The Biblical Believers....

[bigmann245]

I see a data collection problem there. When the guy who's booking you takes your fingerprints he also gives you a form to list your next of kin and any religious needs you might have, right at a moment you're trying really hard to think of ways to make yourself sound like an upstanding citizen.

It's a tiny bit like Galileo being shown the instruments of torture and then being asked if he would like to reconsider whether the earth goes around the sun.

so true

 

[cindylou]

I don't think seeking truth is ever a waste of time bro.

and cindy, if relationships with god were always personal, and didn't have any bearing on anyone but the individual, they would be tolerable, like astrology, or tarrot card reading. We don't see public policy being dictated by people's belief in the starts. We don't see colleges and schools based on astrology centric curriculum. Can you see how this would be very disturbing if it was true?

I agree. I dont see why public poliy should be dictated by that either. God would not want that (or so I belive). Each person should be free to worship and belive what and who they want. I agree with you there.

Again, I would be careful of anyone trying to force you do do anything in the name of God. They could be using it for their own purpose.

 

[digger]

by the way...is evolution no longer a theory???

To a scientist, the word "theory" has a specific meaning. What you're thinking of, a scientist calls a "hypothesis."

A "theory" is what you get after you have challenged a hypothesis with everything that EVERYBODY in the scientific world can think of, and it has PASSED all those tests.

It is very damn close to what a layperson calls a "law of nature."

So, yeah, in the terms that you and I use in our everyday speech, the "Theory of Evolution" should be called the "Law of Evolution."

 

[javaguru]

I see a data collection problem there. When the guy who's booking you takes your fingerprints he also gives you a form to list your next of kin and any religious needs you might have, right at a moment you're trying really hard to think of ways to make yourself sound like an upstanding citizen.

It's a tiny bit like Galileo being shown the instruments of torture and then being asked if he would like to reconsider whether the earth goes around the sun.

It's more of an attempt to refute the moral/happiness argument typically given by the theists. Those numbers come from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, that data is taken at in processing and the data is confidential, which is made clear during the process. However, there are quite a few prison/jail conversions, Paris Hilton for example. The Bible is often quoted by theists to show the value of having God in your marriage. Yet, the Barna study, which had the intention of showing a relationship between successful marriages and faith, found that evangelical Christians had the highest divorce rates of any christian group. Atheists had a lower divorce rate than any faith based group studied. Theists assumed the results of the study would be in their favor because they believed faith based marriages were more successful because of the bible.

 

[ceo]

ya just gos to show...I am at peace with what I believe.if I am wrong well then its no lose to me...but if there wrong well lol might be a bit of a lose to them.

so if there is a heaven and a hell, and you say if you're wrong it's no loss to you, then think about this "alternate reality":

God is God alone. Jesus was just a man, not God. If you worship a man (Jesus) as God, then you are worshiping a false god. You are a pagan as defined by the bible, a worshipper of false gods.

Now...if you are wrong, then maybe it is a huge loss to you? Maybe you'll be burning in hell with all the other pagans?



Jesus' early followers did not believe he was God...why does half the world now believe it? Many things began to change during the time of the Constantine Roman empire era. Jesus became God and was said to have been born on Dec. 25th. Constantine was a sun worhipping pagan high priest. He worshipped the sun god, Mithras. Mithras' followers celebrated his birthday on Dec. 25th. Constatine was looking for something to solidify the unity of his empire, and he chose a state religion...Christianity.

Through the course of time and events he had managed to blend his beliefs with the beliefs of Jesus' early followers. The bible was assembled from numerous texts at the council of nicea, and arranged into the current cannon. Constantine made sure to have the 300 some odd bishops of the council make sure every text agreed as much as possible. Those texts that didn't agree were discarded (some have been re-discovered).

Anyone who resisted the new blended state religion called Chrsitianity was tortured and/or killed. Doesn't take long for folks to submit when the only other choice is death.

2000 years later, here we are...believing it all. Anyone who doesn't is usually attacked by those who do. Then there's java who is making up for those attacks.

I could've been a lot more verbose and gone into much more intricate details, but I am far too lazy to go through the effort when you can google that shit yourselves.

 

[cindylou]

so if there is a heaven and a hell, and you say if you're wrong it's no loss to you, then think about this "alternate reality":

God is God alone. Jesus was just a man, not God. If you worship a man (Jesus) as God, then you are worshiping a false god. You are a pagan as defined by the bible, a worshipper of false gods.

Now...if you are wrong, then maybe it is a huge loss to you? Maybe you'll be burning in hell with all the other pagans?



Jesus' early followers did not believe he was God...why does half the world now believe it? Many things began to change during the time of the Constantine Roman empire era. Jesus became God and was said to have been born on Dec. 25th. Constantine was a sun worhipping pagan high priest. He worshipped the sun god, Mithras. Mithras' followers celebrated his birthday on Dec. 25th. Constatine was looking for something to solidify the unity of his empire, and he chose a state religion...Christianity.

Through the course of time and events he had managed to blend his beliefs with the beliefs of Jesus' early followers. The bible was assembled from numerous texts at the council of nicea, and arranged into the current cannon. Constantine made sure to have the 300 some odd bishops of the council make sure every text agreed as much as possible. Those texts that didn't agree were discarded (some have been re-discovered).

Anyone who resisted the new blended state religion called Chrsitianity was tortured and/or killed. Doesn't take long for folks to submit when the only other choice is death.

2000 years later, here we are...believing it all. Anyone who doesn't is usually attacked by those who do. Then there's java who is making up for those attacks.

I could've been a lot more verbose and gone into much more intricate details, but I am far too lazy to go through the effort when you can google that shit yourselves.

WOW. You are going into a whole other arguement: The Holy Trinity. (or the not so holy Trinity) lol

This thread could go on forever. lol

 

[bigmann245]

To a scientist, the word "theory" has a specific meaning. What you're thinking of, a scientist calls a "hypothesis."

A "theory" is what you get after you have challenged a hypothesis with everything that EVERYBODY in the scientific world can think of, and it has PASSED all those tests.

It is very damn close to what a layperson calls a "law of nature."

So, yeah, in the terms that you and I use in our everyday speech, the "Theory of Evolution" should be called the "Law of Evolution."

yea but getting the church to say that is a whole different story.

 

[javaguru]

yea but getting the church to say that is a whole different story.

The Catholic Church has acknowledged evolution. The evangelicals...I don't see them accepting it anytime soon.

 

[ceo]

You have to open your heart to allow God to speak to you. He will speak to you if your heart is not bitter and hardened.

ah shit, it's too late for me then...

 

[javaguru]

ah shit, it's too late for me then...

Don't worry man, I was a born again Christian for most of my life and God never spoke to me.

 

[WODIN]

I dont argue those.

I know God is real. I know it. I dont need God because if he does not exist I'll go to hell. He's real because I can feel him in my life ; he is there just as much as I am there. To know God in your life and see what he does, you cannot deny this. You just have to open your heart a little ; and not be dead to life and love, but alive to feel what its like to truly love and live.

a person's perception changes.


Of course all the talking/typing in the world will not convince you of that. AND thats ok. If you dont want God in your life, thats fine. God does not want anyone who does not want him either. I'm sure God is dissapointed that you keep rejecting him ; but does not want to force you either. He wants what you want. Thats what love is right?

Can you tell me in the bible where it says that God doesn't want anyone in his life that doesn't want him in there's?

 

[ceo]

WOW. You are going into a whole other arguement: The Holy Trinity. (or the not so holy Trinity) lol

This thread could go on forever. lol

but that is what christians believe universally across every denomination. It's the basis of the religion...Jesus is God. Both the Nicean Creed and the Apostle's Creed establish this idea of a Trinity. Christian churches have been driving this idea home since it was established around 325 AD.

If you don't believe in the trinity, how do you call yourself a Christian?

If jesus is god, why when asked when the end of the world would be, did he reply that no man knows, not even the angels, but "only my Father" knows?
If he were God, he would surely have known as God is omniscient.

Why, in the bible, did Jesus (if he were God) repeatedly call himself the, "son of man"? If he were god why not say so?

I could go on...

 

[ceo]

Don't worry man, I was a born again Christian for most of my life and God never spoke to me.

me too. I guess we're still covered if "once saved always saved" is true huh?

 

[javaguru]

me too. I guess we're still covered if "once saved always saved" is true huh?

That's debated among Christians too. Rejecting the holy spirit is listed as the only unforgivable sin but how does that work if you've already accepted Jesus as your lord and savior?

 

[ceo]

yep god is a good brotha..

god is black?

 

[cindylou]

Can you tell me in the bible where it says that God doesn't want anyone in his life that doesn't want him in there's?

Its clear because he does not force us to worship him ; nor does he force us to be with him in heaven. As far as I know there it does not say in the bible that God does not want anyone who does not want him. Thats a conclusion I made based on the fact that he lets us choose.

The Gift of God is that a gift. It's given which means you have to take it. You are not born with it.

Should I have said that God does not WANT java?? No. Of course he does. God/ devine being who created something would not want to be seperated from his child. But God does not want to force java worship him or accept the gift of his son. Thats what I should have said I guess.

Thats what you all want, right? Its pretty clear in the bible that you can accept or reject him. You can reject ; I can accept? Do we have to hate eachother because we made different choices?? Do we have to try and convince others otherwise? Or try to make them falter in their faith? If that be faith of God or not? Why would you want that? Many people find meaning and purpose in their lives by worhsipping God; just like one guy might find meaning in his life with his job / wife / car etc.

We all look for meaning/ purpose/ truth. If you say there is no God who defines that purpose for us ; you will still look for meaning. You will devote your love to other things ; trying to find that meaning.

All I was saying is that I'm not going to sit here and tell Java about the fire of hell. The ultimate punishment for rejecting Christ is just that: distance from God ; a God he wants no part of.

He knows this. He's out on a mission to change everyone else to believe what he belives ; stating that religion is somehow detremental or bad for society ; when its not religion or GOD. It's the selfish people who misuse it.

How could having one being ; person ; who could give us an absolute truth be bad for society? I mean ; we cannot logically come up with absolute truth on our own? A set of morals for everyone? What determines what is right or wrong if there is not God? What happens then?

 

[cindylou]

That's debated among Christians too. Rejecting the holy spirit is listed as the only unforgivable sin but how does that work if you've already accepted Jesus as your lord and savior?

i dont believe that there are any unforgivable sins.

However, either you never REALLY believed ; or your heart has become too hard to let him in.

Did you ever really have faith??? Really????

 

[javaguru]

i dont believe that there are any unforgivable sins.

However, either you never REALLY believed ; or your heart has become too hard to let him in.

Did you ever really have faith??? Really????

I was 12, so yes. By 16 I had rejected the Bible as the literal word of God....I finally became a full fledged Atheist within the last few years. The more I studied Christianity and read the Bible the less of a believer I became.

My brother in law was a Baptist minister and my earliest memory of attending church is about age 6. I was fully indoctrinated in the faith.

 

[jackangel]

i hate cindylou because she won't send me pics. i've prayed and prayed to her, but no go.

 

[musclemom]

I think the thing that gets me about biblical believers is this dogged hanging onto the concept of a personification of the Divine.

That which created the universe and all within it is neither male nor female, and most certainly doesn't possess the petty bullshit that humanity, in personifying it, has imbued it with.

The biblical writings were put together as religious/spiritual propaganda specifically designed to be a) societal laws and b) to turn people against earth based worship (that's why G-O-D lives up in the SKY and the DEVIL lives down here under the earth somewhere).

Whatever ... the fact of the matter is more people and cultures have been destroyed or abused in the name of the petty, bigoted God of the Jews or his martyred "son" than for any other cause in the history of humanity, and to deny that fact is to put blinders on. The poison that is contained within the covers of the "holy bible" has done nothing but create cults of fear, using threats of eternal damnation and torture to control people and justifies the subjugation of women.

 

[redsamurai]

how bout some cliff notes dude? god damn, does this look like physics class? Interesting shit, but when I"m here at anabolic androgenic steroids/meathead.com..........please provide cliff's.......damn!!

 

[redsamurai]

god does require everyone in his presence to be spotless ; perfect

he cannot accept any less / he cannot accept any of us

I would say "accountable" instead of spotless/perfect.........I would think accountability would be most important to him/her/it. That's why I like the samurai code so much..........because it required great sacrifice in the pursuit of honor, integrity etc.... Look at the men who lead us...........does accountability "ever" enter your thoughts when watching them tap dance around everything? The ability to do what's right even under great personal disadvantage is something that's been lost on all of us.......it's gone, and that's why I think the world is dying out.

 

[redsamurai]

so what created the big bang...and what created that and then that...lol its the same dame thing.lol some time or another you have to say well there had to be a start...some thing or some one had to just be there for reasons that cant be explained....it has to start some where.

this is based on linear thinking..........there must be a beginning and and end...........what we have to realize is that there's a possibility our level of cognition can not conceive something with no beginning and no end, just one infinite loop. I'm fine with that if that's the case..........I obviously can't personally conceive having been around for infinity and then being around for infinity.........cause that just becomes staggering............but I can accept that something out there is.

 

[cindylou]

I would say "accountable" instead of spotless/perfect.........I would think accountability would be most important to him/her/it. That's why I like the samurai code so much..........because it required great sacrifice in the pursuit of honor, integrity etc.... Look at the men who lead us...........does accountability "ever" enter your thoughts when watching them tap dance around everything? The ability to do what's right even under great personal disadvantage is something that's been lost on all of us.......it's gone, and that's why I think the world is dying out.

I totally agree. Selfish instead of selfless.

 

[redsamurai]

you know that prickly feeling on your neck? or when it gets really cold? thats jesus..

no, please don't tell me you're being serious.....please!!! you are joking right? tell me you don't actually beleive this? If you do, know that they've got you hook line and sinker. What a great brainwashing tool.........

 

[redsamurai]

whatever you say have a nice time in hell loser..

why tell someone they're going to hell? do you know JG? do you know if he's an unethical or Immoral person? no.....all you know is that he doesn't share your beleifs and will challenge you on yours as you challenge his........it's great discussion and makes all of us more sound in our own beleifs........so keep the hell fire and brimstone out of it.

 

[ceo]

The more I studied Christianity and read the Bible the less of a believer I became.

so true. when you come across so many glaring inconsistencies, not only within the bible itself, but also between the bible and actual true historical accounts.

 

[javaguru]

how bout some cliff notes dude? god damn, does this look like physics class? Interesting shit, but when I"m here at anabolic androgenic steroids/meathead.com..........please provide cliff's.......damn!!

That article was just to show that we do know more about the universe and its beginnings than we did 15 years ago, let alone 2,000 years ago. That is the cliffs notes, it's a wikipedia article.

I've never understood how people put more credence in one of many accounts of creation that can be roughly dated to circa 4400 BCE than modern science.

 

[musclemom]

this is based on linear thinking..........there must be a beginning and and end...........what we have to realize is that there's a possibility our level of cognition can not conceive something with no beginning and no end, just one infinite loop. I'm fine with that if that's the case..........I obviously can't personally conceive having been around for infinity and then being around for infinity.........cause that just becomes staggering............but I can accept that something out there is.

My dear you get the gold star!!!

You want to read "The Field" by Lynn McTaggert, trust me.

 

[musclemom]

That article was just to show that we do know more about the universe and its beginnings than we did 15 years ago, let alone 2,000 years ago. That is the cliffs notes, it's a wikipedia article.

I've never understood how people put more credence in one of many accounts of creation that can be roughly dated to circa 4400 BCE than modern science.

Easy, one simple word:

F-E-A-R

The fear of potential retribution from an unknowable entity that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and judgemental.

 

[javaguru]

Which has a better explanation of the creation of the universe?

Genesis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_according_to_Genesis
The "creation week" narrative consists of eight divine commands, or fiats, executed over six days; days three and six each contain two commands. This is followed by a seventh day of rest.

First day: God creates light. (The source of light is not mentioned; it is described by some as a "primordial light".) The light is divided from the darkness, and "day" and "night" are named.
Second day: God creates a firmament and divides the waters above it from the waters below. The firmament is named "heaven".
Third day: God gathers the waters together, and dry land appears. "Earth" and "sea" are named. Then God brings forth grass, herbs and fruit-bearing trees on the Earth.
Fourth day: God creates lights in the firmament of Heaven, to separate light from darkness and to mark days, seasons and years. Two great lights are made (note: they are not named), as well as the stars.
Fifth day: God creates birds and sea creatures, including "great sea serpents" or "great whales". They are commanded to be fruitful and multiply.
Sixth day: God creates wild beasts, livestock and reptiles upon the Earth. He then creates Man and Woman in His "image" and "likeness". They are told to "be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it." Humans and animals are given plants to eat. The totality of creation is described by God as "very good".
Seventh day: God finishes his work of creation, and rests from His work. He blesses and sanctifies the seventh day.

The Big Bang Theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory
In physical cosmology, the term Big Bang has three related meanings. It refers to the observable facts of the evolution of the universe. It is also a cosmological model in which the universe has been expanding for around 13.7 billion years (13.7 Ga), starting from a tremendously dense and hot state. The term is also used in a narrower sense to describe the fundamental 'fireball' that erupted at or close to time t=0 in the history of the universe.

Observational evidence for the Big Bang includes the analysis of the spectrum of light from galaxies, which reveal a shift towards longer wavelengths proportional to each galaxy's distance in a relationship described by Hubble's law. Combined with the assumption that observers located anywhere in the universe would make similar observations (the Copernican principle), this suggests that space itself is expanding. Extrapolation of this expansion back in time yields a state in the distant past in which the universe was in a state of immense density and temperature. This hot, dense state is the key premise of the Big Bang.

Theoretical support for the Big Bang comes from mathematical models, called Friedmann models, which show that a Big Bang is consistent with general relativity and with the cosmological principle, which states that the properties of the universe should be independent of position or orientation.

The theory of Big Bang nucleosynthesis predicts the rates at which various light elements are created in models of the early universe and gives results that are generally consistent with observations. The Big Bang model also predicts the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), a background of weak microwave radiation filling the whole universe. The discovery of the CMB in 1964 led to general acceptance among physicists that the Big Bang is the best model for the origin and evolution of the universe.




