Space

[blood_pardon]

How did space come into existance?

[Phi for All]

One model that has LOTS of evidence to support it is that about 13.7 billion years ago, all matter was compressed into a single point under tremendous pressure which then underwent cosmic inflation, resulting in an exponential expansion of what we now call space.

 

This is a very simple explanation of the Big Bang theory. How detailed an answer were you looking for?

[mooeypoo]

How about you tell us how you think it came into existence? seeing as we are not likely to answer this question to your satisfaction, let's jump straight to the crux of matters and see if we can discuss a possible theory you may have.

[blood_pardon]

One model that has LOTS of evidence to support it is that about 13.7 billion years ago' date=' all MATTER was compressed into a single point under tremendous pressure which then underwent cosmic inflation, resulting in an exponential expansion of what we now call space.

 

This is a very simple explanation of the Big Bang theory. How detailed an answer were you looking for?[/quote']

 

That answers how matter came into existance but Im pondering where space came from. On wikipedia it says the BB theory only explains that at one point the universe was a hot molten state but it doesnt explain anything past the epoch era, I think.

 

How about you tell us how you think it came into existence? seeing as we are not likely to answer this question to your satisfaction, let's jump straight to the crux of matters and see if we can discuss a possible theory you may have.

 

I think God spoke it into existance. I appreciate all serious responses I get on a thread.

[mooeypoo]

That answers how matter came into existance but Im pondering where space came from. On wikipedia it says the BB theory only explains that at one point the universe was a hot molten state but it doesnt explain anything past the epoch era, I think.

That's because the "big bang" theory speaks specifically about the creation of the universe, and not about other phenomena.

 

I think God spoke it into existance. I appreciate all serious responses I get on a thread.

We don't discuss religion in this forum, there are plenty of other forums that will oblige such discussions. We're not one of those.

 

So.. once again, but with science now. Do you have a scientifically relevant theory worth discussing?

[ydoaPs]

That answers how matter came into existance but Im pondering where space came from.

Matter is needed for space. As space is the separation of objects, and time is merely the separation of states of a system. Both are relative and the magnitude of each is determined by the energy density(which varies by location and reference frame). To have a distance(space), there must be a reference by which such distance can be theoretically measured. A universe consisting sole zero-dimensional point has no space. If this universe does not change, then it also has no time.

 

I think God spoke it into existance.

Why do you think this? When do you think this happened?

[mooeypoo]

Also, you might do well to search the forum for "big bang" theories and read the threads. We've had TONS of discussions about the theory's viability and the evidence for it.

[ydoaPs]

That's because the "big bang" theory speaks specifically about the creation of the universe, and not about other phenomena.

IIRC, the BB says nothing of the origin, but rather of expansion.

 

 

We don't discuss religion in this forum, there are plenty of other forums that will oblige such discussions. We're not one of those.

Surely we can hear him out first. Perhaps he has evidence to support his stance.

[mooeypoo]

IIRC, the BB says nothing of the origin, but rather of expansion.

You're right, it explains how the singularity expanded and not where it came from. True dat.

 

It's also well evidenced in observations and mathematics. Just saying.

Surely we can hear him out first. Perhaps he has evidence to support his stance.

 

ydoaPs, you know better, and if you forgot, then the rules are clear. Stop trying to stir the pot. There's a reason why we don't discuss religion. If the poster would like to post scientific evidence as to whatever alternative theory, he's welcome to, but the issue of 'God', bein completely outside the laws of physics is therefore *non scientific* and not a valid topic for debate.

 

 

In any case, this is a science forum, not a religious one. Claims should be supported by valid evidence.

 

~moo

[blood_pardon]

Matter is needed for space. As space is the separation of objects, and time is merely the separation of states of a system. Both are relative and the magnitude of each is determined by the energy density(which varies by location and reference frame). To have a distance(space), there must be a reference by which such distance can be theoretically measured. A universe consisting sole zero-dimensional point has no space. If this universe does not change, then it also has no time.

