Big Bang, but not one that the physicists envsion. What is interesting is that the evidence points to an expansion of something that is faster than anything that they can explain. I suspect observations like this is what is driving all the efforts to come up with some of the brane and multiple dimension models.

Space, time, energy, and all the other building blocks of creation showed up ex nihilo and suddenly. Physicists, in their sophistication, bump against that reality and cannot say anything more.

Vic


----------



## JohnV (Mar 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JohnV_
> ...



So you're saying the "inside" expanded slower than the "outside"?


----------



## kceaster (Mar 22, 2006)

I've been laughing about this since I first heard it in Physics class in High School. The only thing taking them back to the trillionth second is their own imagination. Unless they have some sort of ancient recording device it's all speculation and sinful presupposition.

We need to remember one thing about science. Unless it is done by the rule of God, it is bound to be skewed by man. If we think for one moment that a scientist is bound by his own integrity to give the truth about the universe, we deny that man is totally depraved in all his faculties and what's worse, he suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. Unless he's being renewed in his mind, he interprets the universe against the better notion of God. Thus, all the work that is built upon his will have the same slant.

Does that mean all scientific discoveries are wrong? No. We have a sovereign God at the helm. He reveals the truth no matter what man says it is. But, He also sends them strong delusions and gives them over to the depravity of their minds so that they believe a lie.

I have one question: If there was such a thing as a big bang, how has our planet avoided tumbling? Because of the sun's gravity? How long would it take the sun to "stabilize" the tumble? In stabilizing it, would it not have destroyed much of earth in order to do so? Science has told us how delicate our environment is and how devistating a planetary shift can be. So, how is it that our planet is not more disorderly? Moreover, If we roll a ball along the floor and it doesn't hit anything, then it relatively continues the same spin until it comes to rest. But there is no floor in space. If we throw a ball in the air, it continues in relatively the same spin because we threw it using fingers that guided it's trajectory. There weren't any fingers in space. So when something explodes, the debris tumbles, and the tumble is caused by the energy, mass, and gravity. There is gravity from the sun and other heavenly bodies, but is it enough to break the tumbling and put it into a controlled spin and tilt on axis? Is the sun also powerful enough to control the spin and tilt and all orbit of every satellite, rock, moon, and planet? Science would say yes, but they can't explain how. 

What is gravity anyway? It's just a name we gave some observable force but we can't see it, touch it, weigh it, know it's mass or shape. What keeps it in force? What gives it its strength? It's cute to call stuff dark energy, but it's entirely a different thing to say you know something and base your findings off of something you can't explain. Christians have a defense for this. It's called the transcendence of God and the creator/creature distinction. But science claims no such defense, in fact, they think it's weak. Newton observed something fall and called it gravity. He could explain what happens to the object, but he couldn't explain the force. He simply noticed that it was. From there, everyone after him took off on explaining everything with gravity.

But what if gravity is simply the power of God upholding all things as He created them. What if there is no force? What if it is all God doing what He does. Our metaphysical minds can't wrap around that. We think there must be some material or created thing. What if gravity is just God? What if there was no big bang, but He just spoke it into existence? One thing we should all maintain is that if a big explosion happened, it is as a result of God's speaking it into existence. The raw materials weren't there before. There was no primordial soup circling a cosmic maelstrom in which particles collided and exploded.

We like the big bang because it fits our own skewed view of the data. And let's look at that data. We collected, contrived, calculated, and conjured it. Each new "discovery" led to another postulation. But science has a certain arrogance. Try to accuse them of writing a novel, imagining a monster or some mythical beast, and they'll scoff back at you, ridiculing your apparent stupidity. But they can't explain it and they'll never be able to. The wisest man has already lived. There will never be one wiser. And if he says its futility, we better believe that putting all our minds together does not equal a wisdom greater than Solomon. And yet, how wise was he compared with the God who created him?

I've gone on far too long. I'm sorry for the diatribe. I just think we should spend our time and our money on other things than what these scientists have "discovered". 200 years from now, should the Lord tarry, these same scientists will be ridiculed for their primitive and ignorant hypotheses.

I say, why wait?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## satz (Mar 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by victorbravo_
> Yes, I believe in the Big Bang, but no the popular one. God said, "Let there be. . ." and BANG, it was.
> 
> Vic


----------



## Scott (Mar 22, 2006)

"Yes, I believe in the Big Bang, but no the popular one. God said, "Let there be. . ." and BANG, it was."

What do you think the significance of the different galaxies moving away from each other is?


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 22, 2006)

I don't think I can assign any significance to it, Scott. It either is or isn't.

