Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Nonesense... Sense... What's The Diff?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by S.H. Le on February 4, 2000 11:42:08 UTC

: : : : : : : : I am sure someone has posted something like this here allready.

: : : : : : : : But, I'd like to repost it if I could.

: : : : : : : : I would like anyone to disprove my brief theory on the : : : : : : : : "Supernatural"

: : : : : : : : It's quite simplistic really. First we have to take into : : : : : : : : account, one theory and a law of nature: The law of conservation and : : : : : : : : the "Big Bang" theory. Once you take these to things into account, : : : : : : : : the question arises, how did all this matter come into being? : : : : : : : : Well, either it was always here or it was created. In saying matter has : : : : : : : : always been here, we go arwy from the Big Bang theory. In saying : : : : : : : : that it was created in this massive explosion that started : : : : : : : : the Universe, we go awry from the Law of Conservation. : : : : : : : : Therefor, if the Big Bang theory is correct, then it is : : : : : : : : in fact, a proof of the existance of something beyond : : : : : : : : our natural laws. Something had to "Create." : : : : : : : : Now, is that "Somthing" the traditional Judo-Cristian "God"? : : : : : : : : Well, i don't know for sure about that. But it was "Something" that : : : : : : : : operated outside our natural laws. Hence, "supernatural".

: : : : : : : : Please post your comments,

: : : : : : : : thanks, : : : : : : : : Hyperiongate.

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : Beelzebub: : : : : : : : Yes, the Big Bang theory supports the God theory! Fortunately that theory (Big Bang) is not very smart (like the theory that the earth is the center of the universe)!

: : : : : : Uhh, ok well.. you say the Big Bang theory is not very smart. Care to explain?

: : : : : Beelzebub: : : : : : There is only one pro for the Big Bag: All known galaxies seem to drift away from each other. But that pro is not very big! : : : : : - It could be pure coincidence. : : : : : - It could have another reason. : : : : : - Itís could be a measure error. : : : : : - Perhaps itís not possible to measure that (the long distance could blur the information). : : : : : - Perhaps itís only a Local Bang instead of a Big Bang.

: : : : : And there are many ďlogicalĒ problem when you say the Big Bang is true! The Big Bag theory gives a temporal and spatial border to the universe...that is ridiculous What was before? What is beyond? Where will it end? : : : : : More questions than answers...not very smart!!!

: : : : Well, I tend to think that any theory of the universe that doesn't take : : : : into account the second law of thermodynamics might not be very smart.

: : : Beelzebub: : : : The second law of thermodynamics is nonsense! Sooner or later the secrets of gravity will tear it to shreds!

: : Uhh.. well... ummm... I tend to think that there are some very smart people out there : : who would never call the 2nd law of thermodynamics nonsense.

: Beelzebub: : Hmmm...yes, many smart people out there. Now you must decide who is smarter (the people out there or Beelzebub)...then you will know what is right!!! ------------------------ Well let's clarify a bit. The idea of the 2nd law of thermodynamics as related to the big bang theory is quite simple. It's essentially that IF the universe has always existed, and the universe is a closed system, then we should notice the universe at a far greater heat that it is because everything tends to reach an equilibrium (heat flows from hotter object to a cooler one... entropy of a closed system cannot decrease). So, because of this, physicist have suggested that the universe has not always existed, but had an origin. Furthermore, the fact that the universe seems to be expanding also seems to support the big bang theory.

Of course the big bang does have limitations, as Beez describes. It assumes that the universe is a closed system... which begs the question "what lies beyond the universe? Does the universe close in on itself?" If it infact turns out that the universe is infinite, then the big bang theory may not hold. Again, I'm not a physicist.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins