Posted on 11/27/2017 10:44:27 PM PST by LibWhacker
Although for five decades, the Big Bang theory has been the best known and most accepted explanation for the beginning and evolution of the Universe, it is hardly a consensus among scientists.
Brazilian physicist Juliano Cesar Silva Neves part of a group of researchers who dare to imagine a different origin. In a study recently published in the journal General Relativity and Gravitation, Neves suggests the elimination of a key aspect of the standard cosmological model: the need for a spacetime singularity known as the Big Bang.
In raising this possibility, Neves challenges the idea that time had a beginning and reintroduces the possibility that the current expansion was preceded by contraction. "I believe the Big Bang never happened," the physician said, who Works as a researcher at the University of Campinas's Mathematics, Statistics & Scientific Computation Institute (IMECC-UNICAMP) in Sao Paulo State, Brazil.
For Neves, the fast spacetime expansion stage does not exclude the possibility of a prior contraction phase. Moreover, the switch from contraction to expansion may not have destroyed all traces of the preceding phase.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
The birth of the universe was preceded by contractions?
How, um, quaint...
...infinite series of contractions and expansions...
When did this series begin?
The Bible says in Genesis 1 that creation occurred one time (in six days) and God rested on the seventh day.
It also says in Revelation 21 that at the end of the world (at the conclusion of Christ’s millennial reign) God will create a new heaven and new earth. And here the servants of God shall reign forever and ever.
No infinite series. There are marked phases: Creation ex nihilo, rest, fall, atonement, incarnation, death-burial-resurrection, return, resurrection unto life, resurrection unto damnation, consignment of death and hell to the lake of fire, new heaven and earth, eternal reign with Christ.
I haven’t accepted the “big bang” as the final answer and explanation of the origin of the Universe.
The “big bang” is nothing more than dogma. It takes an enormous act of faith to accept the “big bang” as the explanation of the origin of the Universe.
I kinda like this comment on the recycling universe from a Catholic encyclopedia written in the 50s by a French philosopher/priest:
“A universe of this kind might be justly described as no more than “everlasting nonsense”.”
There is obviously more discussion than above but that is the money quote. :)
Most of what we “know” is pure speculation....we are like an ant in a flower box, on a window sill, in the Bronx, trying to describe the world....
“Neves suggests the elimination of a key aspect of the standard cosmological model: the need for a spacetime singularity known as the Big Bang.”
In other words, the big bang is nothing more than an assumption.
I think a great deal of modern science is based on assumption.
And that’s fine. You need a hypothesis, or a working model. You try to imagine something which might make sense out of a situation which is not understood at the moment. I have no problem with this.
But then this morphs into “settled science” and shouting down of people who disagree about Global Warming, or Evolution, or the Big Bang, or whatever. Scientists like to pretend that they KNOW the answers. Too often, they don’t. They’re making guesses and shouting at people who disagree.
Mathematics and physics are two distinctly different fields. Mathematics works well to describe many, if not most, aspects of physics, but not all. Mathematical singularities work well to describe many physical things, but not all. You can mathematically describe a trumpet like shape with finite volume but infinite surface area - you can fill it with paint, but there is not enough paint inside it to paint it, even thought the wall thickness is zero. The trumpet is simple. It has a radius, 1/x, that asymptotically approaches zero along its length, x. Such is life with math.
I don't believe the Big Bang could have ever started with all mass in the universe squeezed into a volume of zero. That's not possible with physics. It may be convenient to describe this as such a singularity, and the mathematics may work out just fine with such an assumption, it is nevertheless not possible. In fact, the mathematics don't work out 'just fine'. The 'Big Bang' physicists require the "inflation" period (during the transition from mathematics to reality) where "the laws of physics didn't apply". Could this may have required a little help from "the hand of God"?
“...if God has existed forever, why is our universe only 6 billion years old?”
THAT, is a very good question.
http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/48931772.html
... the Holy One, blessed be He, went on creating worlds and destroying them until He created this one, and declared, ‘This one pleases Me; those did not please Me.’” Rabbi Pinchas said: “This is R. Abahu’s reason: ‘And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good’ (Genesis 1:31). This pleases Me, but those did not please Me. (Midrash Rabbah - Genesis III:7)...
This goes along with the axiom: Uncaused Cause! For all the failed science I’ve read and for all the failed speculation; the most obvious answer to creation is the Uncaused Cause: GOD!
If one is predisposed to not believing in God nothing will prove Gods existence. Although I met a former atheist who came to believe in God after he found himself dangling off a rock face very high up and calling on God to save him...he was perplexed...”why am I calling on someone who I KNOW doesn’t exist?” His demonstrated irrationality caused him to address his opinions and beliefs.
New Heaven and New Earth? I’m good with that.
To others, this may be anecdotal evidence at best; but that does not mean it isn't so. I was there; I know
“The notion of God and His creation must be eliminated at all costs.”
Not at all. G-d can be behind a “bouncing” universe as easily as a big-bang universe; once one accepts that in the beginning - of “this” universe, or the previous/next one in the previous/next “bounce” - there was “nothing” and then there was light. Unless you’re going with the creationists “young earth” theories.
“Really? “Who” was here ten billion years ago? Where are all the skeletons? Think again.”
Since God is everlasting and eternal then why would he have only gotten around to creating the Earth ony 6,000 years ago? Was he binge l-watching a series on NetFlix?
I myself do not believe in a single, constantly expanding universe that will turn into a cold, dead, infinitely stretched waste. There are probably infinite realities that cycle between expansion and contraction, death and renewal. I believe that the nature of reality and the universe to be far more complex and awesome in scope than we can ever comprehend. God is infinite and everlasting as is reality.
That’s what this is all about, yes, eliminating God. What a failure.
Because time began with the universe.
Are you a Buddhist?
I'm not. I'm a Christian. And I read, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The ancients took that to mean the physical cosmos.
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.