Universe created by God

[Write4U]

I dont think there is anything to support inflation via observation and although the maths can support it I find the notion simply not believable.

Consider that this happened in a purely permittive condition and universal (physical) laws did not yet exist at that time. They came later with the creation of space and physical objects and the mathematical restrictions and permissions imposed by physical interactions.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/great-math-mystery.html

 

[Seattle]

Do you know how big the universe was when the radiation was given off?
My understanding is as a result of the inflation stage it must have been quiet large by the time the radiation was generated.



You are probably right.

Well you are right as I have nothing in the way of a scientific education (other than high school and casual reading) and certainly my questions are from ignorance of what science may actually be saying...that is certainly a reasonable observation.

It boils down to the fact that I percieve the Big Bang leads us to a point of creation and I bet there are many happy with that journey simply because it could be used to support the notion of a God via a creation point.... as I said makes me uncomfortable.

And there are many religious folk who see the big bang as evidence of God and creation ... not just catholic church but I have heard Muslims (on line) do what I suggest... A section only but what I suggest I take as a fact.



I certainly dont like the idea of inflation where we go from zip to almost full size in less than a second.. that seems supernatural...but I am not sure if the theory of inflation is a placeholder or if folk are happy that such could occur.

I just consider the vastness of the universe and look at the galaxies out there ( consider the various Hubble Space Telescope photos of a small region with thousands of galaxies) and just can not accept that everything went from nothing to almost all there is in a split second. I get the idea that it was space expanding and not subject to the speed limit but the theory presents a growth that is for any purpose is instant.

As Neil DeGrasse puts it..in under a zillionth of a zillionth of a zillionth of a second... Give inflation a whole second and it seems unbelievable...How else could you describe it other than instant growth?

Maybe its my little human brain but it surprises me that no one wonders similar... Have you thought about it at all... it is really instant..from small..what size of a grape fruit..just to the size of a single gallaxy is hard to swallow but to all there is??? heck even the Pope gives creation six or seven days.


I dont think there is anything to support inflation via observation and although the maths can support it I find the notion simply not believable.

In fact if we are to go with the Big Bang Theory I think that in a desperate effort to save the BB theory inflation was seized upon in haste. As I understand the theory was confronted with the percieved problem of how did everything end up the same and inflation was the answer..Maybe the percieved problem was not a problem and they ran down the wrong road. Maybe space etc has an internal quality dictating that it will be a certain way which results in stuff on either side being the same.

Give me something better than inflation and I would be happier.


Do you know how big did the universe grow at the end of inflation?Presuming it was rather large at that point why would it still be considered dense and hot.

I suppose what I need to know is how big it was after inflation and is that size consistent with it being still dense and still hot but I think the way it goes it certainly was not in anyway small?

I think the church approves of the big bang which for me is a great reason to look for an alternative. They are not known to rush to support science it seems to me and yet on this aspect are on board. Why? because the science was beyond doubt? yeh sure... the church does not seem to embrace new ideas even when they are supported by science and observation...heck they have only recently moved past the Earth being the center of the universe... I see something not quiet right here and inconsistent with their general approach to new ideas.


I doubt if the church would be happy if science was able to say "and before t=0 we can show that the pre existing conditions resulted from the colapse of an earlier universe"..Would the church remain on board if they were faced with science taking away their creation point.

You suggest science can not be influenced by religion well I do not agree...religion can influence anything and if you underestimate their ability to exert influence I say you are not being realistic.

So here I find myself not believing in anything other than my non belief in anything.

And thank you for helping me here I do appreciate your effort.

alex

No one has an answer for the Singularity and that is why that isn't included in the BB theory. Inflation solves some problems but, as you say, it is hard to believe and there is no known physics for that either.

The physics that we know comes into play just after the BB so most everyone understands not to read too much into what came before that. Most certainly it isn't a perfect theory. It just happens to explain all observations, data, predictions that come afterward.

The other hypotheses don't.

The church (any church/religion) is going to do what they need to do regardless of the theory. They are going to insert God into any gap in our present knowledge whether it's the BB or an eternal universe.

If there was no creation event and we were talking about an eternal universe they would simply say, "Who is eternal...God".

The best way to think about the Big Bang is with a large universe, just one that is now larger, cooler and less dense. I look at it, like most other theories, as a place holder that may be changed if another even more accurate theory comes along.

