Question about the Big Bang

[psychopath]

High level physics isn't really my strong suit, so here's a simple question:

According to Big Bang Cosmology, did the matter of our universe come from nothing? If not, what is the supposed relation between matter and the Big Bang?

Thanks.

[psychopath]

C'mon, somebody out there wants to flex their physics muscles.:brow:

[Tycho]

To say that the universe appeared from nothing is probably an overly-literal interpretation of General Relativity. Here's a good site with information on the Big Bang:

Ask a High-Energy Astronomer: Cosmology (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/cosmology.html)

[Socrates]

Here is a good site on problems with the big bang:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp#big_bang

[wienerdog]

My understanding is that the Big Bang singularity represents the border of space/time when space was a point of zero volume. Of course, the singularity didn't actually exist, since matter and energy require space in order to exist. The singularity just represents the boundary of space/time. The first moment is when matter, energy, space, and time began to exist. It seems to be exactly what all the philosophers had been saying for centuries via the cosmological argument.

I would also point out that the Big Bang is called an explosion in order to communicate the incredible force with which it took place. It isn't meant to imply that it was random or chaotic. There were dozens of aspects of this event that had to be amazingly fine-tuned. If it was just a little bit faster or slower, it would've gone kaput.

[Tycho]

03-12-2003 @ 12:39 AM
Socrates:

Here is a good site on problems with the big bang:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp#big_bang
As usual, the creationist attempts to poke holes in science are laughable. Quoted material from Was There a Big Bang? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/410.asp)


The Big Bang is usually defined as a random, chance event. As noted in the previous question, some instability supposedly developed in an original "kernal" of mass energy, and the universe ballooened outward. However, Scripture clearly rules out such an accidental origin.
Funny, I've never seen the Big Bang described by any cosmologist to be a random event. Furthermore, what "caused" the Big Bang assumes a time before it, which may not be a valid assumption. And who cares what Scripture says? Science develops because of evidence, not what a minority interpretation of a holy text describes.


The Big Bang as it is understood today is an inadequete theory since there are many fundamental problems that are seldom mentioned in the pertinent literature. The following are some "missing links" in the theory.

1. Missing Origin [snip]

2. Missing Fuse [snip]
While what existed before the Big Bang, if anything, would be interesting questions to answer, this hardly impedes on the success of the Big Bang regardings its explanatory and predicative power. It's like watching an airplane fly and then denying its flight because you're not sure how it got off the ground.


3. Missing Star Formation. No natural way has been found to explain the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies
I know that creationists aren't exactly up to date on a lot of scientific discoveries, but gravity?!


5. Missing Time. Some experiments indicate that the universe may be young, on the order of 10,000 years old.
Of course, experiments done since 1800 indicate that the Earth, let alone the universe, is much older than 10,000 or even 10 million years old.


6. Missing Mass. Many scientists assume that the universe will eventually stop expanding and begin to collapse inward...The necessary mass is "missing."
An oscillatory universe is hardly an integral part of mainstream cosmology. It's as if I denigrated the possibility of an internal combustion engine because such an engine would not work on the moon.


7. Missing Life
How does possibly construe Fermi's Paradox to be a problem with Big Bang cosmology.


8. Missing Neutrinoes
Again, what's with the equivocation of fusion and cosmology?

[psychopath]

Thanks all.

I'm still a little fuzzy on a couple things though.

Wienerdog said:

The first moment is when matter, energy, space, and time began to exist.

So would I be correct in stating that the Big Bang describes the creation of matter, et al? What about mass conservation, or is that not relevant to the Big Bang? Also, is this event described as caused or uncaused? If the former, by what? If the latter, what about the principle of cause-effect, or is that also not relevant to the Big Bang?

Wienerdog also said:

I would also point out that the Big Bang is called an explosion in order to communicate the incredible force with which it took place. It isn't meant to imply that it was random or chaotic. There were dozens of aspects of this event that had to be amazingly fine-tuned. If it was just a little bit faster or slower, it would've gone kaput.

When you say it was "fine-tuned" as opposed to random/chaotic, am I correct in implying that it obeyed certain natural laws? But aren't the natural laws that govern our current universe only relevant insofar as time, space, and matter exist? How could these laws that deal with time, space, and matter relate to the event that created time, space and matter?

Thanks again. Philosophy is my cup of tea, but I'm trying to widen my horizon.

[Blake Reas]

Actually if you read Guth he would say that the Universe is just in a state of break down and rebirth so the universe is eternal but it just collapses and come back in never ending cycle. This just pushes the problem back farter and farther but that is all I know. Another interesting theory is the multiverse theory
By HIs Grace, For HIs Glory
Blake

[Socratism]

Just a few random comments.

"Gravity" does not explain star formation. If it were that simple this would not be an active area of research generating numerous papers which use exotic ideas to try to explain how the process could reach a critical density where gravity could then take over to complete the condensation process.

A minority of astronomers do not accept the Big Bang and have proposed another explanation for the microwave background

http://www.metaresearch.org/

[Berserker]

psychopath,

Ask your question here: http://www.sciforums.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=6
these people got the answer you need!

*cough* refer to wellcookedfetus *cough*

[BrianB]

Hi psychopath,

I'll give you my layman's understanding of Big Bang cosmology to hopefully help with your question.

The way to think about what Big Bang cosmology says is to think about moving backward through time. As you run backward, the universe shrinks down smaller and smaller until it shrinks to nothing at all. Taking Einstein's theorem of general relativity, it is possible to show that as you go back in time you'll reach a singularity where the curvature of space is infinte...meaning zero volume. How much mass can you fit in zero volume? Since you can't fit any, this means that matter came into being from the singularity. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose extended the solutions to Einstein's theorem to include time, showing that it too had a beginning.

So, matter came out of nothing. Mass was not conserved and so yes, a violation of the 1st law happened...what I like to call a 'miracle'. *grin*

Big bang cosmology is what we would call theistic-friendly, which is the reason that it was resisted by so many non-theistic scientists and philosophers. These days, since non-theists want to accept both the scientific evidence for the Big Bang and yet reject the explanation that God caused it, some (many?) are having to swallow the idea that it came 'from nothing by nothing (uncaused).'

