Big Bang Alternative

[bigsplit]

Hello everyone! This is my first post on the site and I would like to send the warmest wishes to you all. I would like to discuss a Big Bang alternative that I have stumbled upon and would like advice as to where the most appropriate "class" for such a discussion would be. Thanks for any suggestions.

[Jedidiah]

bigsplit,


I would like to discuss a Big Bang alternative that I have stumbled upon and would like advice as to where the most appropriate "class" for such a discussion would be. Thanks for any suggestions.

A new alternative that has not been shared here? This seems to me to be an excellent place to post. I am interested. Go for it.

beeman

[bigsplit]

First, I would like to say that I am an Old earther. New Earthers continue to ignore Genesis 2:4, which for the life of me, I do not understand why. Anyway that is an issue for another thread.

My Alternative theory is based on Gods separation of the darkness and the light. I call this the Big Split. The first assumption is that the only nothingness that is possible would be if all the matter in the Universe were broken down into it elementary particle charges and cancelled out we would have neutrality. This is the only nothing that is possible in our Universe. Beta decay is when a neutron splits into a proton and electron, this is what God did, it says so in Genesis. This gave us the materials needed for electromagnetism and a cosmic spin began. The dynamics then began to generate mass in the form of Vorticies of varying size and magnatude, as well as the development of matter and mass. There is also a center vorticies that created a cosmic vortex and all matter is falling towards the center. The doppler red shift is created by the increase speed created by the declining circumferance of the vortex as bodies continue to fall towards the center. Kinda like a toilet bowl flush. There is much more to my theory, but it is important to conceptualize this aspect of it first and foremost.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 11:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=281675#post281675)
bigsplit:

First, I would like to say that I am an Old earther. New Earthers continue to ignore Genesis 2:4, which for the life of me, I do not understand why. Anyway that is an issue for another thread.

I don't understand why old-earthers spruik forth such crap, without showing HOW YECs allegedly ignore Genesis 2:4. Further, YECs HAVE addressed the pathetic Scripture-twisting that Split claims they have ignored (from Evangelical compromise misses the essentials (http://www.answersingenesis.org/reviews/essence_darwinism.asp)).

Genesis 2:4: ‘In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens’

Birkett alleges that this further shows ‘the non-chronological nature of Genesis 1:1–2:3’ because ‘clearly “day” in this verse means something other than a 24-hour period of time; it means something like the “the general time at which”, a fact which adds to our impression that chapter 1 may not be setting out to describe a strictly chronological period of 144 hours.’ In a note she admits, ‘The NIV translates “in the day” as simply “when”, which is defensible as a translation, but not entirely helpful given the importance of the word “day” in chapter 1.’ But the NIV is her own preferred translation throughout the book.

Here, yôm is prefixed by be—beyôm—this is often an idiomatic expression for ‘when’, so the NIV is helpful, in the sense that it avoids Birkett’s excuse for misunderstanding Genesis 1. The phrase is translated ‘when’ in Genesis 2:17, 3:5, 5:1, 5:2 in the NIV, and the Koehler Baumgardner Hebrew Lexicon stated that it has the meaning ‘when’ in Gen. 21:8 as well (according to OT/Hebrew scholar Dr David Fouts, CEN Technical Journal 11(3):307–308, 1997). The context of yôm in Genesis 2:4 is totally different from Genesis 1, where there are no prepositions with yôm.

The Fourth Commandment provides a more appropriate comparison — the six days of the working week and a day of rest were commanded because God created in six days and rested (ceased) from His work on the 7th. There is no point even trying to understand the Bible if a word in the same passage and same grammatical context can switch meanings, without any hint in the text itself. Also, the Fourth Commandment in both Ex 20:11 and 31:17 has the causal explanation ‘For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the Earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day’. The word ‘for’ (Hebrew ki, also having the sense ‘because’) at the beginning of this expression shows that the creation week is the very basis of the working week.