I don't look at it as something that is "wrong" soon to be replaced by something else. We know what we know. That isn't going to change.

Relativity "replaced" Newtonian physics but it didn't change all that we knew. It had to mirror Newtonian physics except in the extreme ranges where Newtonian physics wasn't accurate enough.

Quantum physics is the same. It works very well for the environment for which it was designed. It doesn't work so well as it meets classical physics.

The Solid State model just isn't reflective of what we now know. That doesn't mean that there can't be an infinite universe or an eternal universe before the Big Bang. Everything is up for grabs in those areas where our current answer is "I don't know".

Regarding the universe being large but hot...the sun is large but hot. When fussion is going on, it's hot. There was a period about 300,000 years later where the plasma became opaque and radiation and matter decoupled. Again, all of this is reflected in the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background). The predicted helium fused from hydrogen during that period matches what we observe as well.

Inflation is just working backward to explain what must have happened given the results. No one is confident with the explanation other than it works and no one has come up with a better explanation that still fits the data.

When you have one "story" that fits the data and another one that doesn't, you stay with and improve the one that fits the data until/unless you get a better one.

People complain about dark matter and dark energy. They are place holders but something very similar has to exist since galaxies rotate is ways that require more mass than we observe (dark matter) and since the universe is known to be expanding (dark energy).

That's how science works. Use your best guess and then continually try to improve on it. Improving on it doesn't include making up something that make you feel better if it doesn't fit the data.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

No one has an answer for the Singularity and that is why that isn't included in the BB theory.

First let me say I really do like your post.

It is hard for me to know what is really being said by the scientists.

I think I said as much earlier.

I understand a singularity to mean a point where the maths breaks down but it is my impression many when explaining the BB represent it to mean an extremely small point such that I may have got sidetracked from the science you suggest.

In any event the way you put it sounds reasonable and acceptable.

Inflation solves some problems but, as you say, it is hard to believe and there is no known physics for that either.

That is the most prefererable approach I have read.

I can live with that with no problem.

Most certainly it isn't a perfect theory. It just happens to explain all observations, data, predictions that come afterward.

I think my reaction was in part because it is not usually presented that way.

You will remember Paddoboy...I think he would have treated the matter as being absolutely settled and any questions worthy of ridicule.

I have never felt science was interested in being dogmatic or indeed particularly concerned with an ultimate truth but content with laying out what the data suggests as the most probable explanation without fear or favour as to where that approach leads us.
Models are used to make predictions if the predictions are correct we have a good model.

I look at it, like most other theories, as a place holder that may be changed if another even more accurate theory comes along.

I find your words most refreshing mainly because that is exactly the way I look at it☺.

No one is confident with the explanation other than it works and no one has come up with a better explanation that still fits the data.

Thats ok.

I really think it was introduced to solve a problem that did not exist.

For everything to be the same temp or density I can mott see why particular physics could not dictate that situation irrespective of proximity.


Accepting inflation seems like a rush job that produced an unfortunate explanation and no one has bothered to present a better idea.

People complain about dark matter and dark energy. They are place holders but something very similar has to exist since galaxies rotate is ways that require more mass than we observe (dark matter) and since the universe is known to be expanding (dark energy).

If we knew how gravity works I bet the problem would disappear.

I believe gravity is a form of pressure and if it works that way you would expect exactly what we observe simply because an external force would produce what we observe with no need for any hidden mass.

But GR is jealous of any approach other than what it holds and clearly resents any suggestion that we need to understand the mechanical process.

Of course we do.
Not knowing how gravity works will leave us in the dark trying to make observation fit our theories rather than the other way about.

I believe the need for dark matter will go away when it is known how gravity works.

My external pressure idea certainly fits the observations better than inventing a new sub atomic particle.

Think of spinning a wheel from the outside rather than the inside☺

Use your best guess and then continually try to improve on it. Improving on it doesn't include making up something that make you feel better if it doesn't fit the data.

I agree.

My view of dark matter is it is indeed making up something that does not fit the data.

The galaxies are doing something unexpected so they must hold more matter than we observe ... could our expectations be wrong..no of course not...there must be matter that our sums prove is there...could the sums be wrong..heavens no☺

Alex

 

[Seattle]

First let me say I really do like your post.

