Attn B.a.a - Beginning Of The Universe Question

[bornagainathiest]

On 25/04/2017 at 2:37 AM, LogicalFallacy said:

Hi BAA

 

Just recapping my understanding of the Copernican principle: "Basically the Copernican principle states that earth does not occupy a privileged position in the universe - essentially we are not the center of either our solar system, our galaxy, or the universe as a whole. It also states that on very large scales the universe is the same everywhere, and looks the same when viewed from any location."

 

So looking at your first image, it appears each progression is zooming up on the spherical image to the point where it actually appears nearly flat (Which earth does when not viewed from a distance far enough away)

 

The second one is doubling the number at each progressive square - except by the end its just a big pile with no visual way of confirming if it is double the previous pile.

 

The third is similar, except a bunch of squares hasn't been filled out and a random number put there instead. Am I correct in saying that 2 power of 63 is incorrect and that it should be 2 power of 64? (Being 64 squares on the board?) 

 

The forth one I'm scratching my head at what its getting at.. no doubt you will fill in

 

 

Hi LF!

 

The first, four-step image is often used to explain the very early growth of the universe as it undergoes a process called inflation.

But I'll be adapting that graphic and using it to explain how to apply the Copernican principle correctly to inflation.  To do this I'll have to skim over many details and simplify a lot of complex ideas.   One simplification is this.  Let's assume that the four-stage graphic is showing the Big Bang fireball expanding (inflating) rapidly and spherically.  This actually isn't the case, but for the sake of ease, we can skim over what it's really meant to show and return to it later, once we've made progress on the Copernican front. ok?

 

In it's beginning, the universe was extremely hot (180 million trillion trillion degrees Fahrenheit) and was inflating very rapidly indeed.  (Zillions of times faster than light!)

But 13.72 billion years on, our universe is a very cold place that isn't inflating any more.  So, our first task is to understand how we get from there and then to here and now.  How and why does inflation come to an end?  Is it a gradual cooling-down or a rapid shut off?  Why isn't space filled with inflationary energy any more?  Where did all that heat and energy go?

 

I'll explain by referring to another kind of fireball.

A thermonuclear fireball from a test called Redwing-Mohawk, in 1956.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Redwing  Ultra-high speed cameras took photos of the expanding fireball milliseconds after detonation.  That's what this image is.

 

 

Not what you might expect, huh?

All kind of lumpy, pocked and pitted and multi-layered.  Not the smoothly-expanding sphere that textbooks usually show.

 

 

In case you think Redwing-Mohawk was a fluke, here's some more H-bomb fireball pix.

 

 

You see LF, ultra-high temperature, ultra-high energy events (like nuclear fireballs) don't start off as simple, expanding spheres.

Ok, they become simpler as they expand and cool, but they don't start off that way.  Just after detonation, things are very messy and complicated indeed.  The energy fields are unstable and fluctuating very rapidly.  Now, hold that thought and apply it to the inflationary fireball of the very early universe.  Can you see how this might help us get from there and then (hot, inflating early universe) to here and now (cold, not-inflating, present-day universe)..?

 

In a nutshell, the energy field driving the early universe's inflation was... unstable.

Shortly after the inflationary process began in the early universe, small pockets of the inflating fireball became unstable and their energy field decayed.  In these pockets, inflation stopped abruptly and the temperature inside them dropped quickly.  The portion of the universe that we can see (the observable universe) was part of one of these pockets of space, where inflation ceased and the fireball's heat cooled down.  With inflation stopped and temperatures cooling rapidly, all you need to do is wait 13.72 billion years and eventually you'll get the cold, not-inflating universe that we live in today.  That's how you get from there and then to here and now in inflationary cosmology.  More or less.  

 

Before I go on to the Copernican understanding of that process LF, do you have any questions or anything you'd like clarified.  Please let me know.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

Hi BAA

 

Several questions:

 

1) The universe is expanding according to our observations but inflation has stopped. So expansion and inflation are different. Inflation in simple turns is when something becomes bigger (So the universe inflated) expansion is the movement of cosmic objects within the inflated space? Am I on the right track here?

2) If we (our universe) is a 'pocket of space' does this imply there are other pockets of space? Is this branching into multiverse theory?