Physical cosmology

Physical cosmology
Universe · Big Bang
Age of the universe
Timeline of the Big Bang
Ultimate fate of the universe
Early universe
Inflation · Nucleosynthesis
GWB · Neutrino Background
Cosmic microwave background
Expanding universe
Redshift · Hubble's law
Metric expansion of space
Friedmann equations
FLRW metric
Structure formation
Shape of the universe
Structure formation
Galaxy formation
Large-scale structure
Components
Lambda-CDM model
Dark energy · Dark matter
History
Timeline of cosmology...
Cosmology experiments
Observational cosmology
2dF · SDSS
CoBE · BOOMERanG · WMAP
Scientists
Einstein · Friedman · Lemaître
Hubble · Penzias · Wilson
Gamow · Dicke · Zel'dovich
Mather · Smoot · others

This box: view • talk • edit



Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Overview
3 Theoretical underpinnings
3.1 FLRW metric
3.2 Horizons
4 Observational evidence
4.1 Hubble's law expansion
4.2 Cosmic microwave background radiation
4.3 Abundance of primordial elements
4.4 Galactic evolution and distribution
4.5 Other lines of evidence
5 Features, issues and problems
5.1 Horizon problem
5.2 Flatness/oldness problem
5.3 Magnetic monopoles
5.4 Baryon asymmetry
5.5 Globular cluster age
5.6 Dark matter
5.7 Dark energy
6 The future according to the Big Bang theory
7 Speculative physics beyond the Big Bang
8 Philosophical and religious interpretations
9 Notes and references
9.1 Books
10 Further reading
11 External links



History
Main article: History of the Big Bang theory
See also: Timeline of cosmology and History of astronomy
The Big Bang theory developed from observations of the structure of the universe and from theoretical considerations. In 1912 Vesto Slipher measured the first Doppler shift of a "spiral nebula" (spiral nebula is the obsolete term for spiral galaxies), and soon discovered that almost all such nebulae were receding from Earth. He did not grasp the cosmological implications of this fact, and indeed at the time it was highly controversial whether or not these nebulae were "island universes" outside our Milky Way.[1] Ten years later, Alexander Friedmann, a Russian cosmologist and mathematician, derived the Friedmann equations from Albert Einstein's equations of general relativity, showing that the universe might be expanding in contrast to the static universe model advocated by Einstein.[2] In 1924, Edwin Hubble's measurement of the great distance to the nearest spiral nebulae showed that these systems were indeed other galaxies. Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, predicted that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the universe.[3] In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the universe began as a simple "primeval atom", echoing previous speculations about the cosmic egg origin of the universe.[4]

Starting in 1924, Hubble painstakingly developed a series of distance indicators, the forerunner of the cosmic distance ladder, using the 100 inch Hooker telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory. This allowed him to estimate distances to galaxies whose redshifts had already been measured, mostly by Slipher. In 1929, Hubble discovered a correlation between distance and recession velocity—now known as Hubble's law.[5][6] Lemaître had already shown that this was expected, given the cosmological principle.[7]


Artist's depiction of the WMAP satellite gathering data to help scientists understand the Big Bang.During the 1930s other ideas were proposed as non-standard cosmologies to explain Hubble's observations, including the Milne model,[8] the oscillatory universe (originally suggested by Friedmann, but advocated by Einstein and Richard Tolman)[9] and Fritz Zwicky's tired light hypothesis.[10]

After World War II, two distinct possibilities emerged. One was Fred Hoyle's steady state model, whereby new matter would be created as the universe seemed to expand. In this model, the universe is roughly the same at any point in time.[11] The other was Lemaître's Big Bang theory, advocated and developed by George Gamow, who introduced big bang nucleosynthesis[12] and whose associates, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, predicted the CMB.[13] It is an irony that it was Hoyle who coined the name that would come to be applied to Lemaître's theory, referring to it sarcastically as "this big bang idea" during a radio broadcast.[14] For a while, support was split between these two theories. Eventually, the observational evidence, most notably from radio source counts, began to favor the latter. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964[15] secured the Big Bang as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the cosmos. Much of the current work in cosmology includes understanding how galaxies form in the context of the Big Bang, understanding the physics of the universe at earlier and earlier times, and reconciling observations with the basic theory.

Huge strides in Big Bang cosmology have been made since the late 1990s as a result of major advances in telescope technology as well as the analysis of copious data from satellites such as COBE,[16] the Hubble Space Telescope and WMAP.[17] Cosmologists now have fairly precise measurement of many of the parameters of the Big Bang model, and have made the unexpected discovery that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating (see dark energy).


Overview
See also: Timeline of the Big Bang
A graphical timeline is available here:
Graphical timeline of the Big BangExtrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[18] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly not earlier than the Planck epoch. The early hot, dense phase is itself referred to as "the Big Bang",[19] and is considered the "birth" of our universe. Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the universe has a calculated age of 13.7 ± 0.2 billion years.[20] The agreement of these three independent measurements strongly supports the ΛCDM model that describes in detail the contents of the universe.

The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models, the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−35 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially.[21] After inflation stopped, the universe consisted of a quark-gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles.[22] Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle-antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and anti-leptons—of the order of 1 part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe.[23]

The universe continued to grow in size and fall in temperature (and hence the typical energy of each particles was decreasing). Symmetry breaking phase transitions put the fundamental forces of physics and the parameters of elementary particles into their present form.[24] After about 10−11 seconds, the picture becomes less speculative, since particle energies drop to values that can be attained in particle physics experiments. At about 10−6 seconds, quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons. The small excess of quarks over antiquarks led to a small excess of baryons over antibaryons. The temperature was now no longer high enough to create new proton-antiproton pairs (similarly for neutrons-antineutrons), so a mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 1010 of the original protons and neutrons, and none of their antiparticles. A similar process happened at about 1 second for electrons and positrons. After these annihilations, the remaining protons, neutrons and electrons were no longer moving relativistically and the energy density of the universe was dominated by photons (with a minor contribution from neutrinos).

A few minutes into the expansion, when the temperature was about a billion Kelvins and the density was about that of air, neutrons combined with protons to form the universe's deuterium and helium nuclei in a process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis.[25] Most protons remained uncombined as hydrogen nuclei. As the universe cooled, the rest mass energy density of matter came to gravitationally dominate that of the photon radiation. After about 380,000 years the electrons and nuclei combined into atoms (mostly hydrogen); hence the radiation decoupled from matter and continued through space largely unimpeded. This relic radiation is known as the cosmic microwave background radiation.[26]

Over time, the slightly denser regions of the nearly uniformly distributed matter gravitationally attracted nearby matter and thus grew even denser, forming gas clouds, stars, galaxies, and the other astronomical structures observable today. The details of this process depend on the amount and type of matter in the universe. The three possible types of matter are known as cold dark matter, hot dark matter and baryonic matter. The best measurements available (from WMAP) show that the dominant form of matter in the universe is cold dark matter. The other two types of matter make up less than 20% of the matter in the universe.[17]

The universe today appears to be dominated by a mysterious form of energy known as dark energy. Approximately 70% of the total energy density of today's universe is in this form. This dark energy causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate, observed as a slower than expected expansion at very large distances. Dark energy in its simplest formulation takes the form of a cosmological constant term in Einstein's field equations of general relativity, but its composition is unknown and, more generally, the details of its equation of state and relationship with the standard model of particle physics continue to be investigated both observationally and theoretically.[7]

All these observations can be explained by the ΛCDM model of cosmology, which is a mathematical model of the Big Bang with six free parameters. As noted above, there is no compelling physical model for the first 10−11 seconds of the universe. To resolve the paradox of the initial singularity, a theory of quantum gravitation is needed. Understanding this period of the history of the universe is one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics.


Theoretical underpinnings
The Big Bang theory depends on two major assumptions:

The universality of physical laws
The cosmological principle—the universe is homogeneous and isotropic
These ideas were initially taken as postulates, but today there are efforts to test each of them. For example, the first assumption has been tested by observations showing that largest possible deviation of the fine structure constant over much of the age of the universe is of order 10-5.[27] Also, General Relativity has passed stringent tests on the scale of the solar system and binary stars while extrapolation to cosmological scales has been validated by the empirical successes of various aspects of the Big Bang theory.[28]

If the large-scale universe appears isotropic as viewed from Earth, the cosmological principle can be derived from the simpler Copernican principle, which states that there is no preferred (or special) observer or vantage point. To this end, the cosmological principle has been confirmed to a level of 10-5 via observations of the CMB.[29] The universe has been measured to be homogeneous on the largest scales at the 10% level.[30]


FLRW metric
Main articles: Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric and Metric expansion of space
General relativity describes spacetime by a metric, which determines the distances that separate nearby points. The points themselves (galaxies, stars, etc.) are specified using a coordinate chart or "grid" that is laid down over all spacetime. The cosmological principle implies that the metric should be homogeneous and isotropic on large scales, which uniquely singles out the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric (FLRW metric). This metric contains a scale factor, which describes how the size of the universe changes with time. This enables a convenient choice of a coordinate system to be made, called comoving coordinates. In this coordinate system, the grid expands along with the universe, and objects that are moving only due to the expansion of the universe remain at fixed points on the grid. While their coordinate distance (comoving distance) remains constant, the physical distance between two such comoving points expands proportionally with the scale factor of the universe.[31]

The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points. Because the FLRW metric assumes a uniform distribution of mass and energy, it applies to our universe only on large scales—local concentrations of matter such as our galaxy are gravitationally bound and as such do not experience the large-scale expansion of space. Sizes of objects which are defined by laws and constants of physics (say, size of an atom, or of a chunk of solid like meter stick, or of a Solar system) do not change (because those laws and constants do not change).[citation needed]


Horizons
Main article: Cosmological horizon
An important feature of the Big Bang spacetime is the presence of horizons. Since the universe has a finite age, and light travels at a finite speed, there may be events in the past whose light has not had time to reach us. This places a limit—a "past horizon"—on the most distant objects that can be observed. Conversely, because space is expanding, and more distant objects are receding ever more quickly, light emitted by us today may never "catch up" to very distant objects. This defines a "future horizon," which limits the events in the future that we will be able to influence. The presence of either type of horizon depends on the details of the FRW model that describes our universe. Our understanding of the universe back to very early times suggests that there was a past horizon, though in practice our view is limited by the opacity of the universe at early times. If the expansion of the universe continues to accelerate, there is a future horizon as well.[32]


Observational evidence
The earliest and most direct kinds of observational evidence (sometimes called the three pillars of the Big Bang theory) are the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background, and the abundance of light elements (see Big Bang nucleosynthesis). Many other lines of evidence now support the picture, notably various properties of the large-scale structure of the cosmos which are predicted to occur due to gravitational growth of structure in the standard Big Bang theory.