It is hard for me to know what is really being said by the scientists.

I think I said as much earlier.

I understand a singularity to mean a point where the maths breaks down but it is my impression many when explaining the BB represent it to mean an extremely small point such that I may have got sidetracked from the science you suggest.

In any event the way you put it sounds reasonable and acceptable.



That is the most prefererable approach I have read.

I can live with that with no problem.



I think my reaction was in part because it is not usually presented that way.

You will remember Paddoboy...I think he would have treated the matter as being absolutely settled and any questions worthy of ridicule.

I have never felt science was interested in being dogmatic or indeed particularly concerned with an ultimate truth but content with laying out what the data suggests as the most probable explanation without fear or favour as to where that approach leads us.
Models are used to make predictions if the predictions are correct we have a good model.



I find your words most refreshing mainly because that is exactly the way I look at it☺.



Thats ok.

I really think it was introduced to solve a problem that did not exist.

For everything to be the same temp or density I can mott see why particular physics could not dictate that situation irrespective of proximity.


Accepting inflation seems like a rush job that produced an unfortunate explanation and no one has bothered to present a better idea.



If we knew how gravity works I bet the problem would disappear.

I believe gravity is a form of pressure and if it works that way you would expect exactly what we observe simply because an external force would produce what we observe with no need for any hidden mass.

But GR is jealous of any approach other than what it holds and clearly resents any suggestion that we need to understand the mechanical process.

Of course we do.
Not knowing how gravity works will leave us in the dark trying to make observation fit our theories rather than the other way about.

I believe the need for dark matter will go away when it is known how gravity works.

My external pressure idea certainly fits the observations better than inventing a new sub atomic particle.

Think of spinning a wheel from the outside rather than the inside☺



I agree.

My view of dark matter is it is indeed making up something that does not fit the data.

The galaxies are doing something unexpected so they must hold more matter than we observe ... could our expectations be wrong..no of course not...there must be matter that our sums prove is there...could the sums be wrong..heavens no☺

Alex

General Relativity is a gravitational theory. It seems to work very accurately for many, many things so it's kind of hard to argue that it must be wrong as opposed to there being more mass than we can detect.

Dark Matter seems to have more testing than Dark Energy. In other words more seems to be "known" about it and it has been indirectly indicated more than Dark Energy. Less is known about Dark Energy. It's probably some kind of vacuum energy (my limited understanding) kind of like an opposing force to gravity.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

General Relativity is a gravitational theory. It seems to work very accurately for many, many things so it's kind of hard to argue that it must be wrong as opposed to there being more mass than we can detect.

I do not see why it is hard to argue that it not appropriate for whatever reason in the case of galaxy rotation curves given to accept that it is appropriate means firstly we need to add 70% more matter to the Universe.
Why would you not stop look at the observation and conclude that the theory must not be working the way it has in other applications.


That seems crazy to me.


GR has proved itself over and over but if you stand back and look at the galaxy rotation curves you have the choice to say maybe GR has missed something here beause it does not fit with what we observe... or you can say well it has always been right so there must be 70% ? more matter than our observations suggest and the only way we can tell that "hidden" matter is there is because GR tell us that it must be there.

I would be more inclinded to think well maybe GR is not appropriate here...why is that approach unreasonable?

Recognise we have found an area of inaplicability or push on making the observation fit the theory...

No different to realising Newtonian Gravity fails at a particular application...it works extremely well to a point...it is used to guide our space craft and plot their course...but it fails to give correct calculation for Mercury.. using the logic that GR could not be wrong would be like observing Mercury and concluding it is not where it is supposed to be and it must therefore be effected by the drag of the unobserved eather which must be there because our theory says Mercury should be somewhere different...tell me what is different here to saying there is matter we cant detect other than by our theory to saying in order to have Mercury fit Newtonian Gravity we must introduce something unevidenced to introduce a non exsistent drag.



Why would you hold onto GR for this application (rotation curves) when to do so means you need to come up with a new particle and rationalise that 70% of matter in the universe consists of this new particle we can not explain, that we can not observe directly or after years of speculation we are still no closer to offering a candidate.