3) Does inflation create space which is then filled by the universe? For example the universe is still expanding. We know we can't seethe edge of the universe if there is one, but assuming there is an edge that is still expanding what is it expanding into? It can't be expanding into nothing can it? Is it expanding into empty space and is this space part of the pocket created by inflation?

 

Thanks

LF (Darn typed my real name there at first lol!)

 

[bornagainathiest]

16 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Hi BAA

 

Several questions:

 

1) The universe is expanding according to our observations but inflation has stopped. So expansion and inflation are different. Inflation in simple turns is when something becomes bigger (So the universe inflated) expansion is the movement of cosmic objects within the inflated space? Am I on the right track here?

 

Ok LF,

My bad for not making that clear.  There's a huge difference between inflation and expansion.  They are different processes.  Inflation is ultra-fast and ultra-violent and once it's had it's brief moment of glory, it 'switches off' abruptly and then exits the stage, leaving it's gentle, slow-moving successor (expansion) to take over.  In that short moment of inflation it was so hot that atoms couldn't form into anything.  No solids, liquids or gases - only super hot plasma.  Therefore, no stars, planets or galaxies either.  They come much later, once things have cooled down enough and expansion has been running for a few million years.

 

16 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

2) If we (our universe) is a 'pocket of space' does this imply there are other pockets of space? Is this branching into multiverse theory?

 

Yes.

That's exactly it.  According to inflationary theory, everything we can see (which we call the observable universe) sits inside one of those pockets of space.  Instabilities in the Big Bang fireball (please look again at those nuclear explosion images) become these pockets of space.  Inside each pocket inflation switches off and stops, but gentle expansion then takes over.  Since there are many, many unstable pockets in the Big Bang fireball, there are correspondingly many, many regions that go on to become separate universes.  And so... Yes, inflation creates a Multiverse of separate universes.  Ours is one of them.

 

Oh... and another thing LF.  

Please don't go thinking that each pocket is the same size as our observable universe- which is estimated to be 94,000,000,000 light years across.  No.  Each pocket is calculated to be at least a thousand times larger.  At least... and probably f-a-r larger than that.  

 

16 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

3) Does inflation create space which is then filled by the universe? For example the universe is still expanding. We know we can't seethe edge of the universe if there is one, but assuming there is an edge that is still expanding what is it expanding into? It can't be expanding into nothing can it? Is it expanding into empty space and is this space part of the pocket created by inflation?

 

Thanks

LF (Darn typed my real name there at first lol!)

 

 

Ah, let's leave # 3 for now, ok?

All we need for now (to understand how the theists cheat with the Copernican principle) is to get a handle on the scales and processes involved in inflation.  So far, so good!

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[pantheory]

On 5/4/2017 at 8:20 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

Hi BAA

 

Several questions:

 

1) The universe is expanding according to our observations but inflation has stopped. So expansion and inflation are different. Inflation in simple turns is when something becomes bigger (So the universe inflated) expansion is the movement of cosmic objects within the inflated space? Am I on the right track here?

2) If we (our universe) is a 'pocket of space' does this imply there are other pockets of space? Is this branching into multiverse theory?

3) Does inflation create space which is then filled by the universe? For example the universe is still expanding. We know we can't seethe edge of the universe if there is one, but assuming there is an edge that is still expanding what is it expanding into? It can't be expanding into nothing can it? Is it expanding into empty space and is this space part of the pocket created by inflation?

 

Thanks

LF (Darn typed my real name there at first lol!)

 

 

"1) The universe is expanding according to our observations but inflation has stopped. So expansion and inflation are different. Inflation in simple turns is when something becomes bigger (So the universe inflated) expansion is the movement of cosmic objects within the inflated space? Am I on the right track here?"

 

Thought I'd through in a few ideas here concerning your questions.

 

The first answer I will give will be (a), an answer according to mainstream theory, and the second will involve my own views of this, I will call that anwer (b),

 

(a) yes expansion and Inflation are different. Inflation is thought to have been the beginning rapid inflation of all the energy that existed in the beginning universe. The Inflation period is thought to have been relatively very brief. After that what we now call expansion of the universe was thought to continue to the present day. Current theory holds that expansion of the universe is not constant and that today, and for the last 5-6 billion years, the rate of expansion has been accelerating. Theory asserts that this accelerating expansion is caused by dark energy.