Hubble's law expansion
Main article: Hubble's law
See also: distance measures (cosmology)
Observations of distant galaxies and quasars show that these objects are redshifted—the light emitted from them has been shifted to longer wavelengths. This can be seen by taking a frequency spectrum of an object and matching the spectroscopic pattern of emission lines or absorption lines corresponding to atoms of the chemical elements interacting with the light. From this analysis, a redshift can be measured. If this is interpreted as a Doppler shift, the recessional velocity of the object can be calculated. For some galaxies, it is then possible to estimate distances via the cosmic distance ladder. When the recessional velocities are plotted against these distances, a linear relationship known as Hubble's law is observed:[5]


where

v is the recessional velocity of the galaxy or other distant object
D is the distance to the object and
H0 is Hubble's constant, measured to be (70 +2.4/-3.2) km/s/Mpc by the WMAP probe.[20]
Hubble's law has two possible explanations. Either we are at the center of an explosion of galaxies—which is untenable given the Copernican principle—or the universe is uniformly expanding everywhere. This universal expansion was considered mathematically in the context of general relativity well before Hubble made his analysis and observations, and it remains the cornerstone of the Big Bang theory as developed by Friedmann, Lemaître, Robertson and Walker.

The theory requires the relation v = HD to hold at all times, where D is the proper distance, v = dD / dt, and v, H, and D all vary as the universe expands (hence we write H0 to denote the present-day Hubble "constant"). For distances much smaller than the size of the observable universe, the Hubble redshift can be thought of as the Doppler shift corresponding to the recession velocity v. However, the redshift is not a true Doppler shift, but rather the result of the expansion of the universe between the time the light was emitted and the time that it was detected.[33]


Cosmic microwave background radiation
Main article: Cosmic microwave background radiation

WMAP image of the cosmic microwave background radiationDuring the first few days of the universe, the universe was in full thermal equilibrium, with photons being continually emitted and absorbed, giving the radiation a blackbody spectrum. As the universe expanded, it cooled to a temperature at which photons could no longer be created or destroyed. The temperature was still high enough for electrons and nuclei to remain unbound, however, and photons were constantly "reflected" from these free electrons through a process called Thomson scattering. Because of this repeated scattering, the early universe was opaque to light.

When the temperature fell to a few thousand Kelvin, electrons and nuclei began to combine to form atoms, a process known as recombination. Since photons scatter infrequently from neutral atoms, radiation decoupled from matter when nearly all the electrons had recombined, at the epoch of last scattering, 380,000 years after the Big Bang. These photons make up the CMB that is observed today, and the observed pattern of fluctuations in the CMB is a direct picture of the universe at this early epoch. The energy of photons was subsequently redshifted by the expansion of the universe, which preserved the blackbody spectrum but caused its temperature to fall, meaning that the photons now fall into the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The radiation is thought to be observable at every point in the universe, and comes from all directions with (almost) the same intensity.

In 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson accidentally discovered the cosmic background radiation while conducting diagnostic observations using a new microwave receiver owned by Bell Laboratories.[15] Their discovery provided substantial confirmation of the general CMB predictions—the radiation was found to be isotropic and consistent with a blackbody spectrum of about 3 K—and it pitched the balance of opinion in favor of the Big Bang hypothesis. Penzias and Wilson were awarded a Nobel Prize for their discovery.

In 1989, NASA launched the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite (COBE), and the initial findings, released in 1990, were consistent with the Big Bang's predictions regarding the CMB. COBE found a residual temperature of 2.726 K and in 1992 detected for the first time the fluctuations (anisotropies) in the CMB, at a level of about one part in 105.[16] John C. Mather and George Smoot were awarded Nobels for their leadership in this work. During the following decade, CMB anisotropies were further investigated by a large number of ground-based and balloon experiments. In 2000–2001, several experiments, most notably BOOMERanG, found the universe to be almost geometrically flat by measuring the typical angular size (the size on the sky) of the anisotropies. (See shape of the universe.)

In early 2003, the first results of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy satellite (WMAP) were released, yielding what were at the time the most accurate values for some of the cosmological parameters. This satellite also disproved several specific cosmic inflation models, but the results were consistent with the inflation theory in general.[20] This satellite is still gathering data. Another satellite will be launched within the next few years, the Planck Surveyor, which will provide even more accurate measurements of the CMB anisotropies. Many other ground- and balloon-based experiments are also currently running; see Cosmic microwave background experiments.


Abundance of primordial elements
Main article: Big Bang nucleosynthesis
Using the Big Bang model it is possible to calculate the concentration of helium-4, helium-3, deuterium and lithium-7 in the universe as ratios to the amount of ordinary hydrogen, H.[25] All the abundances depend on a single parameter, the ratio of photons to baryons, which itself can be calculated independently from the detailed structure of CMB fluctuations. The ratios predicted (by mass, not by number) are about 0.25 for 4He/H, about 10-3 for 2H/H, about 10-4 for 3He/H and about 10-9 for 7Li/H.[25]

The measured abundances all agree at least roughly with those predicted from a single value of the baryon-to-photon ratio. The agreement is excellent for deuterium, close but formally discrepant for 4He, and a factor of two off for 7Li; in the latter two cases there are substantial systematic uncertainties. Nonetheless, the general consistency with abundances predicted by BBN is strong evidence for the Big Bang, as the theory is the only known explanation for the relative abundances of light elements, and it is virtually impossible to "tune" the Big Bang to produce much more or less than 20–30% helium.[34] Indeed there is no obvious reason outside of the Big Bang that, for example, the young universe (i.e., before star formation, as determined by studying matter supposedly free of stellar nucleosynthesis products) should have more helium than deuterium or more deuterium than 3He, and in constant ratios, too.


Galactic evolution and distribution
Main articles: Large-scale structure of the cosmos, Structure formation, and Galaxy formation and evolution
Detailed observations of the morphology and distribution of galaxies and quasars provide strong evidence for the Big Bang. A combination of observations and theory suggest that the first quasars and galaxies formed about a billion years after the Big Bang, and since then larger structures have been forming, such as galaxy clusters and superclusters. Populations of stars have been aging and evolving, so that distant galaxies (which are observed as they were in the early universe) appear very different from nearby galaxies (observed in a more recent state). Moreover, galaxies that formed relatively recently appear markedly different from galaxies formed at similar distances but shortly after the Big Bang. These observations are strong arguments against the steady-state model. Observations of star formation, galaxy and quasar distributions and larger structures agree well with Big Bang simulations of the formation of structure in the universe and are helping to complete details of the theory.[35]


Other lines of evidence
After some controversy, the age of universe as estimated from the Hubble expansion and the CMB is now in good agreement with (i.e. slightly larger than) the ages of the oldest stars, both as measured by applying the theory of stellar evolution to globular clusters and through radiometric dating of individual Population II stars.

The prediction that the CMB temperature was higher in the past has been experimentally supported by observations of temperature-sensitive emission lines in gas clouds at high redshift. This prediction also implies that the amplitude of the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect in clusters of galaxies does not depend directly on redshift; this seems to be roughly true, but unfortunately the amplitude does depend on cluster properties which do change substantially over cosmic time, so a precise test is impossible.


Features, issues and problems
While very few researchers now doubt the Big Bang occurred, the scientific community was once divided between supporters of the Big Bang and those of alternative cosmological models. Throughout the historical development of the subject, problems with the Big Bang theory were posed in the context of a scientific controversy regarding which model could best describe the cosmological observations (see the history section above). With the overwhelming consensus in the community today supporting the Big Bang model, many of these problems are remembered as being mainly of historical interest; the solutions to them have been obtained either through modifications to the theory or as the result of better observations. Other issues, such as the cuspy halo problem and the dwarf galaxy problem of cold dark matter, are not considered to be fatal as it is anticipated that they can be solved through further refinements of the theory.

The core ideas of the Big Bang—the expansion, the early hot state, the formation of helium, the formation of galaxies—are derived from many independent observations including Big Bang nucleosynthesis, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure and Type Ia supernovae, and can hardly be doubted as important and real features of our universe.

Precise modern models of the Big Bang appeal to various exotic physical phenomena that have not yet been observed in terrestrial laboratory experiments or incorporated into the Standard Model of particle physics. Of these features, dark energy and dark matter are the most secure, while inflation and baryogenesis remain speculative: they provide satisfying explanations for important features of the early universe, but could be replaced by alternative ideas without affecting the rest of the theory.[36] Explanations for such phenomena remain at the frontiers of inquiry in physics.

The following is a short list of Big Bang "problems" and puzzles:


Horizon problem
Main article: Horizon problem
The horizon problem results from the premise that information cannot travel faster than light. In a universe of finite age, this sets a limit—the particle horizon—on the separation of any two regions of space that are in causal contact.[37] The observed isotropy of the CMB is problematic in this regard: if the universe had been dominated by radiation or matter at all times up to the epoch of last scattering, the particle horizon at that time would correspond to about 2 degrees on the sky. There would then be no mechanism to cause these regions to have the same temperature.