Alex

 

[Seattle]

I do not see why it is hard to argue that it not appropriate for whatever reason in the case of galaxy rotation curves given to accept that it is appropriate means firstly we need to add 70% more matter to the Universe.
Why would you not stop look at the observation and conclude that the theory must not be working the way it has in other applications.


That seems crazy to me.


GR has proved itself over and over but if you stand back and look at the galaxy rotation curves you have the choice to say maybe GR has missed something here beause it does not fit with what we observe... or you can say well it has always been right so there must be 70% ? more matter than our observations suggest and the only way we can tell that "hidden" matter is there is because GR tell us that it must be there.

I would be more inclinded to think well maybe GR is not appropriate here...why is that approach unreasonable?

Recognise we have found an area of inaplicability or push on making the observation fit the theory...

No different to realising Newtonian Gravity fails at a particular application...it works extremely well to a point...it is used to guide our space craft and plot their course...but it fails to give correct calculation for Mercury.. using the logic that GR could not be wrong would be like observing Mercury and concluding it is not where it is supposed to be and it must therefore be effected by the drag of the unobserved eather which must be there because our theory says Mercury should be somewhere different...tell me what is different here to saying there is matter we cant detect other than by our theory to saying in order to have Mercury fit Newtonian Gravity we must introduce something unevidenced to introduce a non exsistent drag.



Why would you hold onto GR for this application (rotation curves) when to do so means you need to come up with a new particle and rationalise that 70% of matter in the universe consists of this new particle we can not explain, that we can not observe directly or after years of speculation we are still no closer to offering a candidate.



Alex

If I have a theory of physics that explains everything in my world except for why the leaves sometimes move back and forth should I dismiss this concept of "the wind" even though I can't see it and I don't know what it is?

If I don't replace it with something that is even better why would I do this? You seem to be arguing that we suspend our modern physics (GR) and make up something that only applies to situations where dark matter is a factor.

There would be no basis for doing that because we don't know what is going on. Should we just ignore it? To replace it with something means that "something" has to explain everything that GR does plus galaxy rotation. No one has that answer.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

If I don't replace it with something that is even better why would I do this?

I see your point.

Dont you think however when confronted with the proposition that dark matter means we need a new unseen particle that is supposed to make up 70% or whatever the estimate is...that just maybe we need to step back and question what we know or think we know?

You seem to be arguing that we suspend our modern physics (GR) and make up something that only applies to situations where dark matter is a factor.

I am not suggesting we suspend modern physics at all although I can understand why I may give that impression.

I dont know what we need do other than recognise GR may not apply...is that so bad?

Think of it this way ...because everyone now takes dark matter as a given who is considering the possibility it may not apply...only me?


I think the greatest mistake a human can make is to assume they must be right and often a sure sign someone is wrong is the intensity with which they defend their position.

All I am suggesting is for what ever reason GR may not tell the story and being confronted with an observation that we are way way out on our prediction that should or must cause a rethink is all I suggest.

After all what must a scientific model do..it must make correct predictions..

If nothing else when the observation of the curves showed GR failed its prediction surely at that point one would think mmm maybe we need a rethink...and of course now GR makes the prediction of dark matter...if it becomes clear dark matter does not exist does that mean we would throw out GR or would we use it where it applies but not on galaxy curves.
We did not throw Newtonian Gravity away in fact is is used most sucessfully for space travell.

To replace it with something means that "something" has to explain everything that GR does plus galaxy rotation.

Perhaps that is true so I suggest looking at gravity as a force similar to pressure☺

And you are correct that the current method of scientific models requires the new model to replace the old and do it better...so we have an impass until a better model replaces GR but if you go with that then use only GR to handle space travell and throw Newtonian Gravity in the bin.

As that is unthinkable we will some how have to view the universe as being made up mostly of stuff unlike us and just so much more of that stuff.

Alex

 

[sweetpea]

The question being what is nature?

Your belief seems to be God is the Universe and as such was not created by a god.
My version of Nature is... Whatever I experience and see of the Universe without having to evoke a supernatural presence.

 

[Michael 345]

Dont you think however when confronted with the proposition that dark matter means we need a new unseen particle that is supposed to make up 70% or whatever the estimate is...that just maybe we need to step back and question what we know or think we know?

