to start if you want to get up to speed with whats going on
in the world of Cosmology
and
why I believe the scientific information we have available to us points to the biblical account of creation.
(In a metaphorical/allegorical sense folks...come on stay with me here for a few minutes, plow through even if it seems over your head, you'll be glad you did in the end :-).
There is no evidence for a Universe before the Big Bang
(It's pretty much the entire article that follows BTW)
Nobel Laureate Roger Penrose, famed for his work on black holes, claims we've seen evidence from a prior Universe. Only, we haven't.
(These guys just can not handle the theistic implications of the big bang. They try every kinda way to wiggle away from it but then the almighty gives em a big bitch slap right in their face...every time Yup.)
"KEY TAKEAWAYS
The original Big Bang has since been modified to include an early inflationary phase, pushing whatever came before inflation to an unobservable place. When inflation ends, the hot Big Bang ensues, and we can see evidence from the final tiny fraction-of-a-second of inflation imprinted on our observable Universe. However, we can't see anything from before that time. Despite the assertions of one of the most famous living physicists, there's no evidence for a Universe prior to that.
(Ecclesiastes 3:11 much?
He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity (darkness, ignorance) in the human heart; yet[a] no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.)
"One of the greatest scientific successes of the past century was the theory of the hot Big Bang: the idea that the Universe, as we observe it and exist within it today, emerged from a hotter, denser, more uniform past. Originally proposed as a serious alternative to some of the more mainstream explanations for the expanding Universe, it was shockingly confirmed in the mid-1960s with the discovery of the “primeval fireball” that remained from that early, hot-and-dense state: today known as the Cosmic Microwave Background."
"Both cosmic inflation and the Big Bang have been continually challenged by astronomers and astrophysicists, but the alternatives have fallen away each time that new, critical observations have come in. Even 2020 Nobel Laureate Roger Penrose’s attempted alternative, Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, cannot match the inflationary Big Bang’s successes. Contrary to many years of headlines and Penrose’s continued assertions, we see no evidence of “a Universe before the Big Bang.”
(Kinda hard to deny the truth dont ya think? No matter how much you want your alternative to be true? if it's not true? Then it's just not. These guys dont like it, they just don't. Lots of 'em anyway.)
"The Big Bang is commonly presented as though it were the beginning of everything: space, time, and the origin of matter and energy. From a certain archaic point of view, this makes sense. If the Universe we see is expanding and getting less dense today, then that means it was smaller and denser in the past. If radiation — things like photons — is present in that Universe, then the wavelength of that radiation will stretch as the Universe expands, meaning it cools as time goes on and was hotter in the past."
"At some point, if you extrapolate back far enough, you’ll achieve densities, temperatures, and energies that are so great that you’ll create the conditions for a singularity. If your distance scales are too small, your timescales are too short, or your energy scales are too high, the laws of physics cease to make sense. If we run the clock backward some 13.8 billion years toward the mythical “0” mark, those laws of physics break down at a time of ~10-43 seconds: the Planck time.
(Time space energy and matter just DO NOT create themselves out of nothing. we see no evidence of this in nature anywhere. If as we know the universe had a start, then SOMETHING had to initiate it into being, it didn't just do it on it's own. Pretty simple stuff some of these guys wanna try and bury, ignore etc.)
"If this were an accurate depiction of the Universe — that it began hot and dense and then expanded and cooled — we’d expect a large number of transitions to occur in our past history.
All the possible particles and antiparticles would get created in great numbers, with the excess annihilating away to radiation when it gets too cool to continually create them."
"The electroweak and Higgs symmetries break when the Universe cools below the energy at which those symmetries are restored, creating four fundamental forces and particles with non-zero rest masses."
"Quarks and gluons condense to form composite particles like protons and neutrons."
"Neutrinos stop interacting efficiently with the surviving particles.
Protons and neutrons fuse to form the light nuclei: deuterium, helium-3, helium-4, and lithium-7."
"Gravitation works to grow the overdense regions, while radiation pressure works to expand them when they get too dense, creating a set of oscillatory, scale-dependent imprints."
"And approximately 380,000 years after the Big Bang, it becomes cool enough to form neutral, stable atoms without them being instantly blasted apart."
"When this last stage occurs, the photons permeating the Universe, which had previously scattered off of the free electrons, simply travel in a straight line, lengthening in wavelength and diluting in number as the Universe expands."