There is also a parallel passage in Numbers 7:10–84, which is irrefutable evidence for the above point. In verses 10 and 84, beyôm is used in relation to the whole 12 days of sacrifice at the dedication of the tabernacle. But in between these at verses 12, 18, 24, etc. we have yôm used with a number to refer to each of the 12 literal days. (Actually, these verses have bayôm, where the ‘a’ represents the definite article, ‘the’, meaning ‘on the day [xth]’, unlike beyôm, which lacks the article.) But by Split's ‘reasoning’, no doubt parroted from Hugh Ross, he would have to say that the 12 days of temple dedication could have been long ages.

[bigsplit]

I really did not want the post to go in this direction, but for the record, I was referring to the first part of Genesis 2:4 that says,

"These are the GENERATIONS of the heavens and the earth when they were CREATED."

But again this is not the point of my post. Actually, I do have a slightly different idea of the seven days, that is a far reaching hypothesis based on my theory. But it is nothing I would strongly argue, just present.

[Socrates]

Today @ 12:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=283454#post283454)
bigsplit:

I really did not want the post to go in this direction, but for the record, I was referring to the first part of Genesis 2:4 that says,

These are the GENERATIONS of the heavens and the earth when they were CREATED.

OK, but you've really gotta be more specific. You were the one who accused YECs of ignoring Genesis 2:4, so please tell us what exactly they have supposed to have ignored. And it must be said that you were quite accusatory towards YECs, so you should expect a response in kind.

Meanwhile, I'll cite TWeb's Hebrew scholar Gray Pilgrim from www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=165376#post165376 :

תלדות is used in Genesis as literary marker to designate a new narrative section of the book. The word generally combined with אלה and a proper noun. It is often translated "These are the generations of x". Interestingly enough the narrative that this formula introduces always deals with their children and not them, prompting some scholars to see the phrase as conclusionary, but hits is a minority view which I disagree with. Here are the 10 uses of אלה תלדות in Genesis.[list=1]
Gen 2:4
Gen 5:1
Gen 6:9
Gen 10:1
Gen 11:10
Gen 11:27
Gen 25:12
Gen 25:19
Gen 26:1
Gen37:2[/list=1]As you will note Genesis 6:9 is kind of and anomaly, in that Noah is part of the main them of this particular narrative section. However, that does not concern us, now. The point that I want to make with this is that the word תלדות as used in Genesis is a literary framing device and does not mean long periods of time. ...

תלדות which simply means generation does not mean long periods of time. It always occurs in the plural so nothing can be taken from that. Moreover, it is a narrative introductory formula in the book of Genesis and thus you cannot eviscerate it here with out mythologizing the other nine.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Socrates, the edited comments were rude and unnecessary at that point in the conversation.

[bigsplit]

Socrates I guess I will never convince you that God is more scientist than a magician waving his magic wand. I was hoping to show you through this post that the Bible is exactly correct. I will not argue with you concerning the Young v old earth debate, let us agree to disagree. Do you wish to comment on the remaining majority of my post? It is not until you can understand my theory on cosmology that you could even conceivable understand my position on the 7 days of creation. Thank you for your comments, but read the rest of the post.

[Jedidiah]

bigsplit,

I must be dense. I fail to understand what you are getting at with your big split. Could you explain a bit more?

beeman

[bigsplit]

Beeman I am sure you are not dense, but I do tend to be rushed and presumptuous that one would have any clue as to what I am suggesting. At this point my ideas seem factual in my own mind and something everyone should know, I have had these ideas stowed away in my mind for several years now.

I am arguing there was never a big bang. The entire proposal requires a highly condensed mass that exploded. I find this impossible to accept and feel strongly that I have discovered a viable alternative that is much simplier.

Something from nothing is the point I am trying to explore. First, we must define what nothing is and then how nothing can become something. The only nothing that is possible is monism or pure neutrality. If we were to take all of the positive and negative energy that makes up all matter unwound it and cancelled it out we would then have the only nothing that is possible. This nothing is complete monism and neutrality, void of mass and energy, it is nothing.