 

Getting on that train of thought, do you think if you got in a space ship and travelled in one direction would space have to always exist for you? I think you are suggesting that space is only a result of matter. The same is true vice versa though. Space must exist for matter to exist. I think its like asking which came first the chicken or the egg?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Why do you think this? When do you think this happened?

 

The mod warned me not to talk about religion all I can tell you is I believe it because the bible says so, and I believe the bible because of personal encounters with the supernatural. I think it happened less than 7 thousand years ago.

[ydoaPs]

It's also well evidenced in observations and mathematics. Just saying.

I didn't dispute that.

 

 

ydoaPs, you know better, and if you forgot, then the rules are clear. Stop trying to stir the pot.

In what way did I 'stir the pot'? I merely answered the OP, politely opened the lines of communication by asking for clarification(something YOU did as well) of his position in a non-threatening manner, and nitpicked your post a little.

 

There's a reason why we don't discuss religion.

And that's one of the reasons I didn't discuss religion.

 

In any case, this is a science forum, not a religious one. Claims should be supported by valid evidence.

 

~moo

You didn't give him a chance to do so before you got hostile. I suggest you may need to sit this one out and leave it to the other mods.

 

 

Getting on that train of thought, do you think if you got in a space ship and travelled in one direction would space have to always exist for you?

What do you mean? I am a composite being, so space always exists for me.

 

I think you are suggesting that space is only a result of matter.

Indeed. And the magnitude of the distance between objects is based upon the energy in the frame of reference.

 

The same is true vice versa though. Space must exist for matter to exist.

Not really. See my example in my above post about the spaceless universe consisting of a sole non-composite particle.

 

 

The mod warned me not to talk about religion all I can tell you is I believe it because the bible says so, and I believe the bible because of personal encounters with the supernatural.

If you would like to discuss such matters, I do moderate a forum about religion(in which all viewpoints are encouraged to engage in discussion so long as they can do so civilly). It's http://somefaith.proboards.com

We're actually quite low on people from your particular viewpoint. Feel free to bring some friends if you decide to check it out.

 

I think it happened less than 7 thousand years ago.

Now this is a scientific claim. It's something falsafiable(which just means that it is able to be proven or proven to be false). There are indeed several reasons to think the Earth(and the universe in general) are far older than 7 thousand years.

[mooeypoo]

Getting on that train of thought, do you think if you got in a space ship and travelled in one direction would space have to always exist for you? I think you are suggesting that space is only a result of matter. The same is true vice versa though. Space must exist for matter to exist. I think its like asking which came first the chicken or the egg?

That might be true, but this philosophical question goes endlessly. No matter what 'entity' you propose came the first'est first, there had to be something before it. If not, then it is nothing more than special pleeding, where *EVERYTHING* must have a cause, except X. Just because.

 

Comfortable, but not science.

 

The mod warned me not to talk about religion all I can tell you is I believe it because the bible says so, and I believe the bible because of personal encounters with the supernatural. I think it happened less than 7 thousand years ago.

I warned you not to talk about religion because I knew that you would say that. That's not to say this can't be logically refuted, we are just not getting into these things in this specific forum. In this forum, we debate scientific evidence and follow the scientific method. Obviously, following a written book blindly stands in contrast to these concepts.

 

So, moving on, I recommend you form an actual question we could debate, rather than reverting to arguments that are bound to produce repetitive logical fallacies instead.

 

~moo

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Now this is a scientific claim. It's something falsafiable(which just means that it is able to be proven or proven to be false). There are indeed several reasons to think the Earth(and the universe in general) are far older than 7 thousand years.

Yes, it is a scientific claim, however it is so absolutely preposterous that it's hard to know where to start.

 

Should we discuss the geological evidence that show us for a fact that this isn't so? Should we, perhaps, go over our observation of the universe that show without a shadow of a doubt that this just cannot be? or should we discuss the philosophical implications of a god that insists on doing everything in his power to cheat us into thinking he can't possibly have done what the bible said he has done just for the sake of feeling big and strong?

 

The moment you get into the actual evidence, you can't argue logically that the world is 7thousand years old without ignoring evidence or suggesting the evidence was planted by a supposedly benevolent god. Neither of those are a valid conduit for a scientific discussion, and judging from blood_pardon's other posts, it's doubtful to lead anywhere.