 

Expansion is not believed to be the actual movement of things within space but the actual expansion of space itself.

 

(b) One must realize that all of this is based upon the Big Bang model. If this model is wrong then part or all of what I wrote in answer (a) could also be wrong.

 

(3) ...........We know we can't see the edge of the universe if there is one, but assuming there is an edge that is still expanding what is it expanding into? It can't be expanding into nothing can it? Is it expanding into empty space and is this space part of the pocket created by inflation?

 

(a) Assuming there is an edge to the universe and the universe is within a finite volume, then only the space within the boundaries of matter would be expanding and the edges of the universe would remain in a similar condition.

 

(b) Assuming that the universe is of finite size and volumes of matter, which is the case according to my own model, then there would be no such thing as space beyond the boundaries of matter. There would be no meaning to it. Space by itself would then be best defined as only the distance between matter, the volumes that matter occupies, and nothing more.

 

[bornagainathiest]

Thanks for this input, Pantheory,

 

However, I feel that you should be made aware of two important points of context regarding that input.

 

First, if you check, you'll see that this thread is about how Christians cannot reconcile Genesis 1 : 1 with the findings of science.  

Since LogicalFallacy, JoshPantera and myself all come from born-again Christian backgrounds, we are intimately aware of the theological and doctrinal issues involved.  Since you never were a born-again Christian you lack the necessary grounding in that particular mindset to understand the religious issues involved.  Unless you can bring the necessary religious knowledge into the discussion, you'll be a fish out of water, hindering the progress of this thread, rather than helping it.  

 

(Yes, LogicalFallacy did say that this thread was open to input from others - but he meant that only in the context of the Christian reconciliation of cosmology with scripture.)

 

Second, Christians do not use your Pantheoretical cosmology when trying to reconcile science with scripture.

They use the current and accepted mainstream view, which involves Big Bang cosmology and Inflationary theory.  Therefore, input about your alternative cosmology isn't at all relevant to this thread.  It confuses the discussion and is an unhelpful distraction from this thread's intended purpose.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[pantheory]

20 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

Thanks for this input, Pantheory,

 

However, I feel that you should be made aware of two important points of context regarding that input.

 

First, if you check, you'll see that this thread is about how Christians cannot reconcile Genesis 1 : 1 with the findings of science.  

Since LogicalFallacy, JoshPantera and myself all come from born-again Christian backgrounds, we are intimately aware of the theological and doctrinal issues involved.  Since you never were a born-again Christian you lack the necessary grounding in that particular mindset to understand the religious issues involved.  Unless you can bring the necessary religious knowledge into the discussion, you'll be a fish out of water, hindering the progress of this thread, rather than helping it.  

 

(Yes, LogicalFallacy did say that this thread was open to input from others - but he meant that only in the context of the Christian reconciliation of cosmology with scripture.)

 

Second, Christians do not use your Pantheoretical cosmology when trying to reconcile science with scripture.

They use the current and accepted mainstream view, which involves Big Bang cosmology and Inflationary theory.  Therefore, input about your alternative cosmology isn't at all relevant to this thread.  It confuses the discussion and is an unhelpful distraction from this thread's intended purpose.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

OK , cheers anyway.

[bornagainathiest]

Thank you for understanding and accepting the situation, Pantheory.

[Joshpantera]

The answer to question #3 is eleventh dimensional hyperspace, isn't it? 

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

Bump, keeping this from getting auto locked.

 

I am intending to come back to this thread. We are just currently on a massive detour though the lions den at the moment

[Ablemate]

Reading this thread just wanted to check if LFs question about God facilitating the Big Bang had been answered.

is it answerable anyway?

[LogicalFallacy]

Hi Ablemate

 

My question was not about God facilitating the big bang, it was getting BAA to explain how current science contradicts Genesis 1:1.

 

To do this BAA has had to run through scientific concepts in some detail to bring me up to speed with his explanation.

 

We are still working through this and is waiting on me to reply back to BAA... which I plan to do once Stranger runs out of assertions to make in the lions den.

 

Meanwhile feel free to ad to the discussion or ask questions. BAA is great at explaining things. 

[Ablemate]

Sorry, in a further reply you say about the Big Bang and then say perhaps god created the Big Bang.

No one appeared to have followed up on it.

 I just wanted to say that a friend whose sources I trusted said that Einstein had said that god was a contender for the Big Bang creation as science couldn't explain the wonder of what had been created, the universe and everything in it , as it was so much much of a coincidence as to be deliberate.

[LogicalFallacy]

 

Sorry, in a further reply you say about the Big Bang and then say perhaps god created the Big Bang.

No one appeared to have followed up on it.

 I just wanted to say that a friend whose sources I trusted said that Einstein had said that god was a contender for the Big Bang creation as science couldn't explain the wonder of what had been created, the universe and everything in it , as it was so much much of a coincidence as to be deliberate.

 

Really? That would be a really weird thing for me to say since I don't believe in any god.... so I have no idea why I would say that maybe god created the big bang, unless i was arguing from a christian perspective.

 

The interesting thing is that Einstein was not referring to the bible god as Christians like to claim. Eisenstein believed in a first cause god who otherwise left the universe alone. Einstein also did not have our current information available.

 

Another thing to note is that throughout history, when man is at the limits of his knowledge he invariably invokes god, and invariably some natural explanation is found that doesn't need god. Meanwhile all the claims for any god come up empty.

 

Jesus said great than these works will ye do, and if you have faith you can move mountains. I've yet to see anyone do greater than what it's claimed Jesus did, and I certainly haven't seen mountains move because of faith... landslides, earthquakes, torrential rain all bring mountains down, but I've never seen one plucked up and cast into the sea. Invariably (My favorite word at 1am in the morning) excuses are made as to why Christians cannot fulfill Jesus's promises today. So be wary when someone starts invoking god, or claims someone else invoked a particular god.

[Ablemate]

I don't think you mentioned god as in meaning you believed it but I picked up on it to see if anyone would respond.

 

Einstein presumably was at the end of his reasoning but I'm not aware of any other scientist picking up on it and contradicting him.

 

obviously god has almost an individual quality in that everyone has their own interpretation of the word even when s/he/it is described for them. It also covers everyone's belief of a divine/higher being presence or existence. I suppose someone will provide a theory for the scientific existence of whatever caused the Big Bang.

[Joshpantera]

 

I don't think you mentioned god as in meaning you believed it but I picked up on it to see if anyone would respond.

 

Einstein presumably was at the end of his reasoning but I'm not aware of any other scientist picking up on it and contradicting him.

 

obviously god has almost an individual quality in that everyone has their own interpretation of the word even when s/he/it is described for them. It also covers everyone's belief of a divine/higher being presence or existence. I suppose someone will provide a theory for the scientific existence of whatever caused the Big Bang.

 

Indeed. 

 

There's a theory of branes colliding which cause big bang events, over and over again. And there's inflationary theory with an eternal multiverse of the ongoing coming into existence of universes, infinite replication paradox where things reoccur over and over again, infinitely. Replications of the earth spanning out infinitely. There's actually quite a bit of natural theory for the origins of the universe. 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

Bumped this thread to the top of this sub-forum for JoeFizz's attention.

 

(Also to keep it 'alive'.)

[Joefizz]

On 8/28/2017 at 5:42 PM, bornagainathiest said:

Bumped this thread to the top of this sub-forum for JoeFizz's attention.

 

(Also to keep it 'alive'.)

Ok I'm finally coherent from resting after my double shift,what subject,born again atheist,would you like to focus upon,concerning the beginning of the universe?

[LogicalFallacy]

1 hour ago, Joefizz said:

Ok I'm finally coherent from resting after my double shift,what subject,born again atheist,would you like to focus upon,concerning the beginning of the universe?

 

Hi Joe

 

Have you read through the first 2 pages and understood the concepts being discussed? That would be a good place to start then you can post your thoughts/questions etc about the topic.

 

I'm planning to re-read myself to catch myself up and continue this convo one day.