This nothing or pure neutrality then split into positive and negative energy (light and darkness), such as happens within the nucleas of an atom during beta-decay. A good visual would be the Ying/Yang, and electrodynamics caused it to spin. These dynamics created vorticities of varying magnetude and size (from quantum to galactic). Further there would be a defined center of rotation for the system or Universe. These vorticities are spread throughout the Universe with one dominate vorticity in the center creating a Universal rotation.

The Universe is not expanding, it is collapsing as the dominate vorticity accumulates more and more mass at its center. As celestial objects are drawn further and further into the vortex, this creates and INWARD expansion of the cosmos as the circumference of the vortex becomes smaller as the "bottom" is approached.

Follow me so far? There is much more to it.

[QueTarantino]

Why are you trying to disprove the big bang even though you know nothing about cosmology? Scientists know what happened 10^-43 seconds after the big ban, it's a pretty widely accepted theory. Now you just need to mold it around how "God" did all of it...

What part of the guidelines stating that you must be a creationist and a theist to post here were confusing to you?

[jason]

Today @ 07:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=289131#post289131)
QueTarantino:

Why are you trying to disprove the big bang even though you know nothing about cosmology? Scientists know what happened 10^-43 seconds after the big ban, it's a pretty widely accepted theory. Now you just need to mold it around how "God" did all of it...
Hey if you can't tell that it is a transcendent creation event then I don't know what can be done for you.

Jason

editted only becuase it referred to a post editted in full

[bigsplit]

The Big Split was the first act of God. This act is the basis of the Law of God. This act also has reprecussions to mankind. Scripture also says that God saw the light and that it was Good, hence we see that the neutron is bonded to the proton. The proton's energy gives, the electron's takes. This is the model of the atom, and is seen throughout creation.

We as beings of free will and have needs, physical as well as spiritual needs. Our physical bodies naturally take things, we need food, water and shelter. These are things we take from birth. We also have spiritual needs - relationship to others, our passions, charity and yes even greed. This is where our free will takes over, we can choose to be givers or takers. In other words, we can align ourselves with that which gives or is positive or that which takes, negative.

The age old question as to why a Good God would allow evil is simple, he wanted children and not puppets. If he would not have given us free-will to choose between good/evil or that which gives or take then we would not be his children at all, but rather toys.

Back to our Universe, the vortex that was created by the big split is pulling all matter and energy into the middle, here all matter is destroyed. In the center of the Universe is where there will be but one single atom. All the neutral and positive energy will be bonded and all of the electrons or negative energy will be expelled. When earth reaches this center, this will be judgement day. If you have aligned your spirit with the light you will dwell with the light for eternity, if you have choosen the negative or that which takes you will be cast into darkness. This is the law and it is unbending and unflexible.

As a Christian one must look to John Chapter 1:9, "The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world." Jesus Christ was the light God created in Genesis. He is the giver and one must align himself with the light in order to recieve the Kingdom of heaven. The light is powerful, it is the source of charity, good deeds, a loving heart for all men. John 1:10 "He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not."

This is a very brief summation of the Big Split theory.

God divided the light from the darkness and saw that the light was Good. It would be well advised that we all do the same.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 11:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=293567#post293567)
bigsplit:

As a Christian one must look to John Chapter 1:9, "The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world." Jesus Christ was the light God created in Genesis.

That's a huge problem, because Jesus is uncreated, and all things were made through Him that were made (John 1:3). The Nicene Creed says He was true God from true God, begotten not created. As Athanasius said, there was a time when God was not creator, but never a time when God was not Father.

[bigsplit]

Ok so maybe I choose my words poorly, but do you follow that "the world was made through him", the light? Think it through both from a scientific as well as a religious POV.

[Jedidiah]

bigsplit,


Back to our Universe, the vortex that was created by the big split is pulling all matter and energy into the middle, here all matter is destroyed. In the center of the Universe is where there will be but one single atom. All the neutral and positive energy will be bonded and all of the electrons or negative energy will be expelled.