Here's some interesting insight from Dr. Walter Bradley published here: http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html

---begin quote---
Cosmology is not neutral when it comes to philosophy and theology. A universe that eternally existed is much more congenial to an atheistic or agnostic worldview. By the same token, a universe that began seems to demand a first cause; for who could imagine such an effect without a sufficient cause?

In a dramatic address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1977, Robert Jastrow, Professor at Columbia University and Founder and Director of the Goddard Space Center, made a presentation which was later published as a book entitled God and the Astronomers. In this presentation, Jastrow, who is himself an agnostic, argued that the evidence for the Big Bang cosmology had been quite superior to competing cosmologies since 1929, but that many scientists had refused to accept it because they did not like the philosophical implications.

For example, Sir Arthur Eddington commenting on the Big Bang in the 1950s noted, "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant . . . I should like to find a genuine loophole."

By the 1970's, after the discovery of the background radiation in 1965, John Gribbin in Nature said,

The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe is philosophical-perhaps even theological-what was there before the bang? This problem alone was sufficient to give a great impetus to the Steady State theory; but with that theory now sadly in conflict with the observations, the best way around this initial difficulty is provided by a model in which the universe expands from a singularity, collapses back again, and repeats the cycle indefinitely.

[Articles published in 1984 in Nature by Guth and by Bludman clearly demonstrate the impossibility of a "bouncing" universe.]

Jastrow went on to argue that it is time that astronomers begin to acknowledge the philosophical implications of their discoveries. Jastrow concluded his presentation (and his book publication of it) with the comment, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story [of the big bang] ends like a bad dream. For the past three hundred years, scientists have scaled the mountain of ignorance and as they pull themselves over the final rock, they are greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

---end quote---

That last quote by Jastrow is pretty (in)famous by now, you've probably read it if you've done much reading on this subject.

So, Big Bang cosmology is exactly the Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo.

For further reading I suggest these websites (they'll point you to off-line materials):

www.godandscience.org
www.origins.org (links to William Lane Craig's stuff)

Regards,
Brian

[psychopath]

To Blake:

Actually if you read Guth he would say that the Universe is just in a state of break down and rebirth so the universe is eternal but it just collapses and come back in never ending cycle.

Such a view seems incompatible with entropy. If the universe is continually being broken down and built back up, there would need to be a time during which order is being put back into the universe. Am I interpreting this correctly? Do you know how Guth deals with this problem?

To BrianB:

Thanks for the explanation. Yes, it does seem to me that Big Bang Cosmology is "theistic-friendly."

Those links look interesting.

[Socratism]

So, Big Bang cosmology is exactly the Christian doctrine of
creation ex nihilo.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "exactly". In addition many if not most Christians believe that the creation events as described in the Bible were not identical to those worked out by fallible humans using mathematical models. Finally most Christians believe that human beings were created in the image of God and are not merely evolutionary derivatives of animals or even bacteria.

However, it must be admitted that more and more Christians are so awed by the accomplishments of science in taking us to the Moon and inventing computers that they accept without question the pronouncements of certainty expressed by these new high priests of the inscrutable past. Many Christians believe they must accept such reconstructions otherwise they will earn the scorn of teachers and the "educated elite".

It will be fascinating how historians of the future will explain how so many educated persons could have been so wrong about the past.

[Sauron]

03-12-2003 @ 10:05 PM
Blake Reas:

Actually if you read Guth he would say that the Universe is just in a state of break down and rebirth so the universe is eternal but it just collapses and come back in never ending cycle. This just pushes the problem back farter and farther but that is all I know. Another interesting theory is the multiverse theory
By HIs Grace, For HIs Glory
Blake

Indeed - Blake's pointed out an excellent source for info. Here's the article in question:

http://www.discover.com/apr_02/featguth.html

THis is an interesting quote, and answers an earlier question about conservation of matter and energy. The most fascinating part (to me) is in bold, below:

The inflationary process, Guth discovered, would push omega toward one with incredible swiftness. The reason is best expressed by analogy. The universe appears to be virtually flat for the same reason that Earth's surface appears to be virtually flat to a person standing on that surface. The very fabric of space becomes relatively "stretched" so that in as few as 100 doublings in size, its curvature is effectively canceled.

And what about the conservation of energy? According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the energy of a gravitational field is negative. The energy of matter, however, is positive. So the entire universe-creation scenario could unfold without breaking conservation-of-energy laws. The positive energy of all matter in the universe could be precisely counterbalanced by the negative energy of all the gravity in the universe.

This also is more than theory. Observations are consistent with the idea, and calculations totaling up all the matter and all the gravity in the observable universe indicate that the two values seem to precisely counterbalance. All matter plus all gravity equals zero. So the universe could come from nothing because it is, fundamentally, nothing.

[ItalianGold]

Excellent thread!

Thank you for the question, Psychopath and thanks especially to the thoughtful and intelligent answers and references.

I find the more we learn the more myterious and astounding "creation" is. Science can and ought to be a celebration of existance. How awesome to contemplate the night skies with their twinkling lights as a child. How much more awe inspiring to see it through the eyes of the Hubble telescope, to hear the theories of cosmologists whose ideas dwarf any simple creation myth.

I have never had a problem reconciling God and science. The issue for me has always been trying to reconcile an infinitely great creation with religion.

What a glorious time to be living.

[Socrates]

Italian Gold:I find the more we learn the more myterious and astounding "creation" is. Science can and ought to be a celebration of existance. How awesome to contemplate the night skies with their twinkling lights as a child. I couldn't agree more, because that's what Psalm 19 says!How much more awe inspiring to see it through the eyes of the Hubble telescope, to hear the theories of cosmologists whose ideas dwarf any simple creation myth.So do I. But I find that the true Creation account in Genesis illuminates these discoveries.
I have never had a problem reconciling God and science.Neither have I. The issue for me has always been trying to reconcile an infinitely great creation with religion. More likely, what "god" you believe in.

[Socratism]

I am still awaiting comments on my assertion that the star formation process is one of the "unsolved mysteries" in astronomy.

I find it fascinating that many here believe fervently in relativity yet when it comes to reconciling a six day creation with the age of the universe do not tumble to the "hint" that time scales would not be the same as today in a gravitationally compact universe.

The universe is an amazing place that testifies to an even more amazing God who created it for the benefit of Man.

I consider "the search for life in outer space" to be one of the most pathetic quests of our modern society.

[Berserker]

I consider "the search for life in outer space" to be one of the most pathetic quests of our modern society.