"Back in the mid-1960s, this background of cosmic radiation was first detected, catapulting the Big Bang from one of a few viable options for our Universe’s origin to the only one consistent with the data. While most astronomers and astrophysicists immediately accepted the Big Bang, the strongest proponents of the leading alternative Steady-State theory — people like Fred Hoyle — came up with progressively more and more absurd contentions to defend their discredited idea in the face of overwhelming data."
(At that point? Hoyle and others become ideologues pushing an agenda and not scientist interpreting the data.)
"But each idea failed spectacularly. It couldn’t have been tired starlight, nor reflected light, nor dust that was heated up and radiating. Each and every explanation that was tried was refuted by the data: the spectrum of this cosmic afterglow was too perfect a blackbody, too equal in all directions, and too uncorrelated with the matter in the Universe to line up with these alternative explanations. While science moved on to the Big Bang becoming part of the consensus, i.e., a sensible starting point for future science, Hoyle and his ideological allies worked to hold back the progress of science by advocating for scientifically untenable alternatives."
(Arrogance of man anybody?)
'Ultimately, science moved on while the contrarians became more and more irrelevant, with their trivially incorrect work fading into obscurity and their research program eventually ceasing upon their deaths."
"In the meantime, from the 1960s up through the 2000s, the sciences of astronomy and astrophysics — and particularly the sub-field of cosmology, which focuses on the history, growth, evolution, and fate of the Universe — grew spectacularly."
(Might wanna ask yourself why now?)
We mapped out the large-scale structure of the Universe, discovering a great cosmic web.
We discovered how galaxies grew and evolved, and how their stellar populations inside changed with time."
"We learned that all the known forms of matter and energy in the Universe were insufficient to explain everything we observe: some form of dark matter and some form of dark energy are required."
(Something else is required...
Interesting dont ya think?)
"And we were able to further verify additional predictions of the Big Bang, such as;
the predicted abundances of the light elements,
the presence of a population of primordial neutrinos,
and the discovery of density imperfections of exactly the necessary type to grow into the large-scale structure of the Universe we observe today."
"At the same time, there were observations that were no doubt true, but that the Big Bang had no predictive power to explain. The Universe allegedly reached these arbitrarily high temperatures and high energies at the earliest times, and yet there are no exotic leftover relics that we can see today: no magnetic monopoles, no particles from grand unification, no topological defects, etc. Theoretically, something else beyond what is known must be out there to explain the Universe we see, but if they ever existed, they’ve been hidden from us."
("something else beyond what is known must be out there"...that's what these guys (a lot of them anyway) don't like.)
"The Universe, in order to exist with the properties we see, must have been born with a very specific expansion rate: one that balanced the total energy density exactly, to more than 50 significant digits. The Big Bang has no explanation for why this should be the case."
(So how did that happen exactly?
"must have been born with a very specific expansion rate")
"And the only way different regions of space would have the same exact temperature is if they’re in thermal equilibrium: if they have time to interact and exchange energy. Yet the Universe is too big and has expanded in such a way that we have many causally disconnected regions. Even at the speed of light, those interactions couldn’t have taken place."
"This presents a tremendous challenge for cosmology and for science in general. In science, when we see some phenomena that our theories cannot explain, we have two options."
'We can attempt to devise a theoretical mechanism to explain those phenomena, while simultaneously maintaining all the successes of the prior theory and making novel predictions that are distinct from the prior theory’s predictions."
"Or we can simply assume that there is no explanation, and the Universe was simply born with the properties necessary to give us the Universe we observe."
(If? "the Universe was simply born with the properties necessary to give us the Universe we observe." How exactly is that possible? How did it happen?)
"The most successful theoretical mechanism for extending the Big Bang has been cosmic inflation, which sets up a phase before the Big Bang where the Universe expanded in an exponential fashion: stretching it flat, giving it the same properties everywhere, matching the expansion rate with the energy density, eliminating any prior high-energy relics, and making the new prediction of quantum fluctuations — leading to a specific type of density and temperature fluctuations — superimposed atop an otherwise uniform Universe."
(All of that was an accident right?
Just happened to come about that away?
"In the top panel our universe has the same properties (including temperature) everywhere because they originated from a region possessing the same properties. In the middle panel, the space that could have had any arbitrary curvature is inflated to the point where we cannot observe any curvature today, solving the flatness problem. And in the bottom panel, pre-existing high-energy relics are inflated away, providing a solution to the high-energy relic problem. This is how inflation solves the three great puzzles that the Big Bang cannot account for on its own."
Yeah...okay sure...right...)
