EXACTLY BECAUSE OF THAT 
That makes no sense
That is exactly what it was meant to state 
Why would you ignore Krauss’ own words? He says that there were quantum fields, and quantum fields are not nothing.[quote=“Relates, post:178, topic:37310”]
Sean writes in his article that he is arguing against the “traditional” version of the Big Bang Theory, which is the current view, and guess what? This is the view that I espouse.
[/quote]
Nowhere does Sean Carroll say that the traditional view has the universe coming from absolutely nothing.[quote=“Relates, post:178, topic:37310”]
So why do you say that there is no evidence for the current version of the Big Bang Theory. Have most scientists lost their minds? Is it true that science has abandoned Einstein’s theory because of questions about “quantum gravity?” Surely not.
[/quote]
There is evidence for the current Big Bang theory. The evidence includes redshifted galaxies and the cosmic microwave background. These are the two main evidences for the expansion of the universe from a small point. [quote=“Relates, post:178, topic:37310”]
We need to acknowledge the fact that science accepts that the universe has an absolute Beginning, and it was created out of nothing. even if we don’t agree with it.
[/quote]
You are putting words in the mouths of scientists.
So I take it you are not interested in actually engaging in a conversation outside of hurling insults?
I actually explained why it is an embarrassment in the paragraph that stated it to be one that you even quoted. So I take it you just don’t get it but feel an insult hurled at you for believing the dragon in the garage to be a sound argument. It might be because you never asked yourself what you ask me, so I hoped my comment would give you the “AHA” effect / eureka moment to understand why the dragon in the garage or Russell’s teapot is such an intellectual embarrassment as a comparison to God just because of what you asked. So read it again and ponder over it. The effect of realising it yourself is much better than if I would explain it to you. Just apply some critical thinking to the dragon in the garage and you might have better luck next time.
Previously, you wrote:
" Arguments like comparing the philosophical hypothesis of a creator God with the the claim to have an invisible dragon in your garage are an embarrassment for any intellectual."
All I was asking for is why that is an embarrassment.
And still no explanation . . .
You managed to quote a sentence from that paragraph, good, so now read the whole paragraph again that you have quoted successfully before. There is such thing called context that is useful to apply when reading consecutive sentences. So read the whole paragraph again. Remember, I said that I explained why it was embarrassing [quote=“marvin, post:186, topic:37310”]
I actually explained why it is an embarrassment in the paragraph that stated it to be one
[/quote]
Then ask yourself what my comment on your question
was
EXACTLY BECAUSE OF THAT
as an explanation for why the claim of having an invisible dragon in your garage is intellectually embarrassing.
I am sure you will work it out eventually
Do not quantum field exist in time and space? How can they exist with out time and space?
Current scientific theory says that there is no times and space before the Big Bang, unlike today after the Big Bang. He is comparing “nothing” in space today and saying that it was the same before the Big Bang.
We should I or anyone else take his words about something that he says is scientific which is not. [quote=“T_aquaticus, post:184, topic:37310”]
There is evidence for the current Big Bang theory. The evidence includes redshifted galaxies and the cosmic microwave background. These are the two main evidences for the expansion of the universe from a small point.
[/quote]
That evidence indicates that the form of that small point is unlike anything in the universe now and since. The evidence indicates that this small point included all time, space, matter, and energy of the universe, so it cannot be called properly small.
The evidence of E = mc squared which has been verified scientifically demonstrates that the Big Bang created the universe out of nothing. You cannot discuss this scientific process without discussing the scientific theory which make sense of that process.
You cannot logically, scientifically start a process in the middle of a process. You cannot discuss hoe to fly an airplane if you leave off the takeoff. You cannot discuss the Big Bang without the singularity which created the Big Bang and set off this process based on Einstein’s Theory.
Again please stop playing games. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but enough is enough. This is what the facts indicate, creation of the universe out of nothing, no matter, no energy, no time, and no space. If you dispute this, you need new facts, not a refusal to accept the old ones.
1 Like
I would like to read more about that.
What are you talking about? Or rather what current scientific theory are you referring to? One thing I know you are NOT referring to is the Big Bang Theory which as I’ve said many times before, works very well after 0.000000000000001 seconds. It does not describe what happened before that.
I’m sorry. What on Earth are you talking about? The Big Bang created the universe? That’s just silly talk as well.
Yes you can. I’ve described multiple times how to do it. @T_aquaticus and I have both explained that just like we do not have a comprehensive grasp on abiogenesis, that in no way shape or form invalides the mountains of evidence for the theory of evolution.
We don’t know a lot about the earliest moments of our universe. One universe or a multiverse? How to quantize gravity? Is our universe an infinite bouncing universe? Can we detect primordial gravitational waves thus solidifying inflation cosmology and along with it, even stronger evidence for a multiverse? Etc. Does that invalidate all the observational evidence for the Big Bang Theory which describes very well how the universe evolved after 10^-15 seconds after it began?
2 Likes
“The wheels on the bus go round and round,
Round and round,
Round and round…”
1 Like
How can you talk about evolution without talking about DNA?
Common Roger! You can do better than this. You are asking me a completely different question analogous to asking me:
How can you talk about the Big Bang Theory without using any data from outer space?