Really and why is that? If we found life on Mars and/or Europa what would this mean? ooh wait now I can see a very good reason why you would think that: If we did find life in space that developed separately then that would mean we might not be special in the eyes of god.

I happen to think the opposite... well except of SETI it’s not a waste just very unlikely to work out, though the screen saver is nice!

[Socratism]

03-14-2003 @ 09:29 AM
Berserker:
Really and why is that? If we found life on Mars and/or Europa what would this mean? ooh wait now I can see a very good reason why you would think that: If we did find life in space that developed separately then that would mean we might not be special in the eyes of god.

I happen to think the opposite... well except of SETI it’s not a waste just very unlikely to work out, though the screen saver is nice!

What you or I "think" is not what determines the truth.

So far all efforts to find alien life have come up empty. My prediction is that they will continue to do so.

As far as "waste" is concerned much of what NASA is currentlly doing is a waste and it amounts to billions of dollars per year.

[Tycho]

03-14-2003 @ 07:10 AM
Socratism:
I am still awaiting comments on my assertion that the star formation process is one of the "unsolved mysteries" in astronomy.
There's some interesting material here:


Ask a High-Energy Astronomer: Stars (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/stars.html)

Note that "ongoing research" is not the same as "complete mystery." Genetics, after all, is a field with ongoing research and unsolved mysteries, but it's not a total enigma.

I find it fascinating that many here believe fervently in relativity yet when it comes to reconciling a six day creation with the age of the universe do not tumble to the "hint" that time scales would not be the same as today in a gravitationally compact universe.
One doesn't "fervently believe," in scientific theories--they may accept them with a high degree of confidence, but it's hardly the religious fever you seem to imply.

Anyway, why don't you pump out a few of those reletavistic equations to show how the "time scales" would be different.

The universe is an amazing place that testifies to an even more amazing God who created it for the benefit of Man.
Funny how it's only through the ingenuity of Mankind that we've been able to even leave our atmosphere. Maybe God will fix that bug in Universe 2.0, eh? Or perhaps he forgot to document rockets and space travel in the Bible.

I consider "the search for life in outer space" to be one of the most pathetic quests of our modern society.
You seem to think that SETI is funded by NASA and has some kind of incredible budget that is in the billions of dollars. Perhaps you would be so kind as to cite something that would support you.

[Socratism]

03-14-2003 @ 04:13 PM
Tycho:
There's some interesting material here:
Ask a High-Energy Astronomer: Stars (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/stars.html)

Your link says about star formation only that "stars are formed from gas". Whoopee, us dummies didn't know that.


Note that "ongoing research" is not the same as "complete mystery." Genetics, after all, is a field with ongoing research and unsolved mysteries, but it's not a total enigma.

On the contrary, the lack of a credible explanation is stunning.


One doesn't "fervently believe," in scientific theories--they may accept them with a high degree of confidence, but it's hardly the religious fever you seem to imply.

I beg to differ. Some have referred to "The Cult of the Big Bang".


Anyway, why don't you pump out a few of those reletavistic equations to show how the "time scales" would be different.

Are you denying that gravity affects time? Wouldn't gravity be rather high during the first second of the Big Bang. And I have read that time effectively "stands still" in a black hole.

You seem to be in denial, or am I reading you wrong here?

Oh, I better watch myself, I may be talking to a physicist. I'm really scared.


Funny how it's only through the ingenuity of Mankind that we've been able to even leave our atmosphere. Maybe God will fix that bug in Universe 2.0, eh? Or perhaps he forgot to document rockets and space travel in the Bible.

Yes, it was pride that caused the downfall of Mankind. Here we go again. "You will not surely die".

BTW, Von Braun, an engineer got us to the Moon and Newton's equations of motion were quite adequate to the task.

When pressed, workers in the Origins field always point to accomplishments in the experimental sciences for support.


You seem to think that SETI is funded by NASA

Even NASA draws its "search for life" line somewhere. SETI is a piker compared to NASA's budget.


and has some kind of incredible budget that is in the billions of dollars. Perhaps you would be so kind as to cite something that would support you.

I already have. You are just in denial.

[Tycho]

03-14-2003 @ 02:32 PM
Socratism:
Your link says about star formation only that "stars are formed from gas". Whoopee, us dummies didn't know that.
Such is a possibility. Do you have a specific question, or do you simply not understand some part of stellar mechanics?

On the contrary, the lack of a credible explanation is stunning.
Because if science doesn't explain everything down to the last detail, every single scientific explanation is incorrect? Oh no! Unless science tells me the exact motion of every particle in the Sun, the Sun's fusioning core will be in doubt!

I beg to differ. Some have referred to "The Cult of the Big Bang".
And Zoe referred to "the axiom of the intercept." So what?

Are you denying that gravity affects time? Wouldn't gravity be rather high during the first second of the Big Bang. And I have read that time effectively "stands still" in a black hole.
Still waiting for those equations regarding those "time scales."

Let me help you out. From Time and Relativity (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970308.html)

General Relativity does indeed predict that time should run slower near a massive body. This is because there is a relation between the energy of light and its frequency: the greater the energy, the higher the frequency. As light travels upward in a gravitational field, it loses energy and so its frequency goes down. This means that the length of time between one wave crest and the next goes up. To an observer high up, it would appear that everything below was taking longer to happen.

So for time to be running slower, there has to be a referrence frame apart from the high gravity frame. If you are correct about the entire universe having high gravity, then what's you're referrence frame? For another explanation of this concept, you should look up the relativistic effects of what would happen if you were to fall through the event horizon of a black hole versus what would happen if you watched (from a distance) a person fall through the event horizon of a black hole.

However, why don't you first show me just what high-gravity situation occured in the early universe? Then you can show me what a beam of light could travel "up" to.


You seem to be in denial, or am I reading you wrong here?

Oh, I better watch myself, I may be talking to a physicist. I'm really scared.
If your claims are true, then you should have no trouble demonstrating. General Relativity isn't exactly the Necronomicon, you know.

[Tycho]

To continue:


03-14-2003 @ 02:32 PM
Socratism:
Yes, it was pride that caused the downfall of Mankind. Here we go again. "You will not surely die".
Don't try to change the subject with your moronic non-sequitors. If God created the universe for Mankind's benefit, then why did God screw up so badly? Why is it that we turn to science, and nothing attributed to God, to take us out of the atmosphere?

