Big Bang and the Expanding Universe

It's comforting to know that three competing astronomy teams came up with the same conclusion: that the expansion rate of our universe is increasing. This makes it a bit easier to accept.
However, the 'dark energy' concept remains as mysterious as ever. It could be that the vacuum provides this energy in some way, or it could be that our trusted laws of gravity do not work quite as expected at very large scales. Let's hope a solution to the mystery is not too far off...

I thought the Universe was currently undergoing 'Stag-flation' caused by dark money.

Maybe if the Fed would stop raising rates this dark energy would go away. Is it too late to bring Greenspan back?

If we must start somewhere then let's mot start with nothing. How about we start with "In the beginning God.....". The concept of the Creator is not inconsistant with ANYTHING that we have learned through scientific observation and it helps make some things less of a mystery. For instance what is gravity? It is a force which we don't understand, we can only observe it's effects. It is obviously present as shown by those effects, but what is it? I submit that it is the will of the Lord "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."(Col 1:17) Also "... and upholds all things by the word of His power." (Heb 1:3) These presuppositions explain the mystery without preventing us from further observation and investigation into exactly how this is true. Life is not all that mysterious if one only recognizes the source of all life. He has not given this glorious creation of His into our hands for us to simply remain ignorant of it's wonders. There is ample room within the creation for us to investigate and explore. These activities can take place, and in fact are even enhanced within the understanding of the existence the One who gave all into our hands.

Science shouldn't be used to interpret religous texts just as religon shouldn't be used to interpret science. One is a discussion on morality based on faith (of what is right), the other is a discussion of the physical world based on experiment. Just keep them seperate and you'll be a lot happier.

You should read more carefully. I do not use religion to interpret science or vice versa. The two are not mutually exclusive. As you said, science is the study of the physical world. I agree. The point I was making though is that the physical world was created and did not just happen by chance. That fact is readily evident by honest and objective observation. Anyone who would deny this is coloring his conclusions with subjective viewpoints. To acknowledge the fact of creation by design(to use a contemporary term)does not in the least threaten objectivity. It will in fact clear up some lingering conflicts within that actually use up analytical capacity that could be put to much more procuctive use. The conflict comes when we want to try to scientifically prove the nonexistence of the Creator in an attempt to rationalize our desire to remove our accountability to Him. If there is no God then we can make up our own rules and live life as we please making up our own morality to suit our own desires. I submit that if you would not try to separate things that are so fundamentally tied together that you would be much happier. I for one am very happy. I know where I will be after I pass from this world. Do YOU?

Your right, I apologize. Please read my new paragraph and let me know if it's to your liking.

Billions of years ago, there was no time, no earth, no space between. A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and Lord Vishnu slept. Then, suddenly, a slow rumbling occurred and Brahma lept from Vishnu's naval. Brahma awaited Vishnu's command. Vishnu said "create the world" and Brahma did.

Was this what you had in mind? This is a Hindu creation story. Your Hindu right?

There are over 900 million Hindus just like you! I'm a bit surprised at your hostility, as Hinduism is a fairly flexible religon. I'm Lutheran myself, that's a form of Christianity. We have 3 sacrements as opposed to the 7 of the Roman Catholic church but you wouldn't know about those. Don't worry about it. I hope you like my revised story!

Oops. Methinks I hath hit a nerve.

Umm, nope, just curious if this met your definition of "objective". Shall we burn some witches while we think it over?

"Objective" does not mean denying truth. I think you still have issues to deal with in your heart. I was simply attempting to be a faithful witness to the truth of God's word. Something with which you should be familiar since you are a professing Christian. One of the basic traits of a Christian is the belief in the inerrency of the Bible as the inspired Word of God. It is truth regardless of one's decision to accept it or not. If you do not believe this then "objectively" examine your beliefs and determine if you should still call yourself a Christian.

Seriously, I was kidding about the witch thing. You don't have any matches, do you?

Matthew 7:6

James 4:1

The Shaw prize committee sees profound implications in something they can't possibly understand. The only way an expanding universe will revolutionize our understanding of the physical world is if we are physically swelling up as fast as our heads.