Can you explain to me why it is that with the universe collapsing into a vortex, we can measure the rest of the universe as moving away from us rather than getting closer? And why is it that the universe can be measured to be moving outward at and accelerating pace?

beeman

[bigsplit]

Beeman that is the question I had to first answer with my theory. All the doppler red shift says is that there is acceleration of all bodies away from one another.

Imagine a cone, just for the sake of argument it is 10 feet tall. The diameter at the top of the cone is say 10 feet with the bottom being 1 foot. These numbers are arbitrary and can be made any thing as long as it is a cone shaped with the larger diameter end at the top. Just like an ice cream cone the center is empty.

Now build a ledge that SPIRALS around the inside of the cone all the way to the bottom. Now take two golf balls and place one at the top of the cone and one a third of the way down. Let them go at the same time. Would the balls not be accelerating away from each other. Not outward mind you, but towards the center.

That is a fair representation of what I am arguing is happening to the Universe. Same doppler red shift because of the acceleration but the doppler shift tells us nothing about direction.

This is a much clearer and understandable explaination than some mysterious "dark matter" pulling the Universe outwards. The missing matter is already at the center, the need for more dark matter is constantly being adjusted upward and I predict until the Big Bang is abandoned, we will continue to hear an ever more complicated version of our Fathers creation.

I probable did something wrong there. If I did, I apoligize to the moderator. I am still quite new here.

[bigsplit]

I mentioned earlier that I had a different take on the 7 day account in Genesis. I stated that I was an old earther with a different concept of the 7 days.

I described my idea of the universe in this thread, to understand my idea of the 7 days, you need a pencil and paper.

Draw a 2-D circle, but do not close it, draw it like a spiral, and make at least 7 revolutions moving inwards. Or you could start at a point and draw the spiral outwards. Now draw a radius from the center of the spiral to any point on the outter circle. Place you pencil on the intersection of the outter circle and the radius line you have drawn. Now retrace the circle moving inwards and everytime you cross the radius line is a day.

Paraphrase "the days will be shortened."

I do not argue that this is a certainty, but it is interesting. Universal Days if you please.

[Sinai]

11-12-2003 @ 01:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=281675#post281675)
bigsplit:

First, I would like to say that I am an Old earther. New Earthers continue to ignore Genesis 2:4, which for the life of me, I do not understand why. Anyway that is an issue for another thread.

My Alternative theory is based on Gods separation of the darkness and the light. I call this the Big Split. The first assumption is that the only nothingness that is possible would be if all the matter in the Universe were broken down into it elementary particle charges and cancelled out we would have neutrality. This is the only nothing that is possible in our Universe. Beta decay is when a neutron splits into a proton and electron, this is what God did, it says so in Genesis. This gave us the materials needed for electromagnetism and a cosmic spin began. The dynamics then began to generate mass in the form of Vorticies of varying size and magnatude, as well as the development of matter and mass. There is also a center vorticies that created a cosmic vortex and all matter is falling towards the center. The doppler red shift is created by the increase speed created by the declining circumferance of the vortex as bodies continue to fall towards the center. Kinda like a toilet bowl flush. There is much more to my theory, but it is important to conceptualize this aspect of it first and foremost.

Bigsplit:

I'm not sure I understand how your theory differs from the big bang theory that is generally accepted by most scientists today--or with the separation of light and darkness that forms an integral part of the big bang theory's Standard Model.

According to the big bang theory’s Standard Model of the universe, after the initial big bang and inflation occurred, the universe expanded and temperatures and photon energies fell in proportion with the universe’s expansion. When the temperature fell below 3000 degrees Kelvin, electrons were able to be drawn into stable orbits around the hydrogen and helium nuclei by the electromagnetic charges of these nuclei—and light separated from matter and emerged from the darkness of the universe.

Although it may be argued that “light” existed prior to that point in the form of gamma rays, that is an energy form that is in excess of what would be visible to the eye. But as the thermal energy of the photons fell to 3000 degrees Kelvin (thus allowing electrons to bind in stable orbits around hydrogen and helium nuclei), not only did the photons break free from the matter of the universe, but they became visible as well.