BTW, Von Braun, an engineer got us to the Moon and Newton's equations of motion were quite adequate to the task.
A pity that God didn't create any rockets that grow on trees capable of LEO. Your claim might be credible then.

When pressed, workers in the Origins field always point to accomplishments in the experimental sciences for support.

Even NASA draws its "search for life" line somewhere. SETI is a piker compared to NASA's budget.

I already have. You are just in denial.
In other words, you can't find any cite of SETI's vast, NASA-fuelled budget and cannot find any support for demonizing SETI. Are you related to Ed Conrad, by any chance?

[Socratism]

Tycho,


So for time to be running slower, there has to be a referrence frame apart from the high gravity frame. If you are correct about the entire universe having high gravity, then what's you're referrence frame?

The reference frame is obviously the situation at a later point of time. You seem to be arguing that time was accumulating at the same rate in the past at it is today.

This brings up an interesting point about the Big bang that many people do not realize. The Big Bang assumes that space itself is expanding (the coordinates that is). There is simply no evidence whatsoever that this is happening. Furthermore, if it were happening then instead of the observed "red shift" we would observe a "blue shift" instead.

[adam.naranjo]

You know what?

This discussion is funny, because you have bunch of people arguing about certain things they know VERY LITTLE about. How many here are specialists in the field of cosmology...mmmm...thats what I thought.

I just wanted to mention that:
Famed astronomer Robert Jastrow said: "The hubble law [which gave us an expanding universe and led to big bang cosmology] is one of the great dicsoveries in science: it is one of the main supports of the scientific theory of Genesis"

When COBE discovered the predicted ripples in the cosmic microwave radiation [which shows how glaxies and galaxy clusters could have formed from a singularity only with great design involved] George smoot [Lead scientist involved with mapping the big bang] called these fluctuations, "the fingerprints of the Maker"....

Dr. Guth, famous for coming up with inflationary cosmology, said (refering to the naturalist cosmologists ability to offer a universe coming out of nothing said, "inflation [cosmology] itself does not explain how the universe arose from nothing. Inflation itself takes a very small universe and produces from it a very big universe. But inflation by itself does not explain where that very small universe cam from."


....

The reason why Hoyle rejected the bing bang was because, "the big bang theory openly invites the cocept of creation."

Barry Parker says, If we accept the big bang theory, and most cosmologists now do, then a 'creation' of some sort is forced upon us"



Adam.Naranjo

[Socratism]

03-14-2003 @ 04:59 PM
Tycho:
Don't try to change the subject with your moronic non-sequitors.


I am always encouraged when the opponet drops the veil of scientific detachment. He must be losing the argument.

You sounded "puffed up". This has always been the problem of Men who shake their fists at God..


If God created the universe for Mankind's benefit, then why did God screw up so badly?

He didn't, Mankind did. Surely you have heard about these things.


Why is it that we turn to science, and nothing attributed to God, to take us out of the atmosphere?

Stop shaking your fist at God.


A pity that God didn't create any rockets that grow on trees capable of LEO. Your claim might be credible then.

Why are you so angry at God?


In other words, you can't find any cite of SETI's vast, NASA-fuelled budget and cannot find any support for demonizing SETI.

You mentioned SETI, not me. Do you deny that NASA sends probes to search for life?


Are you related to Ed Conrad, by any chance?

Why do you ask? Does a logical argument upset you?

[Tycho]

03-14-2003 @ 03:11 PM
Socratism:
The reference frame is obviously the situation at a later point of time. You seem to be arguing that time was accumulating at the same rate in the past at it is today.
I'm assuming that time was accumulating at the same rate?! I understand that relativity may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I'm simply at a complete loss as to what you think that GR relativity is.

What you're talking about isn't right. It's not even wrong.

This brings up an interesting point about the Big bang that many people do not realize. The Big Bang assumes that space itself is expanding (the coordinates that is). There is simply no evidence whatsoever that this is happening. Furthermore, if it were happening then instead of the observed "red shift" we would observe a "blue shift" instead.
You've been arguing against the Big Bang Theory and you don't even know what it is?! Ignorance isn't a crime, but I'm rather baffled regarding your motives here. There are numerous FAQs that can give you the basics. I'd recommend perusing the site I gave earlier.

[Tycho]

03-14-2003 @ 03:31 PM
Socratism:
I am always encouraged when the opponet drops the veil of scientific detachment. He must be losing the argument.
Damme! I must have "won" this "debate" like four or five exchanges ago then.

You sounded "puffed up". This has always been the problem of Men who shake their fists at God..
Nice to see that you launch into yet another non-sequitor. Are you capable of responding intelligibly or have you decided to drop debate altogether in favor of vague, unsupported assertions that have nothing to do with the discussion?

He didn't, Mankind did. Surely you have heard about these things.
I see! Mankind somehow made space an airless vacuum and created the vast distances between the stars. Yes, it's all so clear now. If only I hadn't been waving at God I could have seen this amazing Truth (TM).

Stop shaking your fist at God.

Why are you so angry at God?Why can't you respond?

You mentioned SETI, not me. Do you deny that NASA sends probes to search for life?
My apologies. If only you had corrected me on your stance four or five posts ago instead of whining about SETI.

Why do you ask? Does a logical argument upset you? Not at all. That's why I'm arguing logically while you seem paralyzed by your own ignorance. Are you going to actually respond or are you going to babble incoherantly about shaking fists at God?

[Socratism]

Why should I respond to tantrums and insults?

I like to discuss things calmly and scientifically. You should try to do this also.

[Tycho]

Today @ 04:03 PM
Socratism:

Why should I respond to tantrums and insults?

I like to discuss things calmly and scientifically. You should try to do this also.
Fair enough. Please respond to the posts I made before your, uh, emotional outbursts. Try to use facts this time instead of rhetoric about fists and God.

You can start with relativity and the Big Bang. Instead of insulting me, I'd like to see some of your equations regarding the "time scales."

Oh yes, please also include your reasons why NASA is wasting billions of dollars regarding extraterrestrial life.

[Berserker]

Today @ 08:54 AM
Socratism:



What you or I "think" is not what determines the truth.

So far all efforts to find alien life have come up empty. My prediction is that they will continue to do so.

As far as "waste" is concerned much of what NASA is currentlly doing is a waste and it amounts to billions of dollars per year.