A resolution to this apparent inconsistency is offered by inflationary theory in which a homogeneous and isotropic scalar energy field dominates the universe at some very early period (before baryogenesis). During inflation, the universe undergoes exponential expansion, and the particle horizon expands much more rapidly than previously assumed, so that regions presently on opposite sides of the observable universe are well inside each other's particle horizon. The observed isotropy of the CMB then follows from the fact that this larger region was in causal contact before the beginning of inflation.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle predicts that during the inflationary phase there would be quantum thermal fluctuations, which would be magnified to cosmic scale. These fluctuations serve as the seeds of all current structure in the universe. Inflation predicts that the primordial fluctuations are nearly scale invariant and Gaussian, which has been accurately confirmed by measurements of the CMB.


Flatness/oldness problem
Main article: Flatness problem

The overall geometry of the universe is determined by whether the Omega cosmological parameter is less than, equal to or greater than 1. From top to bottom: a closed universe with positive curvature, a hyperbolic universe with negative curvature and a flat universe with zero curvature.The flatness problem (also known as the oldness problem) is an observational problem associated with a Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric.[37] The universe may have positive, negative or zero spatial curvature depending on its total energy density. Curvature is negative if its density is less than the critical density, positive if greater, and zero at the critical density, in which case space is said to be "flat". The problem is that any small departure from the critical density grows with time, and yet the universe today remains very close to flat.[38] Given that a "natural" timescale for departure from flatness might be the Planck time, 10−43 seconds, the fact that the universe has reached neither a Heat Death nor a Big Crunch after billions of years requires some explanation. For instance, even at the relatively "late" age of a few minutes (the time of nucleosynthesis), the universe must have been within one part in 1014 of the critical density, or it would not exist as it does today.[39]

A resolution to this problem is offered by inflationary theory. During the inflationary period, spacetime expanded to such an extent that its curvature would have been smoothed out. Thus, it is believed that inflation drove the universe to a very nearly spatially flat state, with almost exactly the critical density.


Magnetic monopoles
Main article: Magnetic monopole
The magnetic monopole objection was raised in the late 1970s. Grand unification theories predicted topological defects in space that would manifest as magnetic monopoles. These objects would be produced efficiently in the hot early universe, resulting in a density much higher than is consistent with observations, given that searches have never found any monopoles. This problem is also resolved by cosmic inflation, which removes all point defects from the observable universe in the same way that it drives the geometry to flatness.[37]


Baryon asymmetry
Main article: Baryon asymmetry
It is not yet understood why the universe has more matter than antimatter.[23] It is generally assumed that when the universe was young and very hot, it was in statistical equilibrium and contained equal numbers of baryons and anti-baryons. However, observations suggest that the universe, including its most distant parts, is made almost entirely of matter. An unknown process called "baryogenesis" created the asymmetry. For baryogenesis to occur, the Sakharov conditions must be satisfied. These require that baryon number is not conserved, that C-symmetry and CP-symmetry are violated and that the universe depart from thermodynamic equilibrium.[40] All these conditions occur in the Standard Model, but the effect is not strong enough to explain the present baryon asymmetry.


Globular cluster age
In the mid-1990s, observations of globular clusters appeared to be inconsistent with the Big Bang. Computer simulations that matched the observations of the stellar populations of globular clusters suggested that they were about 15 billion years old, which conflicted with the 13.7-billion-year age of the universe. This issue was generally resolved in the late 1990s when new computer simulations, which included the effects of mass loss due to stellar winds, indicated a much younger age for globular clusters.[41] There still remain some questions as to how accurately the ages of the clusters are measured, but it is clear that these objects are some of the oldest in the universe.


Dark matter
Main article: Dark matter

A pie chart indicating the proportional composition of different energy-density components of the universe, according to the best ΛCDM model fits. Roughly ninety-five percent is in the exotic forms of dark matter and dark energyDuring the 1970s and 1980s, various observations (notably of galactic rotation curves) showed that there is not sufficient visible matter in the universe to account for the apparent strength of gravitational forces within and between galaxies. This led to the idea that up to 90% of the matter in the universe is dark matter that does not emit light or interact with normal baryonic matter. In addition, the assumption that the universe is mostly normal matter led to predictions that were strongly inconsistent with observations. In particular, the universe today is far more lumpy and contains far less deuterium than can be accounted for without dark matter. While dark matter was initially controversial, it is now indicated by numerous observations: the anisotropies in the CMB, galaxy cluster velocity dispersions, large-scale structure distributions, gravitational lensing studies, and X-ray measurements of galaxy clusters.[42]

The evidence for dark matter comes from its gravitational influence on other matter, and no dark matter particles have been observed in laboratories. Many particle physics candidates for dark matter have been proposed, and several projects to detect them directly are underway.[43]


Dark energy
Main article: Dark energy
Measurements of the redshift–magnitude relation for Type Ia supernovae have revealed that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating since the universe was about half its present age. To explain this acceleration, general relativity requires that much of the energy in the universe consists of a component with large negative pressure, dubbed "dark energy". Dark energy is indicated by several other lines of evidence. Measurements of the cosmic microwave background indicate that the universe is very nearly spatially flat, and therefore according to general relativity the universe must have almost exactly the critical density of mass/energy. But the mass density of the universe can be measured from its gravitational clustering, and is found to have only about 30% of the critical density.[7] Since dark energy does not cluster in the usual way it is the best explanation for the "missing" energy density. Dark energy is also required by two geometrical measures of the overall curvature of the universe, one using the frequency of gravitational lenses, and the other using the characteristic pattern of the large-scale structure as a cosmic "ruler".

Negative pressure is a property of vacuum energy, but the exact nature of dark energy remains one of the great mysteries of the Big Bang. Possible candidates include a cosmological constant and quintessence. Results from the WMAP team in 2006, which combined data from the CMB and other sources, indicate that the universe today is 74% dark energy, 22% dark matter, and 4% regular matter.[17] The energy density in matter decreases with the expansion of the universe, but the dark energy density remains constant (or nearly so) as the universe expands. Therefore matter made up a larger fraction of the total energy of the universe in the past than it does today, but its fractional contribution will fall in the far future as dark energy becomes even more dominant.

In the best current model of the Big Bang, dark energy is explained by the presence of a cosmological constant in the theory of General Relativity. However, the size of the constant that properly explains dark energy is surprisingly small relative to naive estimates based on ideas about quantum gravity. Distinguishing between the cosmological constant and other explanations of dark energy is an active area of current research.


The future according to the Big Bang theory
Main article: Ultimate fate of the universe
Before observations of dark energy, cosmologists considered two scenarios for the future of the universe. If the mass density of the universe was greater than the critical density, then the universe would reach a maximum size and then begin to collapse. It would become denser and hotter again, ending with a state that was similar to that in which it started—a Big Crunch.[32] Alternatively, if the density in the universe was equal to or below the critical density, the expansion would slow down, but never stop. Star formation would cease as all the interstellar gas in each galaxy is consumed; stars would burn out leaving white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes. Very gradually, collisions between these would result in mass accumulating into larger and larger black holes. The average temperature of the universe would asymptotically approach absolute zero—a Big Freeze. Moreover, if the proton was unstable, then baryonic matter would disappear, leaving only radiation and black holes. Eventually, black holes would evaporate. The entropy of the universe would increase to the point where no organized form of energy could be extracted from it, a scenario known as heat death.

Modern observations of accelerated expansion imply that more and more of the currently visible universe will pass beyond our event horizon and out of contact with us. The eventual result is not known. The ΛCDM model of the universe contains dark energy in the form of a cosmological constant. This theory suggests that only gravitationally bound systems, such as galaxies, would remain together, and they too would be subject to heat death, as the universe expands and cools. Other explanations of dark energy—so-called phantom energy theories—suggest that ultimately galaxy clusters, stars, planets, atoms, nuclei and matter itself will be torn apart by the ever-increasing expansion in a so-called Big Rip.[44]


Speculative physics beyond the Big Bang

A graphical representation of the expansion of the universe with the inflationary epoch represented as the dramatic expansion of the metric seen on the left. Image from WMAP press release, 2006. (Detail)While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined in the future. Little is known about the earliest moments of the universe's history. The Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems[45] require the existence of a singularity at the beginning of cosmic time. However, these theorems assume that general relativity is correct, but general relativity must break down before the universe reaches the Planck temperature, and a correct treatment of quantum gravity may avoid the singularity.

There may also be parts of the universe well beyond what can be observed in principle. If inflation occurred this is likely, for exponential expansion would push large regions of space beyond our observable horizon.

Some proposals, each of which entails untested hypotheses, are:

models including the Hartle-Hawking boundary condition in which the whole of space-time is finite; the Big Bang does represent the limit of time, but without the need for a singularity.[46]
brane cosmology models[47] in which inflation is due to the movement of branes in string theory; the pre-big bang model; the ekpyrotic model, in which the Big Bang is the result of a collision between branes; and the cyclic model, a variant of the ekpyrotic model in which collisions occur periodically.[48]
chaotic inflation, in which inflation events start here and there in a random quantum-gravity foam, each leading to a bubble universe expanding from its own big bang.[49]
Proposals in the last two categories see the Big Bang as an event in a much larger and older universe, or multiverse, and not the literal beginning.