 

Where do we start? Pick one.

[ydoaPs]

 

Yes, it is a scientific claim, however it is so absolutely preposterous that it's hard to know where to start.

 

Should we discuss the geological evidence that show us for a fact that this isn't so? Should we, perhaps, go over our observation of the universe that show without a shadow of a doubt that this just cannot be?

Perhaps we should. Maybe the OP has not been exposed to the evidence. I, for one, was an ignorant YEC when I began posting here all those years ago. It wouldn't be the first time someone saw the evidence and went with it.

 

The moment you get into the actual evidence, you can't argue logically that the world is 7thousand years old without ignoring evidence or suggesting the evidence was planted by a supposedly benevolent god.

So we should deprive him of the evidence?

 

Neither of those are a valid conduit for a scientific discussion, and judging from blood_pardon's other posts, it's doubtful to lead anywhere.

Maybe that is true, but I've not seen his other posts and I'd like to give him a chance. Even if you're out I'm going to give it a try unless the OP proves to be a troll.

[mooeypoo]

Perhaps we should. Maybe the OP has not been exposed to the evidence. I, for one, was an ignorant YEC when I began posting here all those years ago. It wouldn't be the first time someone saw the evidence and went with it.

Alright, fair enough.

 

It's late here, and I need to go to sleep, but I suggest we start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html seeing as it covers the VAST MAJORITY of the usual misconceptions and claims about the age of the Earth.

[ydoaPs]

Alright, fair enough.

 

It's late here, and I need to go to sleep, but I suggest we start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html seeing as it covers the VAST MAJORITY of the usual misconceptions and claims about the age of the Earth.

 

Talkorigins is a great resource and it cites its sources.

Edited January 21, 2010 by ydoaPs

[blood_pardon]

Not really. See my example in my above post about the spaceless universe consisting of a sole non-composite particle.

 

Non-composite particles is wording I haven't yet come across but the image has been hovering around my thoughts. Imagining the "area" surrounding this particle is impossible I think. Perhaps you have the words that would best describe such a space-less state.

If this single particle is the only thing in existance what could possibly cause that one particle to begin to multiply? Your best guess?

Is this one particle of space eternal or did it have a begining? As long as there is space it can be measured with time, so if it is eternal time is eternal.

 

If you would like to discuss such matters' date=' I do moderate a forum about religion(in which all viewpoints are encouraged to engage in discussion so long as they can do so civilly). It's http://somefaith.proboards.com

We're actually quite low on people from your particular viewpoint. Feel free to bring some friends if you decide to check it out.[/quote']

 

Thanks for the invite Ill be sure to register.

 

 

Now this is a scientific claim. It's something falsafiable(which just means that it is able to be proven or proven to be false). There are indeed several reasons to think the Earth(and the universe in general) are far older than 7 thousand years.

 

All the dating methods I have researched are based off gross assumptions.

[mv]

This recent article about the Universe may help:

http://searchwarp.com/swa562857-One-Way-To-Explain-The-Universe.htm

[ydoaPs]

Non-composite particles is wording I haven't yet come across but the image has been hovering around my thoughts.

A more familiar word may be 'fundamental' particle. It is exactly what it sounds like-a particle that is not made of anything else.

 

As long as there is space it can be measured with time

Not true. If the non-composite particle changed some property, it would still be spaceless, but not timeless.

 

 

 

All the dating methods I have researched are based off gross assumptions.

 

Could you elaborate?

[blood_pardon]

Not true. If the non-composite particle changed some property, it would still be spaceless, but not timeless.

 

I disagee, as long as a 'piece' of our universe exists (matter or space) it can be dated back with time. In other words even if was trillions of years ago and it was only black space it still existed, and can technically be dated back.

 

What are the properties to a non-composite particle?

 

would you elaborate?

 

For example carbon-14 dating is based assumptions:

 

1.Rate of decay stays constant

2. The sample has undergone NO contamination

3. Carbon 14 and Carbon 12 ratio has been constant

[toastywombel]

1. Something that is existing in space completely isolated for trillions of years could not be dated back accurately.

 

The big bang happened 13 billion or so years ago. This was when time and space first came into existence as we know it. How would you date something older than time itself?