[bornagainathiest]

13 hours ago, Joefizz said:

Ok I'm finally coherent from resting after my double shift,what subject,born again atheist,would you like to focus upon,concerning the beginning of the universe?

 

What LogicalFallacy recommended, Joe.

 

Please start at the beginning of this thread and only go as far as you're comfortable.

 

Josh, LF and I will be happy to answers questions and offer explanations.

 

Also, there's no time pressure, so please don't feel any need to respond quickly.

 

Just take your time.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Joefizz]

12 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Hi Joe

 

Have you read through the first 2 pages and understood the concepts being discussed? That would be a good place to start then you can post your thoughts/questions etc about the topic.

 

I'm planning to re-read myself to catch myself up and continue this convo one day.

sure I'll give it a try.

[Joefizz]

47 minutes ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

What LogicalFallacy recommended, Joe.

 

Please start at the beginning of this thread and only go as far as you're comfortable.

 

Josh, LF and I will be happy to answers questions and offer explanations.

 

Also, there's no time pressure, so please don't feel any need to respond quickly.

 

Just take your time.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Very well I'll read on through.

[bornagainathiest]

'Bumping' this long-running thread to keep it alive.

[LogicalFallacy]

Thanks BAA. I have been re reading the four links you gave in your first post, now running through the rest of the thread.

[bornagainathiest]

21 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Thanks BAA. I have been re reading the four links you gave in your first post, now running through the rest of the thread.

 

Ok LF. 

[LogicalFallacy]

I feel sad reading through this, and angry with myself for getting distracted with unimportant stuff in other forums. I always thought there would be plenty of time. Mark always said take you time, no need to rush, ask any question necessary to fill in gaps in understanding. 

 

@Joshpantera you've read and contributed to this thread and are familiar with how Mark thought and where he might have been going. Shall we see if we can answer the question in my OP - posted below for ease. I've also re-posted the resources Mark responded with in is first reply.

 

"Hi BAA

I just following the MOTB thread and I noticed you had this line:

"3. But none of Genesis can be true because verse 1 : 1 is totally contradicted, refuted and falsified by the scientific evidence of the origin of the universe"

 

My Question

How does the scientific evidence refute Genesis 1:1?

 

(As a side note, what BAA said, that the bible fails at Genesis 1:1, I feel was one of the best things I saw him write.)

 

BAA's reply:

 

Hey LF!

 

In fact, you and I visited this topic fairly recently.  Here... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/74685-see-if-you-can-spot-the-problem-with-this-theology/?hl=copernican#entry1127752 Specifically, post # 8, where I wrote this.

.

.

.

These four things listed below, when taken together and correctly applied to the evidence, ensure that cosmology and scripture cannot be reconciled.  

Thus the Bible fails at verse one, falsifying all of it.

Which I call the 'decapitation' of Christianity, making any need to look beyond the first verse... superfluous.

 

The Copernican Principle   https://en.wikipedia...nican_principle

 

Parsimony (aka Ockham's Razor) https://philosophyno...rds_as_possible

 

Inflationary Cosmology http://www.ctc.cam.a...lation_zero.php

 

The Infinite Replication Paradox http://www.rationals...ism-t21843.html (See post # 2, by Teuton)

.

.

.

Presumably you'd like me to explain just how these four things should be taken together and correctly applied to the evidence?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Obviously we don't have to go over whats been covered. I think we sorted the Copernican Principle out, I understand what Parsimony is, and I think in this case BAA meant do not introduce anything extra into explaining the origin of the universe if its not needed - e.g. God.

 

Inflationary cosmology (which you have posted PM's about in the Dude limited understanding thread) I think I have a reasonable grasp on.

 

Infinite replication paradox - I understand what the idea is, but have not been able to figure out how it fits into refuting Genesis 1:1. My current idea is that because everything is repeated infinitely, not only is the current universe certain, but because of infinity there never could have been an "in the beginning". I remember BAA talking about this in another thread about how the big bang is possibly only the beginning of our pocket universe in an infinite number of pocket universes, each with repeating patterns. (Which he mentioned in his letter) 

 

I'm still at a loss how to combine the four things into a coherent argument against Genesis 1:1.

 

 

So anyone wanting to take a crack at this, fire away.