[neutralino]

Originally Posted by dleviwing The “Standard Model” emphasizes EXPANSION not EXPLOSION, though it is a mute point in that it cannot be tested as yet. The SM is also a Genesis model since it is creating something from nothing. http://www.toequest.com/forum/blogs/viewblog.php?userid=233&entry=119

I agree on both points here. The standard model emphasizes expansion, although it is not incorrect to describe the big bang as something along the lines of an explosion of space. However, like I said above, it's better not to use this terminology, since it is more likely to cause confusion.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by dleviwing The “Standard Model” emphasizes EXPANSION not EXPLOSION, though it is a mute point in that it cannot be tested as yet. The SM is also a Genesis model since it is creating something from nothing. http://www.toequest.com/forum/blogs/...=233&entry=119

So, the standard model touts no 'beginning'?

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by neutralino I've been rethinking this, and I think that, in the context that the quotation (in red in the first post) was taken, I was well within reason to make such a comment. In that thread, you were talking about Lemaitre cosmology, which, whilst similar, is not the same as the current big bang theory. You said to which I have to answer yes, there is no trace of the original explosion as presented by Lemaitre. Lemaitre talks about a primeval atom which explodes and causes the bang, whereas the current big bang theory does not say that there is an explosion at any particular point in space; i.e. there cannot be an explosion of a super atom. Like I said above one could think of the big bang as an explosion that created the universe, but the problem with this is that it causes many misconceptions (mainly because "explosion" does not have the same definition that we are used to). The best thing to say is that the big bang model says that there was once a time when the universe and things in it were more dense than they are today. Note the reasons why the big bang model has changed from that of Lemaitre's: firstly, the "super atom" big bang cannot explain the abundances of heavier atoms, since it requires the decay of a single massive atom at the time of the big bang. Secondly Lemaitre's big bang cannot explain the CMB. Anyway, that's where I stand on the matter.

Standing on the Matter, continued:



"Our sun at the center of our solar system is just one star among billions in the Milky Way galaxy. Around us are billions and billions of galaxies. Where could this entire universe come from? Was it always this way or did the universe have a beginning? The church has always believed that the universe came from a moment of creation - a time when the universe began. Meanwhile, scientists developed two theories: the Big Bang and the Steady State theories. In this century, science has come to understand how the universe began from a tiny point, fifteen billion years ago. No matter how incredible it sounds, it seems that the church's ideas of a moment of creation were right from the beginning."

- STEPHEN HAWKING'S UNIVERSE,
Volume I, Program II: The Big Bang
Copyright 1997

http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie
(A Steady State forum)

[RascalPuff]

Double entry

[RascalPuff]

Quote:
Re: Revisionary BB Politics - 11-11-2007, 06:38 PM



Ok I'm ready to eat a tiny slice of humble pie now, RP. My response that you've quoted in red is not correct. I can't remember saying that last night, and have no idea why I would do, but I did (I checked).

So here's my stance on the big bang. Many people say that there was an "explosion" at some point in space, or that the universe was created from a single point in space. This, clearly, is incorrect (since the universe consists of the spacetime of the universe).

However, one can say that there was an explosion that created spacetime and that is why the universe is expanding in the way we see today. The important things to notice are that firstly, this explosion did not take place in a specific point in spacetime, since this would imply a centre, which contradicts the cosmological principle. Secondly, we note that we cannot run the clock back to time zero and see an infinitely dense point of matter. Thirdly, this explosion is not like any explosion that we would imagine. When we think of explosions, we think of fragments of something being thrown further into space. However, this explosion was an explosion on the universe itself which created the universe (if that makes sense.)

Anyway, talking about explosions, whilst technically not incorrect, gets confusing. I would much rather take the stance that the big bang theory states that the universe was once far more dense than it is today.

So, I apologise to you, RascalPuff, and to anyone else who read my incorrect views.

[As an aside, in future it may be better to get a reference from a non-catholic source if discussing workings and successes of a catholic priest!]




~neutralino
__________________________________________________ ______

imho, neutralino is very well informed, even tempered, cordial, strong, and an exemplary moderator.
When neutralino disagrees with anyone, certainly including myself, I am compelled to listen attentively.

Best regards,
- RP