Ha We haven’t even tried to find alien life yet and your giving up! jee those Martian meteorites were pretty intresting I would not call that "come up empty" but hey we can stop spending on nasa and put the few billion we waste on that endeavor into the trillions we spend on the military... like dropping a penny into a bank vault!

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 06:52 PM
Berserker:
Ha We haven’t even tried to find alien life yet and your giving up! jee those Martian meteorites were pretty intresting I would not call that "come up empty" but hey we can stop spending on nasa and put the few billion we waste on that endeavor into the trillions we spend on the military... like dropping a penny into a bank vault!

I suggest you visit the NASA website to educate yourself about all the unmanned probes that have included packages designed to detect signs of life.

[TenDimensions]

03-13-2003 @ 01:03 PM
BrianB:

So, Big Bang cosmology is exactly the Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo.


Someone should tell that to the guys over at Answers in Genesis. :rofl:

[TenDimensions]

Yesterday @ 09:10 AM
Socratism:

I am still awaiting comments on my assertion that the star formation process is one of the "unsolved mysteries" in astronomy.

I'll bite on that. As soon as you tell me where I can find somewhere that says it is a mystery.



I find it fascinating that many here believe fervently in relativity yet when it comes to reconciling a six day creation with the age of the universe do not tumble to the "hint" that time scales would not be the same as today in a gravitationally compact universe.

On the surface that is an impressive argument. I have a few questions for that though.

1) Has anyone ever bothering to calculate the time differentials that would exist under such intense gravity?

2) I'm not aware that intense gravity existed for very long during the expansion. My understanding is that existence itself expanded outward very rapidly and under the current understanding spent hundreds of thousands of years as extremely hot sub-atomic particles. Only once everything started to cool was gravity able to start exerting a force on everything.

3) This does nothing to explain cosomological explosive formations that are hundred of thousands of light years wide and millions of light years away. Not only did the light need to travel through millions of years, but the rings such as remnants of supernovas would have required at least the couple of hundred thousand years to expand. Unless of course you want to start rewriting other natural laws.



I consider "the search for life in outer space" to be one of the most pathetic quests of our modern society.

So then are you asserting right now that we will never find anything out there? Do you feel this would be create a crisis of faith for you somehow?

[BrianB]

Re:
http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=34126#post34126

Hi Socratism,

When I refer to the Big Bang cosmology as being exactly what we mean by creation ex nihilo I'm referring only to the divine-fiat creation event, not to subsequent events ‘post-singularity’ (including how long ago the first event happened). That is, the classical Christian doctrine of creation is creation by divine fiat with nothing except God existing 'before' the universe began to exist. Big Bang cosmology has nothing to do with biological evolution, which is unfortunately what many Christians mistakenly believe. I hope that helps clarify what I meant.

Regards,
Brian

[BrianB]

Re:
http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=36584#post36584

Hi TenDimensions,

Unfortunately it’s been my experience that YECs tend to not listen very well. Many of them are so blinded by their biases that it’s embarrassing to me as a Christian theist.
Listen/read the Ross-Hovid 'debate'' here and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Real-audio of part of the Ross-Hovind debate:
http://www.ankerberg.com/TV/ankjasrd.html

Transcripts available (way down the page) here:
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/archives-sc.htm

I've listened to the audio, and while I think Ross' interpretation of the days of Genesis is wrong, and he tries to pump too much into biblical texts, Hovind's approach is basically a joke.

This is certainly not to say that there are no critical-thinking YECs out there [1], but many of them remind me quite a bit of fundamentalist atheists in their approach to these issues.

Regards,
Brian

[1] This could open up a huge discussion on authority structures and epistemological issues, but that’s for another time.

[Wesley's son]

03-13-2003 @ 01:05 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=33717#post33717)
Blake Reas:

Actually if you read Guth he would say that the Universe is just in a state of break down and rebirth so the universe is eternal but it just collapses and come back in never ending cycle. This just pushes the problem back farter and farther but that is all I know. Another interesting theory is the multiverse theory
By HIs Grace, For HIs Glory
Blake

Steven Hawking rejects classic Bang Big Bang cosmology in favor of multiverse (or infinite worlds) theory because Big Bang implies a Creator.

So Big Bang cosmology is not inherently in opposition to theistic thought.

[Berserker]

03-15-2003 @ 12:43 PM
Socratism:
I suggest you visit the NASA website to educate yourself about all the unmanned probes that have included packages designed to detect signs of life.

And your point is? jee just cause we tried a few time means we should stop? So far no space probe has be designed to find life in places we think it might be. We have not yet landed a probe on Europe, or taken ice or core samples on mars… heck we have yet to take proper analyses of Venus’s clouds particles and see what inside them.

[Woman]

Adam says:
I just wanted to mention that:
Famed astronomer Robert Jastrow said: "The hubble law [which gave us an expanding universe and led to big bang cosmology] is one of the great dicsoveries in science: it is one of the main supports of the scientific theory of Genesis"

When COBE discovered the predicted ripples in the cosmic microwave radiation [which shows how glaxies and galaxy clusters could have formed from a singularity only with great design involved] George smoot [Lead scientist involved with mapping the big bang] called these fluctuations, "the fingerprints of the Maker"....

The reason why Hoyle rejected the bing bang was because, "the big bang theory openly invites the cocept of creation."

Barry Parker says, If we accept the big bang theory, and most cosmologists now do, then a 'creation' of some sort is forced upon us"

Thank you!!! Cosmology is what convinced me that I could not hold on to my atheist philosophy. I now see The Big Bang (in its newly understood sense) as the twinkle in God's eye.

I'm still a hell-bound, heretical, un-saved, skeptic as far as most fundamentalists are concerned, but I don't mind. My understanding of the "I am" is different than theirs and I know my brand of Spirituality wouldn't satisfy their needs. That's okay too.

For me, the more science discovers, the more we learn about our past, the more I learn as a human being about the relationship between history and literature, art and science, medicine and psychology, music and mathematics...the more awe-striken I am and the more convinced I become that intelligence flows through the entire universe. I am at once humbled by and and wildly enthusiastic about Life. The knowlege that "in the beginning" the elements which formed stars are exactly the same as the ones that made me is something I can scarcely wrap my mind around. We are all stardust and if that isn't Holy then nothing is.