Philosophical and religious interpretations
The Big Bang is a scientific theory, and as such stands or falls by its agreement with observations. But as a theory which addresses, or at least seems to address, creation itself, it has always been entangled with theological and philosophical implications. In the 1920s and '30s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[50] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the theory's inventor, Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest. Lemaître himself always insisted that as a physical theory, the Big Bang has no religious implications; and yet the congruence between his scientific and religious beliefs is apparent in his famous description of the beginning of the universe as "a day without yesterday"—alluding to the creation account in Genesis. George Gamow had no compunction in describing the graphs of conditions in the Big Bang as "divine creation curves", and sent a copy of his book The Creation of the Universe to the pope; yet even he favoured an oscillating model in which the Big Bang was not a literal beginning. To this day, many people's reactions to the Big Bang theory, both positive and negative, are influenced by how well it can be harmonised with their religious and philosophical world views.

Some interpretations of the Big Bang theory go beyond science, and some purport to explain the cause of the Big Bang itself (first cause). These views have been criticized by some naturalist philosophers as being modern creation myths. Some people believe that the Big Bang theory is inconsistent with traditional views of creation such as that in Genesis, for example, while others, like astronomer and old Earth creationist Hugh Ross, believe that the Big Bang theory lends support to the idea of creation ex nihilo.[51]

A number of Christian and traditional Jewish sources have accepted the Big Bang as a possible description of the origin of the universe, interpreting it to allow for a philosophical first cause. Pope Pius XII was an enthusiastic proponent of the Big Bang even before the theory was scientifically well-established,[52][53] and consequently the Roman Catholic Church has been a prominent advocate for the idea that creation ex nihilo can be interpreted as consistent with the Big Bang. This view is shared by many religious Jews in all branches of rabbinic Judaism. Some groups contend the Big Bang is also consistent with the teaching of creation according to Kabbalah. [54]

Some modern Islamic scholars[55] believe that the Qur'an parallels the Big Bang in its account of creation, described as follows: "Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit of creation, before We clove them asunder?" (Ch:21,Ver:30). The claim has also been made that the Qur'an describes an expanding universe: "The heaven, We have built it with power. And verily, We are expanding it." (Ch:51,Ver:47).[56] Parallels with the Big Crunch and an oscillating universe have also been suggested: "On the day when We will roll up the heavens like the rolling up of the scroll for writings, as We originated the first creation, (so) We shall reproduce it; a promise (binding on Us); surely We will bring it about." (Ch:21,Ver:104).

A suggestion of a Big Bang can also be found in Taoism, a branch of Chinese philosophy. The first verse of the Tao Te Ching is: "... It was from the Nameless that Heaven and Earth sprang; The named is but the mother that rears the ten thousand creatures, each after its kind."[citation needed]


Notes and references
^ Slipher, V. M.. "The radial velocity of the Andromeda nebula". Lowell Observatory Bulletin 1: 56–57.
Slipher, V. M.. "Spectrographic observations of nebulae". Popular Astronomy 23: 21–24.
^ Friedman, A (1922). "Über die Krümmung des Raumes". Z. Phys. 10: 377–386. (German) (English translation in: Friedman, A (1999). "On the Curvature of Space". General Relativity and Gravitation 31: 1991–2000. DOI:10.1023/A:1026751225741. )
^ Lemaître, G. (1927). "Un Univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extragalactiques". Annals of the Scientific Society of Brussels 47A: 41. (French) Translated in: (1931) "Expansion of the universe, A homogeneous universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 91: 483–490.
^ Lemaître, G. (1931). "The evolution of the universe: discussion". Nature 128: suppl.: 704.
^ a b Edwin Hubble (1929). "A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 15: 168–173.
^ E. Christianson (1995). Edwin Hubble: Mariner of the Nebulae. Farrar Straus & Giroux. ISBN 0374146608.
^ a b c P. J. E. Peebles and Bharat Ratra (2003). "The cosmological constant and dark energy". Reviews of Modern Physics 75: 559–606. DOI:10.1103/RevModPhys.75.559. arXiv:astro-ph/0207347.
^ E. A. Milne (1935). Relativity, Gravitation and World Structure. Oxford University Press.
^ R. C. Tolman (1934). Relativity, Thermodynamics, and Cosmology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. LCCN 340-32023. Reissued (1987) New York: Dover ISBN 0-486-65383-8.
^ Zwicky, F (1929). "On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines through Interstellar Space". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 15: 773–779. Full article (PDF)
^ Hoyle, Fred (1948). "A New Model for the Expanding universe". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 108: 372.
^ R. A. Alpher, H. Bethe, G. Gamow (1948). "The Origin of Chemical Elements". Physical Review 73: 803.
^ R. A. Alpher and R. Herman (1948). "Evolution of the Universe". Nature 162: 774.
^ Simon Singh. Big Bang. Retrieved on 2007-05-28.
^ a b A. A. Penzias and R. W. Wilson (1965). "A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s". Astrophysical Journal 142: 419.
^ a b Boggess, N.W., et al. (COBE collaboration) (1992). "The COBE Mission: Its Design and Performance Two Years after the launch". Astrophysical Journal 397: 420, Preprint No. 92-02. DOI:10.1086/171797.
^ a b c D. N. Spergel et al. (WMAP collaboration) (2006). "Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Implications for Cosmology". Retrieved on 2007-05-27.
^ S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis (1973). The large-scale structure of space-time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-20016-4.
^ There is no consensus about how long the Big Bang phase lasted: for some writers this denotes only the initial singularity, for others the whole history of the universe. Usually at least the first few minutes, during which helium is synthesised, are said to occur "during the Big Bang".
^ a b c Spergel, D. N.; et al. (2003). "First-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters". The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 148: 175—194. DOI:10.1086/377226.
^ Guth, Alan H. (1998). The Inflationary Universe: Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins. Vintage. ISBN 978-0099959502.
^ Schewe, Phil, and Ben Stein (2005). "An Ocean of Quarks". Physics News Update, American Institute of Physics 728 (#1). Retrieved on 2007-05-27.
^ a b Kolb and Turner (1988), chapter 6
^ Kolb and Turner (1988), chapter 7
^ a b c Kolb and Turner (1988), chapter 4
^ Peacock (1999), chapter 9
^ Ivanchik, A. V.; A. Y. Potekhin and D. A. Varshalovich (1999). "The fine-structure constant: a new observational limit on its cosmological variation and some theoretical consequences". Astronomy and Astrophysics 343: 439.
^ Detailed information of and references for tests of general relativity are given at Tests of general relativity.
^ This ignores the dipole anisotropy at a level of 0.1% due to the peculiar velocity of the solar system through the radiation field.
^ Goodman, J. (1995). "Geocentrism reexamined". Physical Review D 52: 1821. DOI:10.1103/PhysRevD.52.1821.
^ d'Inverno, Ray (1992). Introducing Einstein's Relativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-859686-3. Chapter 23
^ a b Kolb and Turner (1988), chapter 3
^ Peacock (1999), chapter 3
^ Steigman, Gary. "Primordial Nucleosynthesis: Successes And Challenges". arXiv:astro-ph/0511534.
^ E. Bertschinger (2001). "Cosmological perturbation theory and structure formation". arXiv:astro-ph/0101009.
Edmund Bertschinger (1998). "Simulations of structure formation in the universe". Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 36: 599–654.
^ If inflation is true, baryogenesis must have occurred, but not vice versa.
^ a b c Kolb and Turner (1988), chapter 8
^ Strictly, dark energy in the form of a cosmological constant drives the universe towards a flat state; but our universe remained close to flat for several billion years, before the dark energy density became significant.
^ R. H. Dicke and P. J. E. Peebles. "The big bang cosmology — enigmas and nostrums". S. W. Hawking and W. Israel (eds) General Relativity: an Einstein centenary survey: 504–517, Cambridge University Press.
^ A. D., Sakharov (1967). "Violation of CP invariance, C asymmetry and baryon asymmetry of the universe". Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 5: 32. (Russian) Translated in JETP Lett. 5, 24 (1967).
^ Navabi, A. A.; N. Riazi (2003). "Is the Age Problem Resolved?". Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy 24: 3.
^ Keel, Bill. Galaxies and the Universe lecture notes - Dark Matter. Retrieved on 2007-05-28.
^ Yao, W. M.; et al. (2006). "Review of Particle Physics". J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 33: 1–1232. DOI:10.1088/0954-3899/33/1/001. Chapter 22.
^ (2003) "Phantom Energy and Cosmic Doomsday". Phys.Rev.Lett. 91: 071301. arXiv:astro-ph/0302506.
^ Hawking, Stephen; and Ellis, G. F. R. (1973). The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-09906-4.
^ J. Hartle and S. W. Hawking (1983). "Wave function of the universe". Phys. Rev. D 28: 2960.
^ Langlois, David (2002). "Brane cosmology: an introduction". arXiv:hep-th/0209261.
^ Linde, Andre (2002). "Inflationary Theory versus Ekpyrotic/Cyclic Scenario". arXiv:hep-th/0205259.
^ A. Linde (1986). "Eternal chaotic inflation". Mod. Phys. Lett. A1.
A. Linde (1986). "Eternally existing self-reproducing chaotic inflationary universe". Phys. Lett. B175.
^ Kragh, Helge (1996). Cosmology and Controversy. Princeton University Press. ISBN 069100546X.
^ Ross, Hugh. Putting the Big Bang to the Test. Retrieved on 2006-09-19.
^ Pius XII (1952). "Modern Science and the Existence of God". The Catholic Mind 49: 182–192.
^ Lemaître protested, objecting to religious endorsement of any scientific theory, even his own. See Kragh (1996): 258.
^ The Kabbalah Centre. Adam and Atom. Retrieved on 2006-11-12.
^ Ahmad, Mirza Tahir (1987). Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth. Islam International Publications Ltd. ISBN 1-85372-640-0. Part 4, chapter 5: The Quran and Cosmology
^ There are more prosaic translations of this verse which do not suggest an expanding universe including "And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and We are Makers of the vast extent." and "With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of space". However, Islamic scholars generally consider only the original Arabic text to be authoritative, and many state that the original Arabic text indeed indicates an expanding universe.