'Although inflation, like the Big Bang before it, had a large number of detractors, it succeeds where all the alternatives fail. It solves the “graceful exit” problem, where an exponentially expanding Universe can transition into a matter-and-radiation-filled Universe that expands in a way that matches our observations, meaning it can reproduce all the successes of the hot Big Bang. It imposes an energy cutoff, eliminating any ultra-high-energy relics. It creates a uniform Universe to an enormously high degree, where the expansion rate and the total energy density match perfectly."
"And it makes novel predictions about the types of structure and the initial temperature and density fluctuations that should appear, predictions that have subsequently been borne out to be correct by observations. Inflation’s predictions were largely teased out in the 1980s, while the observational evidence that validated it has come in a trickling stream over the past ~30 years. Although alternatives abound, none are as successful as inflation."
"Unfortunately, Nobel Laureate Roger Penrose, although his work on General Relativity, black holes, and singularities in the 1960s and 1970s was absolutely Nobel-worthy, has spent a large amount of his efforts in recent years on a crusade to overthrow inflation: by promoting a vastly scientifically inferior alternative, his pet idea of a Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, or CCC."
"The observations — first from COBE and WMAP, and more recently, from Planck — definitively place enormously tight constraints (to the limits of the data that exists) on any such structures. There are no bruises on our Universe; no repeating patterns; no concentric circles of irregular fluctuations; no Hawking points. When one analyzes the data properly, it is overwhelmingly clear that inflation is consistent with the data, and the CCC is quite clearly not."
"Although, much like Hoyle, Penrose isn’t alone in his assertions, the data is overwhelmingly opposed to what he contends. The predictions that he’s made are refuted by the data, and his claims to see these effects are only reproducible if one analyzes the data in a scientifically unsound and illegitimate fashion. Hundreds of scientists have pointed this out to Penrose — repeatedly and consistently over a period of more than 10 years — who continues to ignore the field and plow ahead with his contentions."
(Thats not science, that's promoting ones own ideology.)
"Like many before him, he appears to have fallen so in love with his own ideas that he no longer looks to reality to responsibly test them."
(Like I was just saying :-).
"While we should laud the creativity of Penrose and celebrate his groundbreaking, Nobel-worthy work, we must guard ourselves against the urge to deify any great scientist, or the work they engage in that isn’t supported by the data. In the end, regardless of celebrity or fame, it’s up to the Universe itself to discern for us what’s real and what’s merely an unsubstantiated hypothesis, and for us to follow the Universe’s lead, regardless of where it takes us."
Okay so?
Lets go to that last point:
"...for us to follow the Universe’s lead, regardless of where it takes us."
Okay so a basic crash course in Cosmology :-)
Remember this?
"something else beyond what is known must be out there to explain the Universe we see"
Thats why these nitwits are trying to come up with anything/everything they can, data be damned.
Here are your options:
(The return of the God Hypothesis
Stephen C. Meyer)
FIGURE 11.5
The chapters to follow will assess which of the competing metaphysical hypotheses or worldviews best explain the three key discoveries about the origin of the universe and life:
(1) the universe had a beginning (the big bang);
(2) the universe has been fine-tuned for the possibility of life from the beginning; and
(3) large bursts of biological information (stored in DNA and elsewhere) have arisen in the earth's biosphere since the beginning of the universe making new forms of life possible.
Remember it has to be "metaphysical" as:
"something else beyond what is known must be out there to explain the Universe we see"
Consider:
(Also from The return of The God Hypothesis)
Philosophers recognize several main worldviews with different answers to the "prime reality" (God) question. Theism affirms a personal, intelligent, transcendent God who also acts within the creation.
Deism asserts a personal, transcendent, intelligent God who does not act within the created order after its initial origin. Naturalism (or materialism) affirms matter and energy and the laws of nature as the prime realities. Pantheism asserts an impersonal deity present in matter and energy as the prime reality.... in Theism, God is depicted as separate from but also active in the universe;
in Deism, God is depicted as separate from but not active in the universe;
in Naturalism or Materialism, God is portrayed as nonexistent, and
in Pantheism, God is shown as present in, or "co-extensive" with, every aspect of the material universe but not existing in any way separate from it.
NOW WHICH ONE MATCHES UP BEST WITH THE SCIENTIFIC DATA WE CURRENTLY HAVE?
Think long and hard it's so complicated :-).
Now consider:
WHY ARE YOU NOT BEING TOLD ABOUT THIS?
I would say I rest my case
but just like Al Pacino said in Scent of a woman:
I love you honey.
TTYS baby.