[Socrates]

Socratism:

I am still awaiting comments on my assertion that the star formation process is one of the "unsolved mysteries" in astronomy.

10D:
I'll bite on that. As soon as you tell me where I can find somewhere that says it is a mystery.From http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1384.asp


Evolutionists generally believe that stars formed by the collapse of gas clouds under gravity. This is supposed to generate the millions of degrees required for nuclear fusion.

But most clouds would be so hot that outward pressure would prevent collapse. Evolutionists must find a way for the cloud to cool down. One such mechanism might be through molecules in the cloud colliding and radiating enough of the heat away.

But according to theory, the ‘big bang’ made mainly hydrogen, with a little helium — the other elements supposedly formed inside stars. Helium can't form molecules at all, so the only molecule that could be formed would be molecular hydrogen (H2). Even this is easily destroyed by ultraviolet light, and usually needs dust grains to form — and dust grains require heavier elements. So the only coolant left is atomic hydrogen, and this would leave gas clouds over a hundred times too hot to collapse.

Abraham Loeb of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics says: ‘The truth is that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level.’ (cited in Marcus Chown, ‘Let there be light’, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998.)

Brian B. wrote to 10D:
Unfortunately it’s been my experience that YECs tend to not listen very well. Many of them are so blinded by their biases that it’s embarrassing to me as a Christian theist.Unfortunately it’s been my experience that OECs tend to not listen very well. Many of them are so blinded by their compromise with astronomical and geological evolutionary theories that it’s embarrassing to me as a Christian theist.
Listen/read the Ross-Hovid 'debate'' here and you'll see what I'm talking about.Listen/read the AiG critique (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/ross_hovind_analysis.asp) of Ross-Hovind 'debate'', the review (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4128.asp) of Ross's book The Genesis Question, and The dubious apologetics of Hugh Ross (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4149.asp); and you'll see what I'm talking about.

[TenDimensions]

Today @ 09:27 AM Socrates:
10D:
I'll bite on that. As soon as you tell me where I can find somewhere that says it is a mystery.

From http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1384.asp

Oh come on, you've got to be kidding me. Doesn't AiG have anything more than that? It's like four sentences with one quote taking out of context from an astrophysicist. If I'm going to debate this with you, you've got to admit, your going to need to give me more than this.

[Socratism]

Today @ 10:18 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42911#post42911)
TenDimensions:
Oh come on, you've got to be kidding me. Doesn't AiG have anything more than that? It's like four sentences with one quote taking out of context from an astrophysicist. If I'm going to debate this with you, you've got to admit, your going to need to give me more than this.

When pointed out to a person that there is no scientific theory of star formation, an unbiased observer migh think that person should logically come back with a reference to the current scientific theory of starformation.

But alas, the silence is deafening.

[Berserker]

aah when was there no logical theory for star formation? :huh:

[Woman]

Socratism - Actually I saw a fabulous show on the Science Channel about the formation of stars. It was a series of interviews with cosmologists and astronomers. I cannot begin to recap it for you, but I do remember them using the tern star nursery. (obviously a metaphor) But I mention it because they covered the "infancy" of stars.

I'm sure the video is available.

Part one of the Hovind Ross Debate:


http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC3W0101.pdf

Moderated by Dr. John Ankerburg - Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Ken Hovind square off on the topic:

Are the Universe and the Earth Billions of Years Old or Just Thousands of Years Old?
Are Genesis 1 and 2 Compatible with Contemporary Scientific Evidence Today?

[Socrates]

Woman writes:
Moderated by Dr. John Ankerburg - Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Ken Hovind square off on the topic:

Are the Universe and the Earth Billions of Years Old or Just Thousands of Years Old? But I've already pointed out the AiG critique (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/ross_hovind_analysis.asp) of this Ross-Hovind "debate''. Among other things, this documents the partiality of Ankerberg to Ross, and towards OEC in general in that he chose a straw man like Dr Dino to represent YEC.

[Socratism]

Too much has been made of the Hovind/Ross debate because neither side seems to be equipped to talk about the broad range of topics that they cover.

Ross tries to argue that Genesis can be interpreted to agree with the Big Bang. I think he fails miserbly, mostly because he has no background in Hebrew.

Hovind is a creationist popularizer who can be quite entertaining if you don't take him too seriously scientifically. Nevertheless, I believe he has the big picture correctly determined, whereas Ross is too eager to embrace current theories that are still highly speculative.

There is simply no good reason to try to jump through hoops in an attempt to twist the account in Genesis to make it agree with the current theories of fallible human beings.

If there is one thing I have learned over the years about scientific speculations about the past it is that if you don't like the current theory just "wait a minute". You might like the next one a bit more.

[Woman]

Socratism,

I think you've made a good point in that neither of these men has all the answers.

At least Ross is a scientist. Hovind's degree is in education, though this issue has always been his thing.

Although you see the trend to compromise as a negative thing - the wisdom traditions in all ages have stressed moderation, the middle way, etc.

The broader one's view, the wider the embrace, the closer to the Divine we become.

IMHO

[Socratism]

Today @ 07:13 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44013#post44013)
Woman:

.....

Although you see the trend to compromise as a negative thing - the wisdom traditions in all ages has stressed moderation, the middle way, etc.

The broader one's view, the wider the embrace, the closer to the Divine we become.

IMHO

I am not opposed to compromise as a general rule. After all I am married.

However, there are some things in life where compromise is not appropriate, and I feel that belief in the Bible is one of these.

I believed in evolution for most of my adult life, but when I finally got around to looking at it in detail I was stunned to discover that its foundations were missing. That event was a turning point in my life for it was only a few years later that I began to take the Bible as seriously as I came to believe it deserved.

[tgamble]

[i]03-23-2003 @ 02:27 PM
Evolutionists generally believe that stars formed by the collapse of gas clouds under gravity. This is supposed to generate the millions of degrees required for nuclear fusion.

But most clouds would be so hot that outward pressure would prevent collapse. Evolutionists must find a way for the cloud to cool down. One such mechanism might be through molecules in the cloud colliding and radiating enough of the heat away.

But according to theory, the ‘big bang’ made mainly hydrogen, with a little helium — the other elements supposedly formed inside stars. Helium can't form molecules at all, so the only molecule that could be formed would be molecular hydrogen (H2). Even this is easily destroyed by ultraviolet light, and usually needs dust grains to form — and dust grains require heavier elements. So the only coolant left is atomic hydrogen, and this would leave gas clouds over a hundred times too hot to collapse.