What's a 'singularity' other than a fancy word for Hunnnhh?? A nothing filled with everything or everything turned to nothing?

In the beginning there was nothin', and the Lord said "Let there be light." And there was still nothin'.

But youse could see it!
-SCTV

The hot big bang is not correct. The physics of today tell us that the big bang singularity was a mass of infinite density and curviture. This means that it was the bigest black hole ever. That being the case you should know that the bigger a black hole the lowwer the temperature. This black hole had to have a temperature of absolute zero. It also means that there was no motion in the mass and this is a direct violation of all the quantum understanding we have. We can talk more later. George E. Van Hoesen george@usgreenbuilding.com

To whom that may accepted the big bang theory, please consider this relatively minuscule question to think of. The theory stated (at least perceived) that at the very time of the BANG!!! there is nothing at nowhere, no time, and no seed for everything. And with the willing of God, in the "dark" nothing and with the "silent" progress suddenly BOOOM... a BANG is born! And "everything" rushed away from the origin of the point of the blast. The question is, "Is there something left behind there at the very place of the BANG born place?" If so, it should be honored as a center of the universe. But if everything go out side, then we have empty universe sphere inside. The sphere that grow bigger and bigger at the speed become near and near speed of light. Fantastic!

Posted by eka_subyantara (1171): BOOOM... a BANG is born! And "everything" rushed away from the origin of the point of the blast. The question is, "Is there something left behind there at the very place of the BANG born place?" Everything did not rush away from this 'point' - everything rushed away from everything else, so 'everything' can be viewed as the center. Read some physical cosmology text to comprehend this.

Thank's for the reply, it's being conform with the accelerating and expanding universe theory. First of all, I do believe the theory of the nothing of origin, the singular point, the Big Bang, and latest one (salute for the three sientists!). I agree that we will see every other things rushed far away more and more, but consider that we are sit at a matter at the very edge of the sphere of the universe. We likely see others as 'behind us', and everything with the same direction with us, refered to "the origin of blast", will seen like the overtaken slower vehicle left behind. Then find the one that inline with us but with the greatest speed of escape, name it "X", it should be clear that "X" must be at the diametral side of our universe. Measure the distance, then we find the circumference of the universe sphere. GOTCHA! We have the center of our universe, don't we?

eka_subyantara (1171)wrote: "....I agree that we will see every other things rushed far away more and more, but consider that we are sit at a matter at the very edge of the sphere of the universe." You seem to be caught up in the 'balloon analogy', which is not at all representative of reality. We are not at the 'very edge of the sphere of the universe'! All we know is that we are near the center of the observable universe. If you want to stick to the 'balloon', take note that there is no inside of the balloon! That's in a hypothetical 'hyper dimension' and the center of the universe cannot be there.

It's becoming more and more interesting discussion. Thank for the sugestion, anyway. I tend to believe some how that the "singularity point" that exploded as the "BIG BANG" almost like the homogenous spherical bomb, which its detonator exactly at the center, placed at the point nothing surroundings, but vacuum and perfect darkness. Being detonated, the bomb exploded and broken to be atomic debris (i.e. undivideable and with almost equal mass), all but one (if any) go everywhere from the center of blast in straight path (no force exist to deviate the track or impede the runaway). How could we reject the idea of "balloon like" spherical expanding debris? Any better model, among others, for our expanding universe? "Nothing to be judged as true or false until prooved as is" "No way to reject a fact that is really happened, no matter no one being a witness"

Quote from eka_subyantara: How could we reject the idea of "balloon like" spherical expanding debris? Any better model, among others, for our expanding universe? Why don't you read what the Big Bang model really says? It is nothing like a 'bomb' exploding in space! I suggest you read the download available from Cosmology Introduction and what follows on that.

One should not argue against any theory, especially one that is well supported by observation, unless you are familiar with that theory.

Jorrie, Great PDF. I gave it a read but there were some parts I didn't understand, but I'm on lunch at work and I'm rushing. I'll reread it when I have more time. Roger

Tx Roger. I'm available for discussion. Jorrie