This is definately one of the things that happened:
Posted on 08/04/2006 4:26:21 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
G-d's G-d.
You see, the UberG-d has a lot of G-ds who worship Him, and our G-d answers to the UberG-d. Then up a level from the UberG-d is the HyperG-d, who created a whole bunch of UberG-ds.
Up one level from the HyperG-d is Anna Kournikova.
I understand that theory. But I also have heard that the inflation rate was quite tremendous in the early stages--hence the use of the word explosion.
ROFL honey!
Excellent, a mult-level marketing scam^^^^opportunity with "ground floor" potential! What you say intrigues me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Up one level from the HyperG-d is Anna Kournikova.
That explains...everything.
Interesting discussion, the very nature of matter. At this scale, when refering to 'empty space' it does become very important to keep in mind 'empty of what.' Our current understanding is that the electron around an atom is described as a probabilty function. Depending on the orbital, there are regions of space, nodes, where there is zero probability of finding the electron. On that basis, it is sufficent to say there is nothing occupying that space. Bouncing a proton off a nucleus does give a value for it's size, within limits. X-ray diffraction also shows that even a crystal, is mostly empty space, but with discrete particles arranged in a repetitive structure. The space between these particles being orders of magnitude greater than the size of the particles themselves. I also think that the compressability of matter is imporant whan discussing it's nature. Or .look at zeolites. They are a material with pores on the molecular scale. Molecules can diffuse through them. Lots of space there, but just in lots and lots of tiny, tiny channels.
On a fundamental level, one must question the ability of something to interact with somehting else. To a neutrino, there isn't much in the universe to interact with at all. The original comment I replied to was a poster writing "Space without matter is an oxymoron." I merely replied that the post didn't make sense. But then, if you accept that matter is rolled-up multidimensional space, then it would be correct. But I believe your post to be of an educated albeit speculative nature whereas the first one was vacuous, pardon the pun.
Here is a *serious* question:
It has been established that *this* universe is not only open but its expansion is accelerating due to dark energy and will do so forever.
If the universe expands forever, all energy and mass itself will dissipate to a potential of zero.
If the universe on the other side of the Big Bang is a mirror image of our own, then it contracted from an infinite size and zero potential energy toward the Big Bang.
Since this universe does have potential and kinetic energy and is without resort to an oscillating model, how is this origin of it less ex nihilo in an infinite past than a Big Bang from nothing at a particular instant?
Yes, but I don't have an answer.
...and for the "umteenth time", your question is grossly flawed, this has been explained to you over and over again.
The astute reader will note that "sirchtruth" has already been told numerous times before that the Big Bang neither involved an "explosion", nor "something from nothing". Here for example is one of my own prior posts informing him of this fact:
Posted by Ichneumon to sirchtruthFor more information, see:
On Smoky Backroom 12/17/2005 7:06:50 PM CST · 536 of 2,129
but they'll believe SOMETHING exploded from NOTHING?Your poor understanding of the Big Bang is as bad as your misunderstandings about most other topics. The Big Bang neither involved an "explosion", or something coming from "nothing". Try learning some physics before you attempt to critique it.
These same people who champion the theory would be the first ones to decry any halftruth in any other field!
Indeed, which is why we decry halftruths (and "notruths") in creationism as well. Thanks for noticing.
Misconceptions about the Big Bang: Baffled by the expansion of the universe? You're not aloneWhether or not "sirchtruth" (now *there's* an inapt screen name) keeps repeating the same inane and double fallacious question over and over again out of a desire to be deceptive, or a complete inability to grasp what it is that modern physics actually says about the earliest moments of the Universe, is left as an exercise for the reader. In any case, he's unfortunately exhibiting the typical behavior of the anti-science crank -- "never mind what science really says about something, I've got my talking points and I'm sticking to them!"Evidence for the Big Bang (contains a lot of clarifications on the actual process as well as evidence)
No it isn't.
therefore before the Big Bang, before there were any events,
What makes you think there weren't any events before the Big Bang? Be specific.
there were no intervals between events, therefore, there was no time.
Your premises are flawed, therefore your conclusion is fallacious.
Only God existed (exists).
Please demonstrate that nothing existed before the Big Bang. Show your work. Then you can win the Nobel prize. We'll wait. You also forgot to demonstrate the validity of your "God existed" premise.
Therefore, God exists outside of time. (Except when God the Son entered into time to become a human being.)
Again, fallacious conclusion based on faulty premises.
That's an easy one;
"And God said, "Let there be light!"
For any lurkers who might be thinking this sounds like sheer science fiction, here are a couple of my prior posts on the topic:
Face it, matter appears out of nothingness all the time! /sarcasm off(That last question should be asked of sirchtruth as well...)It does -- check out "vacuum fluctuations" in any physics text. Continuous virtual particle-pair formation out of nothing was a theoretical result of the equations of quantum physics, and was shown to be real in Willis Lamb's work on the fine structure of the hydrogen atom (for which he won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1955), and as the source of the Casimir Effect
So since the reality of matter originating from nothing has been known since freaking NINETEEN FIFTY FIVE, perhaps you and the other anti-science blockheads could explain why you're *still* so ignorant of it that all you can do is spew unfounded sarcasm on the subject, as if you have any idea what in the hell you're talking about and are arrogantly qualified to ridicule the scientists (and science-literate Freepers) who do?
And:
What law of science creates something from nothing?In a real sense, the "something" in our Universe is just a fancy arrangement of a whole lot of nothing.Here you go: Vacuum fluctuations. And: The Casimir effect: a force from nothing .
Or the whole Universe for that matter:
"There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero."-- Steven Hawking, 1988, "1988. A Brief History of Time", p. 129
This is definately one of the things that happened:
No we're not, that only raises even more questions than it "answers" (and it doesn't even really answer any of the original questions, it just substitutes "*poof*, it's magic" for an actual explanation). It's not an explanation, it's hand-waving.
This.
Aha, so it's kinda like Amway.
That's an easy one; "And God said, "Let there be light!"
Not so easy, actually, that doesn't answer the question. He asked "how". Your question fails to address that (i.e., how would saying "let there be light" actually work to get the job done, if indeed that even happened?)
If you asked me how a car is made out of iron ore and other raw materials, would you consider "people place orders for them at their car dealership and eventually there's a car" to be an adequate response?
Damn, ya beat me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.