Abraham Loeb of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics says: ‘The truth is that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level.’ (cited in Marcus Chown, ‘Let there be light’, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998.)


Yet another example of AIG dishonesty.
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/aig_on_star_formation.htm

[tgamble]

[i]Yesterday @ 04:07 AM Among other things, this documents the partiality of Ankerberg to Ross, and towards OEC in general in that he chose a straw man like Dr Dino to represent YEC.

Maybe other YECs turned down the invitation?

It's amusing that you consider Hovind a strawman of YECism.

I was wondering why nobody has brought up his bogus offer!

[Berserker]

uum when you say "Evolutionists" you should only be talking about scientist that advocate evolution... what’s this about us believing in all these other unrelated non-biological things? Maybe you mean all scientist in general believe in the big bang… but that would not be true either.

[Socratism]

First and foremost, Tim Thompson is not an astronomer. He writes on many subjects related to origins. One of these is a treatise on Haldane's Dilemma in which he derives equations that can easily be demonstrated are incorrect.

In his latest efforts he argues that we know that stars form.

Actually we know that stars are there and scientists are able to model the formation process once it reaches a critical density where gravitation takes over. The problem is that nobody knows how such a critical density can be initially reached since the densities in outer space are well below this critical density. This is why most calculations and model start at the point where the critical density was presumably reached. This is equivalent to stating that evolution does not include abiogenesis.

In other words star formation currently does not include how gas molecules initially reached their critical density.

This is intuitive because we would all be shocked if we opened a gas cylinder under pressure, exposing it to outer space, and the gas began to contract instead of expand.

There is motion of gas molecules down to temperatures close to absolute zero, and this motion and the resulting collisions keep gas from contracting by self-gravitation until there is a rather substantial mass and density to permit one of the weakest forces in nature (gravity) to be sufficient to cause further contraction.

[Socratism]

Today @ 08:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44045#post44045)
tgamble:
Yet another example of AIG dishonesty.
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/aig_on_star_formation.htm

I think it safe to say that Tim Thompson is not an authority in the field of astronomy (or any other field for that matter). He is simply another evolutionist who spends his time on creation/evolution forums and sometimes has an article of his placed on talk.origins.

I have caught him in errors before and this is no exception.


I maintain that there are no valid creationist objections to star formation, primordial or otherwise. Simple physics leads inevitably to star formation. Tim Thompson

Tim apparently believes that self-gravitation leads to star formation. He is mistaken. If it were that simple (and it used to be believed that it was) then this would not be such an active research field and people would not be proposing bizarre ways (e.g. supernova explosions) as a way to reach the critical mass where self-gravitation would be able to finish the job.

[Berserker]

Yes it does!, blast from super novas create a shock waves that produce the needed density to started star formation... after that the blast from newly born stars starts more star formation.

[Socrates]

I wrote:

Among other things, this documents the partiality of Ankerberg to Ross, and towards OEC in general in that he chose a straw man like Dr Dino to represent YEC.

Tgamble:Maybe other YECs turned down the invitation?According to the article I cited www.answersingenesis.org/news/ross_hovind_analysis.asp, AiG scientists were not even offered the chance to turn it down.

Also, I note something relevant to the thread started by gamble's mendacious slanders that YEC is a cult:



Hovind: When somebody teaches something where we have to have a guru to explain it. Now you have a cult.

AiG: It was comments like that that prompted Ross’s complaint that Hovind was continually calling him a cult leader. As can be seen, it didn’t happen that often, although Hovind should have said that it is an almost universal cultic practice effectively to deny the key Reformation and Biblical doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture, so requiring a cult leader to tell the followers what it means. Reasons to Believe doesn’t have other cultic characteristics like a definite organisational structure for its followers, adding works to salvation (e.g. baptism, speaking in tongues), denial of the Trinity and Christ as fully God and fully man (although William Lane Craig, a self-confessed Ross supporter, says: ‘I find his [Ross’s] attempt to construe God as existing in hyperdimensions of time and space and to interpret Christian doctrines in that light to be both philosophically and theologically unacceptable’.


This shows that AiG is more careful about throwing labels like "cult" around, even about people like Hugh Ross with whom they disagree.It's amusing that you consider Hovind a strawman of YECism.Yes, I think AiG demonstrates this www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp.I was wondering why nobody has brought up his bogus offer!I wonder too -- perhaps because it was not germane to any discussion? Or at least in my case, because I don't agree with gimmicks like that.

[Socrates]

Woman:
At least Ross is a scientist.Ross is an astronomer, yet he pontificates on Hebrew although he couldn't even say "yes" or "no" in that language when a creationist challenged him. He also pontificates on biology, and believes in fixity of species and has no idea about information. Even in astronomy, Ross has made crass blunders, e.g. claiming that comets have an interstellar origin, highly outdated even when he wrote.

See documentation at www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4128.asp and http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4149.asp -- note that both of these are written by Ph.D. scientists, so Woman should be happy. The latter is actually by a Ph.D. astronomy professor.

[Socratism]

Today @ 09:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44082#post44082)
Berserker:

Yes it does!, blast from super novas create a shock waves that produce the needed density to started star formation... after that the blast from newly born stars starts more star formation.

That is a current theory. Bizarre as it may sound and despite any supporting evidence, what's a poor Big Banger to do?

But even by some miracle such a bizarre theory were true, it still leaves a slight problem.

How did the first star form?

[Berserker]

That easy: The first stars formed from the already above critical gas density of the very early universe. I don't understand what’s so "Bizarre" and "unsupported evidence" about it since it seems to make sense and we do have evidence. To me what’s "bizarre" is one could believe that a god just snap his godly fingers and everything came into existence... you got any evidence for that? :brow:

[Socrates]

Beserker:

That easy: The first stars formed from the already above critical gas density of the very early universe.That's the whole PROBLEM. After the alleged big bang, the gas would be too hot. The critical Jeans Mass (MJ) required for collapse would be over 100 times the sun's mass, so nothing smaller than a globular cluster could form.

Since MJ is proportional to T^3/2, lowering the temperature is one way to reduce MJ for the cloud. But as I cited above, cooling the cloud would require molecules, which require pre-existing stars.