 

2. On your questions about the properties of fundamental particles, they sometimes vary, but fundamental particles exhibit a particle/wave duality. If you look over these two links you may get a better idea of it.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality

 

3. To say that Carbon-14 dating is based off just assumptions, is wildly misleading.

[Sisyphus]

For example carbon-14 dating is based assumptions:

 

1.Rate of decay stays constant

2. The sample has undergone NO contamination

3. Carbon 14 and Carbon 12 ratio has been constant

 

I recommend you have a look at that link to talkorigins. Here it is again:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

[Phi for All]

I recommend you have a look at that link to talkorigins. Here it is again:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

It would be so gratifying to have someone with these anti-evolution views actually have the intellectual honesty to study the evidence at talkorigins.org instead of just listening to the anti-evolution side. How can anyone remain so adamant when they won't study both sides? Is it simply because creationism is quicker to study than the mounds of studies on evolution?

[Mr Skeptic]

That might be true, but this philosophical question goes endlessly. No matter what 'entity' you propose came the first'est first, there had to be something before it. If not, then it is nothing more than special pleeding, where *EVERYTHING* must have a cause, except X. Just because.

 

Comfortable, but not science.

 

Special pleading how? Some things don't need a cause, God being one of them. Numbers are another. Anything that has not always existed needs a cause. Anything that has always existed cannot have a cause. Some theories allow for a universe that has always existed, and the major benefit of these is that then the universe does not need a cause.

 

Looks like you are the one doing special pleading here.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I think God spoke it into existance. I appreciate all serious responses I get on a thread.

 

Fair enough, but remember, this is science we are talking about. Any theory that provides more detail than yours while predicting the facts, will be a superior theory. Can you tell under what conditions God would create a universe? Can you tell what a universe created by God would look like? Can you perhaps tell under what conditions God would end a universe? How many universes God would make? When God would make a universe?

 

It's not about "evidence", it is about "scientific evidence". That means prediction. Retroactive prediction, or future prediction, but it has to be prediction, not just "fitting the facts". It has to predict the facts. Can you predict your God's actions and methods? Proposing God as a scientific explanation is insulting him, because then you claim to be smarter than he is.

 

Also, any theory that makes equivalent predictions has equivalent worth. Why God and not an invisible pink unicorn?

Edited January 21, 2010 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.

[mooeypoo]

Special pleading how? Some things don't need a cause, God being one of them.

Then why not the big bang? If you say the big bang must have a cause, but God doesn't need to require a cause, then you are special pleading.

 

BTW, I don't mean to open a theological argument.. some people claim God is above the laws of nature (which, btw, makes her absolutely irrelevant as a scientific subject, even if possibly relevant for moral/subjective arguments) in which case special pleading is obvious -- god's outside of space and time (and therefore outside of physics) which is why god is special. That's a special pleading with a reason (that turns it non-scientific discussion), but it's still special pleading.

[Syntho-sis]

It would be so gratifying to have someone with these anti-evolution views actually have the intellectual honesty to study the evidence at talkorigins.org instead of just listening to the anti-evolution side. How can anyone remain so adamant when they won't study both sides? Is it simply because creationism is quicker to study than the mounds of studies on evolution?

 

Probably, I've noticed most people are either not intellectually capable of understanding the ideas or they're just lazy.

 

As evidenced by browsing through any piece of creationist literature.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Then why not the big bang? If you say the big bang must have a cause, but God doesn't need to require a cause, then you are special pleading.

 

BTW, I don't mean to open a theological argument.. some people claim God is above the laws of nature (which, btw, makes her absolutely irrelevant as a scientific subject, even if possibly relevant for moral/subjective arguments) in which case special pleading is obvious -- god's outside of space and time (and therefore outside of physics) which is why god is special. That's a special pleading with a reason (that turns it non-scientific discussion), but it's still special pleading.

 

Well I think that we can all agree that the BB did have a cause...Right?

Hello?