Calling what we don't know (the 70% extra which appears to be required to fit the observations) Dark Matter is no different to calling unknown rays X-rays BEFORE their nature was discovered and understood

In the case of X-rays the name stuck and in much the same manner Big Bang has stuck

Dark Matter is as someone notes a place marker

When the explanation is found it might stick or perhaps another catchy name given

The observations matter and need to match up with our understanding. If stuff needs to be recalibrated and the pigeon droppings swept out so be it

Not the pigeon droppings? well keep looking

 

[Bowser]

In any event it boils down to this I should not be forcing you to confront inconsistencies that have to do with your belief and say sorry for being difficult.

This isn't a competition. I'm not arguing. You want me to frame my answers so they will conform to a concept you are holding. It would be like boxing infinity. It can't be done.

 

[Seattle]

Think of it this way ...because everyone now takes dark matter as a given who is considering the possibility it may not apply...only me?

Do you really think this is the case, that only you are questioning dark matter? Everything is questioned all the time, the BB, Relativity, Quantum Physics. It's easy to question. It's more difficult to find something better. Especially after a theory has been validated for years many times. You are assuming that Dark Matter is Relativity not working. The evidence points to it being a case where Relativity is working and pointing us to something where our knowledge may increase at some point.

We did not throw Newtonian Gravity away in fact is is used most sucessfully for space travell.

It's a simpler calculation. Relativity was not needed. It's not that it didn't apply.

Perhaps that is true so I suggest looking at gravity as a force similar to pressure☺

Based on what?

And you are correct that the current method of scientific models requires the new model to replace the old and do it better...so we have an impass until a better model replaces GR but if you go with that then use only GR to handle space travell and throw Newtonian Gravity in the bin.

As I pointed out above, it's an easier calculation and not necessary. If you are planning a trip across Australia do you use time and distance or do you resort to Relativity calculations? Relativity would result in the more accurate number.

 

[spidergoat]

This isn't a competition. I'm not arguing. You want me to frame my answers so they will conform to a concept you are holding. It would be like boxing infinity. It can't be done.

Don't expect anyone to take this idea seriously then, you can't be bothered to explain or defend it. It's just an (incoherent) idea that satisfies some psychological need of yours.

 

[Bowser]

Don't expect anyone to take this idea seriously then, you can't be bothered to explain or defend it. It's just an (incoherent) idea that satisfies some psychological need of yours.

I see no need to try convincing you or anyone else. You are part of and a function of the larger picture, willing or not.

It's not so much an idea as it is a realization that I am at home--always have been. As are you, which puts me at the point of view that all of us are of the same stuff, identities aside.

Do you understand why they say God knows all?

 

[Michael 345]

Do you understand why they say God knows all?

No please explain

 

[Bowser]

No please explain

Everything is God. There's nowhere to turn without being within the presence of God.

 

[Write4U]

Everything is God. There's nowhere to turn without being within the presence of God.

Well, you must admit there have been places and times where God was not present, but the Devil ruled supreme. Dachau, Auschwitz, Mauthausen, to name just three.

The „stairs of death“ in the Wiener Graben quarry. (Photo: Archiv der KZ-Gedenkstätte Mauthausen, courtesy of USHMM Photo Archives .)
https://www.holocaust.cz/en/history/concentration-camps-and-ghettos/mauthausen/

 

[RainbowSingularity]

The stars obey laws

obedience ...
more accurately they follow forms of functional known formuli as we observe them.

how qwasars and black holes work is outside current scientific knowledge inspite of being able to observe them in relatavistic terms.

observation does not mean comprehention, and thus to which if any particular laws they supposedly adhere to... is yet to be discovered.

to discover or uncover...
interesting current discusion as a species evolutionary concept.

 

[Michael 345]

Everything is God. There's nowhere to turn without being within the presence of God.

Strange almost the same stuff I sprouted about 60 years ago

Scene

My grandmother's lounge in London
I had just come back from some sort of church meeting, evening time
A few of the family were all around
I was sprouting god is everywhere
Grandma pointed to the war time food ration book on the table
Is he there?
Yes
Tell him to put more food coupons in the book

I can't explain why but 2 seconds later I was a atheist

Thanks for reminding me

 

[spidergoat]

Everything is God. There's nowhere to turn without being within the presence of God.

How do you know?

 

[sideshowbob]

It would be like boxing infinity. It can't be done.

Sure it can. You just need an infinite box.