I'm not all that convinced that all of the galaxies are moving away that quickly, but that is because of the limits of observational astonomy. The conclusion relies upon a red-shift. Now, if our instantly-exanding universe from 13 billion years ago did what we are told it did, that suggests, to me at least, that the assumptions behind the observed red shift may be wrong or changeable.

That's just a long-winded way of saying that God's ways are amazing and his purposes, if not revealed, are unknowable.

For all I know, the only reason God shows us an expanding universe is to confound the philosophers who think that there is no end or beginning.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 22, 2006)

> _from Kevin_
> I have one question: If there was such a thing as a big bang, how has our planet avoided tumbling? Because of the sun's gravity? How long would it take the sun to "stabilize" the tumble? In stabilizing it, would it not have destroyed much of earth in order to do so? Science has told us how delicate our environment is and how devistating a planetary shift can be. So, how is it that our planet is not more disorderly? Moreover, If we roll a ball along the floor and it doesn't hit anything, then it relatively continues the same spin until it comes to rest. But there is no floor in space. If we throw a ball in the air, it continues in relatively the same spin because we threw it using fingers that guided it's trajectory. There weren't any fingers in space. So when something explodes, the debris tumbles, and the tumble is caused by the energy, mass, and gravity. There is gravity from the sun and other heavenly bodies, but is it enough to break the tumbling and put it into a controlled spin and tilt on axis? Is the sun also powerful enough to control the spin and tilt and all orbit of every satellite, rock, moon, and planet? Science would say yes, but they can't explain how.



Whoa!!! Good question, Kevin. So much for that delicate balance of nature, huh?

Have you ever seen that science exhibit of the self-sustaining mini-world? It a clear ball of about five of six feet diameter, about a third filled with murky water, some plant life, and some tiny creatures swimming in the mire. And about fourtern feet away is this stage-light-type lamp shining on it, as if it were the sun for that little world. It is supposed to be a self-sustaining world all its own for about five to seven years, if I remember correctly. 

Anyways, your question remininded me of that, because the chord for the lamp was laying of the floor, and my son almost tripped over it, which might have pulled it from its socket, causing the god-scientist to do some serious scrambling to save their planet, don't you think? 

Maybe we can give your theory a name, like the Missing Wobble Phenomenon, or something like that.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 23, 2006)

John, that reminded me of Biosphere 2, in which the bionauts were at risk from an odd decrease in oxygen levels. It is very hard to get it "just right".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2

Vic


----------



## kceaster (Mar 24, 2006)

*John...*

I had another thought, if the wobble was not corrected by the sun's gravity within short order, we may have to shave millenia off the evolutionary time scheme, because the climate would have not been stabilized enough to support life. It could be that whatever life is postulated to have existd would be destroyed over and over again until the delicate balance was right.

Scientists have already postulated that any life on Mars was destroyed by planetary wobble. And the current theory is that the dinosaurs may have become extinct because of the same sort of climate shift due to a planetary wobble which they say they have proof for.

15 billion years ago is a long time for these things to work themselves out, but I think it is highly unlikely that life could just begin on what should have been a very lifeless rock. Some space organism gets through whatever atmosphere the earth had and then it crashes into the primordial pool and thrives?

Even if the sun could correct the wobble and get the earth into somewhat of a regular orbit, how in the world did an atmosphere ever stablilize in that system? What would make the earth become more orderly and stable, when the supposed life and atmosphere on Mars was obliterated by the same kind of wobble and became disorderly and unstable?

We're just lucky I guess.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Scott (Mar 24, 2006)

You guys might like The Privileged Planet and/or the related book.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> Even if the sun could correct the wobble and get the earth into somewhat of a regular orbit, how in the world did an atmosphere ever stablilize in that system? What would make the earth become more orderly and stable, when the supposed life and atmosphere on Mars was obliterated by the same kind of wobble and became disorderly and unstable?
> 
> ...


Kevin:

I would think that we would have to conclude that life did not just come about by chance, but was continuously persistent in spite of chance. It would not quit trying no matter what. Evolutionists would have to redo their math of probabilities. 

A question that I have had ready for quite a while now, in relation to theories which are considered alternatives to the six-day fiat creation, is, "Where was the earth on the first day?" This scenario that you put forward is the same thing that I had in mind. If the sun was not created until the fourth day, then what was "stabalizing" the earth for the things to happen that happened on the second and third days? When you think about it, the problem of counting days by the sun alone disappears. The "wobble effect" was already solved, if it existed at all, before the sun came to be, and a day was a day whether the sun was there or not. For the simple truth is: the sun came after things were set in order. 

In other words, six-day creationists have an answer for the "wobble effect" that is consistent and simple, while others need to mine an answer out of somewhere. That is, all that can be done is to give possibilities, but no real answer.


----------