Alternatively, since MJ is proportional to the inverse square root of the density, then something to increase the density could lower MJ for the cloud. Astrophysicists have proposed that a shock wave from a supernova could compress a gas cloud. but once more, this requires pre-existing stars.
I don't understand what’s so "Bizarre" and "unsupported evidence" about it since it seems to make sense and we do have evidence.That's exactly what you DON'T have. To me what’s "bizarre" is one could believe that a god just snap his godly fingers and everything came into existence... you got any evidence for that? Yes, the Resurrection of Jesus. Care to try to refute The Impossible Faith (http://www.tektonics.org/nowayjose.html)?

[TenDimensions]

Today @ 06:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44466#post44466)
Socrates:
Since MJ is proportional to T^3/2, lowering the temperature is one way to reduce MJ for the cloud. But as I cited above, cooling the cloud would require molecules, which require pre-existing stars.

Not to cast doubt on your scientific knowledge, Socrates :smile: but are you sure that's an accurate description of the cooling process? To begin with, why does cooling require molecules? I suspect you might be implying the concept of "hot" and "cold" as the movement of molecules in a space. I'm not familiar with the idea that only molecules can have temperature. I thought temperature was more a form of energy in general and as the universe expanded and the energy was spaced out further apart it cooled.

So my understanding was that the universe cooled to the extent that subatomic particles could start getting created (yes, it was so hot even electrons and protons weren't in existence yet) and then once protons and electrons were forming the simplest known molecule, hydrogen could form.

Hence why hydrogen is the most common element in the universe and why most stars are hydrogen based. It is the existence of the heavier elements that require stars and the fusion process to make them.

But heck, I could be wrong, I'm just a pagan atheist. :smile:

[Socrates]

10D

I already addressed this earlier on in this thread -- please see post#40. I.e., yes, gas clouds would require molecules to radiate energy away. Molecules can VIBRATE unlike atoms.

[tgamble]

I think it safe to say that Tim Thompson is not an authority in the field of astronomy (or any other field for that matter).

LOL! That's what you'd say about ANYONE who you disagreed with. Actually, you're wrong.
http://www.tim-thompson.com/bio.html

Thompson knows plenty about star formation and I doubt it would matter to you if he was a Nobel Prize winning astronomer. You want other pages written by Phd astronomers? I doubt you'd care what they say either!


According to the article I cited www.answersingenesis.org/news/ross_hovind_analysis.asp, AiG scientists were not even offered the chance to turn it down.


I've never trusted AIG. In any case, Hovind isn't really a strawman of creationism. Many of the arguments he uses AIG uses or has used. He thinks the earth is young and believes in the global flood nonsense. Hardly a strawman of YEC dogma even if you add in all his other crackpot claims.


Yes, I think AiG demonstrates this www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp.

If only those hypocrites would follow their own advice! But they do exactly whta Hovind does!


I wonder too -- perhaps because it was not germane to any discussion? Or at least in my case, because I don't agree with gimmicks like that.

Well, that's good. I've seen it brought up plenty of times as "proof" that evolution is false.


Even in astronomy, Ross has made crass blunders, e.g. claiming that comets have an interstellar origin, highly outdated even when he wrote.

An even bigger blunder is claiming that short lived comets are evidence for a young earth.


See documentation at www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4128.asp and http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4149.asp -- note that both of these are written by Ph.D. scientists, so Woman should be happy.

They're also written by antiscience religious zealots who think all data should be filtered through biblical dogma. Hardly scientists!


That easy: The first stars formed from the already above critical gas density of the very early universe. I don't understand what’s so "Bizarre" and "unsupported evidence" about it since it seems to make sense and we do have evidence.

It contradicts the bible. It MUST be "bizarre" and "unsupported evidence". Stick your fingers in your ears and chant that until you believe it. :rotfl:


To me what’s "bizarre" is one could believe that a god just snap his godly fingers and everything came into existence... you got any evidence for that?

Yes, the Resurrection of Jesus.

The alleged resurrection of Jesus has nothing to do with the creation myth.

[TenDimensions]

Today @ 08:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44488#post44488)
Socrates:
10D
I already addressed this earlier on in this thread -- please see post#40. I.e., yes, gas clouds would require molecules to radiate energy away. Molecules can VIBRATE unlike atoms.

Right, I read that. I thought we were talking about the first stars.

Am I to understand your assertion to be that the cosmological primordial soup (if you think there ever was one at all) could not cool down because they weren't molecules?

Let me restate what I'm saying:

1. The Big Bang occurs and the space-time continuum starts expanding at the speed of light.

2. The energy released at this moment is so intense that everything is super-duper hot so that subatomic particles (protons and elections) don't even come together, it's all quarks, gluons, and muons at this point. By the way, we frequently create these things in high energy colliders to recreate the conditions occurring after the Big Bang.

3. As the space-time continuum continues to expand the same energy exists (matter-energy conservation), but is existing in a larger space, hence the temperature drops because the energy exists in more area now.

4. At which point now protons and electrons can start to form (I think these guys have done math to put this time around 100,000 years after the Big Bang moment).

5. Once you get protons and electrons they connect to make hydrogen which starts to come together to make stars.

6. Finally those stars (the first ones may have been really massive - astronomers are just starting to get the tools to actually be able to SEE these first stars - remember the further away it is the farther it is in the past) - those stars fuse hydrogen and start making heavier elements.

What part don't you agree with?

[Socrates]

10D:

Yes, I was talking about the formation of the first stars. At the time the cosmic background microwave radiation is supposed to date from, i.e. 300,000 years after the Big Bang when the plasma formed neutral atoms and thus became transparent. At this time, T ¡Ö 3000 K and n ¡Ö 6000 atoms/cm^3. Under these conditions, a cloud would need to have the mass of ~105 solar masses to be able to collapse. And I've shown that ideas of cooling or pressurizing this cloud to lower the critical mass required for collapse needs pre-existing stars.

Also, astronomers have not detected any of those supposed first stars ("Population III"), which would be "metal poor" (i.e. few elements past helium) and have enroumous red shifts of z>10. Given the fact the most stars. 90% of the stars observed today are ¡®main sequence¡¯ (not giants or dwarfs), and >70% of these have masses <0.8 M_sol. So it is special pleading to claim that these alleged Population III stars were all massive fast-burning stars so they have all burnt up.

[Berserker]

I remember reading something in scientific American about astronomers finding those first stars.