Posted on 09/22/2014 7:53:11 AM PDT by fishtank
Big Bang Fizzles under Lithium Test
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Secular astrophysicists often talk about “primordial nucleosynthesis” as though it were a historical event like Washington crossing the Delaware. In theory, it describes how certain conditions—not God’s handiwork—during an early Big Bang universe somehow cobbled together the first elements. However, unlike Washington’s crossing, no historical evidence corroborates this primordial nucleosynthesis, an idea beset by a theoretical barrier called the “lithium problem.” Secular scientists recently put this problem to a practical test.
In theory, the Big Bang’s natural processes would have produced a certain ratio of stable lithium isotopes—lithium-6 and lithium-7. Michael Anders of the Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR) used the LUNA accelerator, sheltered from solar radiation beneath thousands of feet of Italian mountain rock, to test that theory. The device flung helium nuclei at deuterium nuclei to form lithium-6 in conditions designed to mimic those that characterized the Big Bang’s supposed primordial nucleosynthesis.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
The creation narrative says the sun and stars were created on the fourth day, which disagrees with the Big Bang Theory. I'll take scripture over theory.
Well, they start from a literal six day Creation which is kinda tough, even with a little quantum theory thrown in.
I find more God in a strict interpretation of the scientific method. But it doesn’t hold up so well for more subjectively based studies such as psychology, climatology or...Creation studies.
I think SunkenCiv’s ping list is a much better place to start.
The ICR isn’t about science or creation, it’s about ideology, and it isn’t a source of actual information or facts.
this does not in any way address the issue of having not enough or too much of a substance being formed by atomic reactions
Literalist interpretation of Scripture (in many cases) is just as bad as bad science.
Spoken like a true believer; a person of no small faith in the "tornado through the junk yard creating a 747" ignorance. Your faith is based on at best, junk science. But you probably know that. Your smug reply offered NOTHING by way of rebuttal, just tiresome ad hominem.
The author served up a list of several problems with the big bang. Why don't you take them one by one and with your vast knowledge in this field tear them apart for the unwashed???
-PJ
I'll agree that it is heavily slanted by ideology, but exactly what is it in this particular report that isn't true? Blowing off information just because of the source seems kinda like the say my few liberal friends blow off anything mentioned on Fox, just because of who is saying it. Taking the source into account, yet considering the information provided seems to be a better way of dealing with the issues at hand.
There are a lot of problems with the big bang theory. I've always thought that 'inflation' was a bunch of handwaving used to 'explain' why the observed universe didn't quite squeeze into the theory. There are also issues with smoothness, relative element abundancy, and the whole problem of why there seems to be so little antimatter in the observed universe.
I'm still of the opinion (very much the layman's by the way), that the BBT is still likely correct, but as years go by I'm led to wonder about it. I generally find the BBT to be generally both intellectually and emotionally satisfying as it seems more dynamic and 'natural', like every other process in the universe. The steady state, which was pretty much the accepted theory until Hubble observed redshift leaves me cold, because nothing in the world or universe that I've seen is static. Things change or they die. I wouldn't be surprised at all though, if we find we're missing something quite significant, and probably fundamental that may well change the way we look at the origin of the universe the same way that the observation of redshift did early last century.
Well yes it does, sort of. What formed under linear spatial and planar temporal may not manifest the same way something formed under the volume of temporal and volumetric of spatial ... for example. The photon crosses the Universe always in the present of the moment of its creation, relative to the source from which it arises. The photon is a little pinch of time (a moment as it were) and a point of space, traveling the Universe in a linear trajectory. To the photon the Universe is linear. To the receiver of the data of the photon the Universe is planar or volumetric.
what you are suggesting may well be true but it merely underscores that we do not know
after all we can only test based on our current understanding and certain presumptions are made based on the way our universe behaves (as we currently exist). Was it that way before? No one knows and no one has postulated anything to test that is different
Actually, that is the conundrum to which I have devoted a couple of decades now ... what was the Universe, before it became a volume of space-time? I have been working on the starting premise that God started it all with a bang, and that the ‘bang’ proceeded in a way which expressed variable expressions of dimensions space and time, and a few other dimensions which I will not address here. I start with the premise that God created dimensions time and space, and that everything that is has some expression of space and every event that happens is expressed in some variable of dimension time.
Years ago, before I went to WWII, I was taking an English composition course in college. The lady prof gave a final project for a ‘free’ thinking essay. I chose ‘Nothing is Something’. I used 3-4 pages to establish a lot of nonsense that the very fact I was making my point proved my point. The prof said she didn’t go with my ideas and gave me a B. I have often thought about that grade and my essay and the profs thinking.
bump
New Theory Needed I guess
Then lay your rose on the fire
The fire give up to the sun
The sun give over to splendour
In the arms of the high holy one
For the holy one dreams of a letter
Dreams of a letter's death
Oh bless thee continuous stutter
Of the word being made into flesh
I think it might have happened kind of like that.
The Universe emanated from a single point in space time. That single point in time as we perceive it could only have come from God. Because our Universe had to have an origin, a cause.
Thanks for this post.
or you could just say that God started it all
because we will never be able to have the mind of God I doubt that we will ever unravel the mysteries. Science is good to do because observations (which we do not have for the beginning) lead us to a better (though not perfect) understanding of how things work in our physical realm.
I am irrevocably convinced that God (His name is I AM) is the author/creator/Mighty God. I’m just working on how He brought it into being, how dimension Time and dimension Space went from moment/point to the volume of spacetime we have now.
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.