Books
Kolb, Edward; Michael Turner (1988). The Early Universe. Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-201-11604-9.
Peacock, John (1999). Cosmological Physics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521422701.

Further reading
For an annotated list of textbooks and monographs, see physical cosmology.
Alpher, R. A.; R. Herman (August 1988). Reflections on early work on 'big bang' cosmology. Physics Today, 24–34.
Mather, John C.; John Boslough (1996). The very first light: the true inside story of the scientific journey back to the dawn of the universe, 300. ISBN 0-465-01575-1.
Singh, Simon (2004). Big Bang: The most important scientific discovery of all time and why you need to know about it. Fourth Estate.
Cosmic Journey: A History of Scientific Cosmology. American Institute of Physics.
Feuerbacher, Björn; Ryan Scranton (2006). Evidence for the Big Bang.
Misconceptions about the Big Bang. Scientific American (March 2005).
The First Few Microseconds. Scientific American (May 2006).

 

[javaguru]

O'Reilly Supports Atheism?????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCdSyhlzBPg

 

[javaguru]

But O'reilly is a theist?
Kirk Cameron interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5J0cSnYnFg

Debates are THE best venue for creationist because it lends itself to emotional appeal.
The Nightline debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh3oIo6pvLM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9rocigx-so
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUi0D46gt1k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahU84RAC930
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4W-N0YJ-jg
ooops..forgot part six
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8pIeBD-8xs

Note: Einstein was not a theist, he spoke of God in the form of the natural universe. Theists try to claim him as their own and it is offensive.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, published by Princeton University Press. Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), p. 27.

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
-- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955, quoted from James A Haught, "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996)

"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being."
-- Albert Einstein, 1936, responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray. Source: Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffmann

 

[Lestat]

great vids java!

 

[javaguru]

great vids java!

The inanimate object analogy for a creator is the most annoying thing the creationists use as an emotional appeal. When was the last time a watch reproduced or mutated? Cancer is the product of cellular mutation. How does a perfect designer creating imperfect designs, the human eye is flawed in many ways? Why do we have organs that serve no useful purpose?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality

Although the list of human vestigial structures is still more or less the same, the relative usefulness of certain structures on the list is a subject of debate. The following are some of the structures often included in this list:

The vermiform appendix is a vestige of the cecum, an organ that may have been used to digest cellulose by humans' herbivorous ancestors.[citation needed] Analogous organs in other animals similar to humans continue to perform that function, whereas other meat-eating animals may have similarly diminished appendices. The modern functionality of the appendix is still controversial in the field of human physiology, although most scientists and physicians believe that it has little or no function.

The coccyx, or tailbone, is the remnant of a lost tail. All mammals have a tail at one point in their development; in humans, it is present for a short time during embryonic development. The tailbone, located at the end of the spine, has lost its original function in assisting balance and mobility, though it still serves some secondary functions, such as being an attachment point for muscles, which explains why it has not degraded further. In rare cases it can persist after birth and must be surgically removed.

The plica semilunaris is small fold of tissue on the inside corner of the eye. It is the vestigial remnant of the nictitating membrane (the "third eyelid") which is present in other animals.

Wisdom teeth are vestigial third molars that human ancestors used to help in grinding down plant tissue. It has been postulated that the skulls of human ancestors had larger jaws with more teeth, which were possibly used to help chew down foliage to compensate for a lack of ability to efficiently digest the cellulose that makes up a plant cell wall. As human diet changed, a smaller jaw was selected by evolution, yet the third molars, or "wisdom teeth", still commonly develop in human mouths.[10]
Goose bumps are an example of a vestigial human reaction to stress.
Goose bumps are an example of a vestigial human reaction to stress.

Humans also bear some vestigial behaviors and reflexes. For example, the formation of goose bumps in humans under stress is a vestigial reflex; its purpose in human evolutionary ancestors was to raise the body's hair, making the ancestor appear larger and scaring off predators. Raising the hair is also used to trap an extra layer of air, keeping an animal warm. This reflex formation of goosebumps when cold is not vestigial in humans, but the reflex to form them under stress is.

The ears of a Macaque monkey, and most other monkeys, have far more developed muscles than those of humans and therefore have the capability to move their ears to better hear potential threats.[11] In humans, the inability to move the ear is compensated mainly by the ability to turn the head on a horizontal plane, an ability which is not common to most monkeys. A function once provided by one structure is now replaced by another.[12]

There are also vestigial molecular structures in humans, which are no longer in use but may indicate common ancestry with other species. One example of this is L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, a gene, found functional in most other mammals, which produces a Vitamin C-catalyzing enzyme. In humans, an earlier mutation may have caused it to become disabled (unable to produce the enzyme), and it now remains in the human genome only as a vestigial genetic sequence.[13]

 

[ceo]

I wish my ADHD would let me read all that.

 

[javaguru]

great vids java!

Just to make this a proper EF meat head thread...I would so hit Kelly...

 

[javaguru]

Part six is the most embarrassing for the creationists....

 

[javaguru]

But O'reilly is a theist?
Kirk Cameron interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5J0cSnYnFg

Debates are THE best venue for creationist because it lends itself to emotional appeal.
The Nightline debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh3oIo6pvLM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9rocigx-so
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUi0D46gt1k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahU84RAC930
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4W-N0YJ-jg
ooops..forgot part six
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8pIeBD-8xs

Note: Einstein was not a theist, he spoke of God in the form of the natural universe. Theists try to claim him as their own and it is offensive.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, published by Princeton University Press. Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), p. 27.

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
-- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955, quoted from James A Haught, "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996)

"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being."
-- Albert Einstein, 1936, responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray. Source: Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffmann

Who thinks the theists won the debate?

 

[javaguru]

Who here owns the left behind series? Phaded, are you going to hell for committing adultery with your wife's sister? I'll give you a spot on the smith machine.

Mathew 5:27-32

Jesus' Attitude toward Adultery
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: Ex. 20.14 · Deut. 5.18

28 but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Mt. 18.9 · Mk. 9.47

30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Mt. 18.8 · Mk. 9.43

31 ¶ It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: Deut. 24.1-4 · Mt. 19.7 · Mk. 10.4

32 but I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. Mt. 19.9 · Mk. 10.11, 12 · Lk. 16.18 · 1 Cor. 7.10, 11

 

[javaguru]

O'Reilly self pwnage....
O'Reilly Supports Atheism?????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCdSyhlzBPg

 

[cindylou]

Who thinks the theists won the debate?

I still maintain my point of view ; I'm not really sure any of the info you have copy/pasted here would change my mind. Its nothing I have not heard before. lol

Though I'm sure the purpose of this thread was to somehow win the minds of people reading this thread, promote your point of view ; instead of discuss different points of view so we can all understand eachother.

I think the Christian church in general is unfairly hated becasue many claim to be Christians...are not!

Christians are not: shady politicians , the abortion doctor killers, the people who protest funerals, racists, haters, money lovers, selfish, prideful, people who condem gays, war lovers; all of these traits are not Christian at all. Making their own rules for what is "Christian" behavior and what is not "Christian" behavior out of their own man made rules, than what is set in the bible.

Its really hard (for me) to debate the existance of God. Probably because its difficult, I may not be intelligent enough; and there are fallacys on both sides. We just go around in circles. In my attempt to not sound like I'm "trying to win your soul" (which I'm not) I can easily end up with my head in knots becasue its not very "Christian like" of me to not care about your soul (see where I'm going?) I'm not really sure if this argument was about the existance of God or just trying to smear the bible believers. Not really sure what you are doing?

I still feel like you have posted your opinion ; and thats all it is opinion. and I have mine.

I just always feel uneasy ; and I dont want to say the wrong thing because being a Christian offends so many....... The idea that there are Christians out there angers and offends you. I can tell. Yet you dont anger and offend me??

 

[javaguru]

cindylou, this is Christianity from its own teachings.... this is not a loving God...No moral person can defend the actions of the old testament god.

Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite. Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst. But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images (For you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.)

Exodus, Chapter 34, verses 11-14


You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you. For I will look on you favorably and make you fruitful, multiply you and confirm My covenant with you. You shall eat the old harvest, and clear out the old because of the new.

Leviticus, Chapter 26, verses 7-9

The Bible contains many references to infanticide. In idol worship, people (including Israel and Judah) sacrificed their own children (1 Kings 11:7; 2 Kings 16:3; 17:17; Jer. 7:31; 19:5; 32:35; 33:6; Ezek. 16:20-21). In war (even in holy war), entire cities/nations of people were sometimes killed (Num. 21:35; 31:17; 1 Sam. 15:3; 2 Sam. 22:19), including infants. Also, in Jeremiah 19:9 we read that God threatened to afflict his people so greatly that they would eat their own children, and in Lamentations 4:10 we have an indication that this may actually have come to pass. Then of course we have the famous stories of kings who kill infants in order to control threats to their kingdom (Exod. 1:22; Matt. 2:16; Acts 7:19). God himself killed all the firstborn of Egypt at one time, among which were certainly many children (Exod. 12:29), not to mention the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19), or the much more terrible flood of Noah's day (Gen. 6-9).