1 Like
As you know Einstein’s Theory indicates that mass and energy are closely related. Also that gravity (mass) bends space, which means that space is not absolute or fixed as Newton though it was. Einstein also proved that high speed, time x space, increases mass and slows down time. Energy = Mass times the speed of light (Time x Space) squared. Thus this one equation indicates that Mass, Energy, Time, and Space are interrelated.
Before Einstein Edwin Hubble discovered that stares were moving away from each other, so the universe was expanding out from a certain point. Finally the background noise was evidence of a super large explosion. Incidentally a long time ago Augustine determined that the creation of the universe meant the beginning of Time.
So this is how it developed from what the Big Bang says and by moving backward. We begin with Mass, but this is not the Mass we have today. We know that Mass is made of atoms, but atoms are by volume almost all emptiness, or they are extremely small quantum particles held together by energy, the electro-week force. This is how the mass of proto-universe was limited to a small area.
Energy holds Mass together and Energy came into being with the next micro second of the Big Bang, the light and noise of the Big Bang. With the Energy came the explosion and Space. With Space came movement and Time and the Beginning of the universe.
Before the Big Bang, although we cannot really say there was Time before Time, there was no mass, no energy, no energy, no space, and no time. There was no nothing so to speak. They all came into existence at the same time, but science does say that there was a exceedingly small difference because Mass was the trigger.
1 Like
Hi Roger,
As a graduate student of astrophysics, I am sorry to tell you that many things you say here are incorrect. It is impossible to address all of it and I think it’s unlikely you’ll accept my word for it, but I’ll try to address some common misconceptions about the Big Bang model.
The expansion of the universe does not imply that everything expands from a certain point, it only looks like that for an observer like us. Under the cosmological principle, the expansion happens everywhere. An observer in a galaxy thousands of megaparsecs away from us would still observe other galaxies moving away from that observer. The initial “point” is everywhere and can therefore not be called a “point” to begin with.
Quite contrary to its name, the Big Bang is not actually like an explosion, because there is no “space” to explode into (space itself expands). The misnomer Big Bang was made up by opponents of the idea as a derogative label and it stuck.
This is also false. Energy does not “hold mass together” at all. Instead mass equals energy content. So you cannot separate the existence of mass from the existence of energy. You cannot say “mass came first and then energy in the next microsecond”. I don’t know where you get these ideas from, but they fly in the face of actual knowledge from the field of cosmology.
3 Likes
Casper,
Thank you for your input. Okay, I think I heard of this one, but it is true that the universe is expanding which is the primary thing. Right?
I see your point, when the universe expands, space itself expands. In a sense saying that space inflates may be more accurate, but it seems that explosion is a good word also because it was a violent expansion which released much energy (with that consideration.)
The BB began as a point of mass, which was unbelievably small and dense. These are not atoms, because they are so dense. They had no atomic structure until the BB and the universe expanded and space and time as we know it began to appear.
Energy does not “hold mass together” at all.
Look at atoms and molecules which give structure and form to the universe. The atom seems to be held together by electricity. It is composed basically of electrons (negative charge), positon (positive) and neutrons (neutral.) They are carefully balanced out. Also there is the strong force which holds these three charges together in the atom without these charges repelling each other. As best I can know we don’t understand how this works, but it does.
Instead mass equals energy content.
No. There is a relationship between mass and energy. They are not equal.
We know that matter can be converted to energy and energy can be converted into matter. Fission and fusion convert matter into energy by changing the energy bonds of the molecules. It takes energy to create this energy, but of course more is gained then spent.
The Big Bang is the process by which the universe begins as nothing: no matter, no energy, no space, and no time and ends up as the universe we recognize. This did not happen all at once, although mass, energy, space and time did come into being in quick succession as Einstein’s Theory predicted they would.
@T_aquaticus and @pevaquark want to say that science accepts the Big Bang without the beginning of the Big Bang, because they want to say that the universe did not emerge out of nothing, What do you think?
We disagree.
We don’t know a lot about the earliest moments of our universe. One universe or a multiverse? How to quantize gravity? Is our universe an infinite bouncing universe? Can we detect primordial gravitational waves thus solidifying inflation cosmology and along with it, even stronger evidence for a multiverse? Etc. Does that invalidate all the observational evidence for the Big Bang Theory which describes very well how the universe evolved after 10^-15 seconds after it began?
You raise many questions about the Big Bang so how do you say you understand it. It could well be that we do understand it, but you won’t admit we do so Kraus and others can raise all sorts of red herrings. Einstein is the answer.
How can you talk about the Big Bang Theory without using any data from outer space?
Very simple. Outer space is not the environment of the Big Bang. As Casper Hesp indicated above, the Big Bang did not take place in space, not even quantum space, but the Big Bang was space, matter, energy, and time…
Hi Roger, I went back to look for more detail about this, and found this:
Even if we accept that the boldfaced statement is true, why are you certain that the Big Bang was the event where anything, matter, energy, time, or space, was created?
I am not sure exactly how you mean this. It would seem that the answer would be the same as anything that one knows. All of the know facts fit together as well as possible.
On the other hand theologically Christians know/believe that we are created by God/YHWH in God’s/YHWH’s Image, which means that we are able to think God’s/YHWH’s thoughts after God/YHWH.
I hope that this answers your question. If not, please clarify.