If you compare the process described in the BBT Standard Model with the wording of Genesis 1: 3-4, I think you will find the two accounts are in harmony--except that the Bible said it several thousand years earlier......

[bigsplit]

I am not so much concerned about what most scientist are in agreement on. I know what the big bang says, but unlike many apologetics that embrace the big bang I do not. My Big Split varies from the Big Bang in many ways. First the creation of light and its division from the darkness was never predated by an explosion in the Genesis account. But, I will not argue on that account.

As far as your question as to what the differences in my theory and the Big Bang, very big difference.

The bigsplit defines nothing or the only nothing possible, the big bang doesn't.

The bigsplit explains the expansion of the cosmos as an inward phenomena, the big bang promotes an outward expansion.

The bigsplit defines the ultimate end of the universe and a very real heaven and hell. The Big Bang does not.

The bigsplit defines the natural laws of science as the law of God. Furthermore, it defines and explains God's prescriptions and ultimate reward and punishment for obeying or rejecting the law.

The bigsplt shows the law of the cosmos as consistant with the law of God in a very understandable way. The big bang does not.

Occum's razor is preserved in the bigsplit, it is not in the big bang.

In the Big Split there are no what-ifs concerning the ultimate fate of the Universe, it is collapsing, always has and continues to do so. The Big Bang leaves the question of what the ultimate end of the Universe will be. Will it continue to expand eternally, will it collapse back upon itself and if it does collapse back upon itself will it explode again.

I do not have a problem with apologetics who wish to reconcile science and faith, after all that is what I too am attempting. I too think the battle between Science and Religion has gone far in destroying the belief in God for many. But, I have arrived at a very different conclusion as to the physical world my father has created and the fate that awaits us all.

God bless and thanks for the reply. I would love to further discuss this with you. But, we too have to honor the intergrety of the rules Dee Dee has prescribed in this forum. So we must remember that when we start discussing naturalistic processes and that this may not be the appropriate forum in which to do this. However, the spiritual implication of the big split I think would be within the guidelines.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 12:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349338#post349338)
Sinai to Bigsplit:

According to the big bang theory’s Standard Model of the universe, after the initial big bang and inflation occurred, the universe expanded and temperatures and photon energies fell in proportion with the universe’s expansion. When the temperature fell below 3000 degrees Kelvin,

It's 3000 kelvins not degrees Kelvin.


... electrons were able to be drawn into stable orbits around the hydrogen and helium nuclei by the electromagnetic charges of these nuclei—and light separated from matter and emerged from the darkness of the universe.

And therein lies a cardinal difficulty -- the horizon problem. The background radiation is highly uniform, yet there hasn't been time for light to traverse, even under the faulty evolutionary timescales, to equilibrate. See Big bangers have their own light-travel problem--so don't point the finger at YECs (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=126029#post126029)


Although it may be argued that “light” existed prior to that point in the form of gamma rays, that is an energy form that is in excess of what would be visible to the eye.

You need to differentiate peak wavelength from the entire black body spectrum. While a very hot black body will have its maximum emission in the gamma range (wavelength propotional to 1/T), it will still emit much visible radiation in proportion to T4. So above about 10,000 K, a black body will look blue-white.


If you compare the process described in the BBT Standard Model with the wording of Genesis 1: 3-4, I think you will find the two accounts are in harmony--except that the Bible said it several thousand years earlier......

Totally fallacious. The big bang says the sun and other stars came before the earth; Genesis 1 says they were created on Day 4 after the earth. Furthermore, the big-bang is based on the non-biblical philosophical assumption called the cosmological principle, i.e. that the universe has no center or edge.

[bigsplit]

A German physics team looking at the new Cosmic Background Radiation data has acknowledged the possibility that the Universe may be coned shape. I have predicted this long before. This does not prove my model by any means, but it does show that my geometry may be validated. Check out the link.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994879