 

[javaguru]

Christians are not: shady politicians , the abortion doctor killers, the people who protest funerals, racists, haters, money lovers, selfish, prideful, people who condem gays, war lovers; all of these traits are not Christian at all. Making their own rules for what is "Christian" behavior and what is not "Christian" behavior out of their own man made rules, than what is set in the bible.

Can you defend the old testament cindylou???? Based on the Christians' teachings they are genocidal and infanticidal....

 

[cindylou]

Can you defend the old testament cindylou???? Based on the Christians' teachings they are genocidal and infanticidal....

Okay Java. First off what is your opinion of war? Is killing always wrong?? In every situation?

Its okay if you think so ; but I'm trying to figure out what you are getting at here ; we are talking about a war........do you believe that killing in war (even children, I know what you are getting at) is wrong?

 

[cindylou]

cindylou, this is Christianity from its own teachings.... this is not a loving God...No moral person can defend the actions of the old testament god.

Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite. Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst. But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images (For you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.)

Exodus, Chapter 34, verses 11-14


You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you. For I will look on you favorably and make you fruitful, multiply you and confirm My covenant with you. You shall eat the old harvest, and clear out the old because of the new.

Leviticus, Chapter 26, verses 7-9

The Bible contains many references to infanticide. In idol worship, people (including Israel and Judah) sacrificed their own children (1 Kings 11:7; 2 Kings 16:3; 17:17; Jer. 7:31; 19:5; 32:35; 33:6; Ezek. 16:20-21). In war (even in holy war), entire cities/nations of people were sometimes killed (Num. 21:35; 31:17; 1 Sam. 15:3; 2 Sam. 22:19), including infants. Also, in Jeremiah 19:9 we read that God threatened to afflict his people so greatly that they would eat their own children, and in Lamentations 4:10 we have an indication that this may actually have come to pass. Then of course we have the famous stories of kings who kill infants in order to control threats to their kingdom (Exod. 1:22; Matt. 2:16; Acts 7:19). God himself killed all the firstborn of Egypt at one time, among which were certainly many children (Exod. 12:29), not to mention the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19), or the much more terrible flood of Noah's day (Gen. 6-9).

JAVA - What is moral???


i'll do my best!!

 

[javaguru]

JAVA - What is moral???


i'll do my best!!

Genocide and infanticide are not traits one would associate with a moral being.

 

[WODIN]

Its clear because he does not force us to worship him ; nor does he force us to be with him in heaven. As far as I know there it does not say in the bible that God does not want anyone who does not want him. Thats a conclusion I made based on the fact that he lets us choose.

The Gift of God is that a gift. It's given which means you have to take it. You are not born with it.

Should I have said that God does not WANT java?? No. Of course he does. God/ devine being who created something would not want to be seperated from his child. But God does not want to force java worship him or accept the gift of his son. Thats what I should have said I guess.

Thats what you all want, right? Its pretty clear in the bible that you can accept or reject him. You can reject ; I can accept? Do we have to hate eachother because we made different choices?? Do we have to try and convince others otherwise? Or try to make them falter in their faith? If that be faith of God or not? Why would you want that? Many people find meaning and purpose in their lives by worhsipping God; just like one guy might find meaning in his life with his job / wife / car etc.

We all look for meaning/ purpose/ truth. If you say there is no God who defines that purpose for us ; you will still look for meaning. You will devote your love to other things ; trying to find that meaning.

All I was saying is that I'm not going to sit here and tell Java about the fire of hell. The ultimate punishment for rejecting Christ is just that: distance from God ; a God he wants no part of.

He knows this. He's out on a mission to change everyone else to believe what he belives ; stating that religion is somehow detremental or bad for society ; when its not religion or GOD. It's the selfish people who misuse it.

How could having one being ; person ; who could give us an absolute truth be bad for society? I mean ; we cannot logically come up with absolute truth on our own? A set of morals for everyone? What determines what is right or wrong if there is not God? What happens then?

Christians don't bother me. Hypocrites do for some reason.

I'm a Buddhist so its something I'm working through....

 

[ceo]

Christians don't bother me. Hypocrites do for some reason.

agreed!

 

[javaguru]

Dawkins discusses morality....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ9JMUFIVqE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJLqDSfv6dU

 

[juiceddreadlocks]

Dawkins, Ridley, and Gould make a ton of ridiculous assumptions in their books, but they're interesting nonetheless.

Want to know who the strongest believers I encountered in school were? My Biochem prof and Anatomy prof.

The most anti-religious was the prof who taught 2 of my experiemental neuro courses.

 

[javaguru]

Dawkins, Ridley, and Gould make a ton of ridiculous assumptions in their books, but they're interesting nonetheless.

Want to know who the strongest believers I encountered in school were? My Biochem prof and Anatomy prof.

The most anti-religious was the prof who taught 2 of my experiemental neuro courses.

Pinker has some interesting things to say about cognitive development.

 

[juiceddreadlocks]

Pinker has some interesting things to say about cognitive development.

Haha yeah, check my favorite books on my myspace page... Pinker is one of them.

 

[foreigngirl]

Can you defend the old testament cindylou???? Based on the Christians' teachings they are genocidal and infanticidal....

ohhhh, believers are getting themselves separated from those "bad" parts of the Bible, but they still will tell you that the whole book is inspired by God and should be taken word for word

 

[juiceddreadlocks]

ohhhh, believers are getting themselves separated from those "bad" parts of the Bible, but they still will tell you that the whole book is inspired by God and should be taken word for word

Actually I dont know anyone who is that legalistic.

 

[foreigngirl]

Actually I dont know anyone who is that legalistic.

I do. Quite a few

 

[javaguru]

Actually I dont know anyone who is that legalistic.

My ex-gf believed the Bible was the literal word of God. She did use the rationalization that God's time is different so six of God's days are different from our days. She has a BS in Biology with a minor in chemistry. She has an amazing ability to compartmentalize her faith from her science. I never understood that...

 

[juiceddreadlocks]

I do. Quite a few

I just assume most of your posts are as thoughtless and ridiculously slanted as the above one.

 

[juiceddreadlocks]

My ex-gf believed the Bible was the literal word of God. She did use the rationalization that God's time is different so six of God's days are different from our days. She has a BS in Biology with a minor in chemistry. She has an amazing ability to compartmentalize her faith from her science. I never understood that...

Hey that's my exact degree. I dont have much trouble separating the two because I dont see them as mutually exclusive. People like Lestat make it easy to see the flaws in thinking of people who are the polar opposite of what you elude to your ex gf's thinking.

 

[javaguru]

Hey that's my exact degree. I dont have much trouble separating the two because I dont see them as mutually exclusive. People like Lestat make it easy to see the flaws in thinking of people who are the polar opposite of what you elude to your ex gf's thinking.

She always told me, "Why do you always have to question everything." To her credit, the things I brought up were things she admitted to struggling with in her faith her entire life. She went to a Christian school up until high school too.

 

[juiceddreadlocks]

She always told me, "Why do you always have to question everything." To her credit, the things I brought up were things she admitted to struggling with in her faith her entire life. She went to a Christian school up until high school too.

Dude I struggle with descrepancies between what I was told and what I learned in school, almost daily. I'm not perfect by any stretch, and I question everything.

I've read dawkins, Ridley, Gould, Pinker... all those guys. As I'm going to assume for you, people who argue with no understanding of the subject matter are beyond frustrating.

 

[javaguru]

agreed!

These are the kinds of religious people that cause the problems, I rarely agree with O'Reilly but...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU8sxMHcz2E

 

[javaguru]

Dude I struggle with descrepancies between what I was told and what I learned in school, almost daily. I'm not perfect by any stretch, and I question everything.

I've read dawkins, Ridley, Gould, Pinker... all those guys. As I'm going to assume for you, people who argue with no understanding of the subject matter are beyond frustrating.

I've never had a problem with people who have faith. I attended services every Sunday with my ex-GF as well as participating in church volunteer work. I attend church with my mother when I visit. It's the people that want to violate the rights of others that bother me and there are quite a few of them.

 

[javaguru]

This little segment demonstrates some of the biases that atheists are subject too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5AzNTI6Mf4

 

[foreigngirl]

I just assume most of your posts are as thoughtless and ridiculously slanted as the above one.

How was I suppose to answer to your non-thought provoking post? With an essay?


Also, I avoid talking about the Bible, I cant change anyones mind, just as they cant change mine. Can I make someone believe that the characteristics that Jesus had are 90% purely mythical, because he had like 3-4 more precursors (that I know of, maybe there is other mythical figures out there, too) that shared the same characteristics with Jesus? Will they believe me that there is no Hell? Will they believe me that organized religion is the most dangerous thing today? Will they believe me that Dec. 25th and Easter is a pagan holiday? No. At least not the few people in my life.

Now, I think there might be something out there, but not the Bible or the Quran are right. I dont know who is right. Maybe nobody. No person has yet come back from the dead to tell us how it is.

 

[foreigngirl]

I've never had a problem with people who have faith. I attended services every Sunday with my ex-GF as well as participating in church volunteer work. I attend church with my mother when I visit. It's the people that want to violate the rights of others that bother me and there are quite a few of them.

Like the Jehovah Witness little organization. They are controling their mind so bad, its not even funny. All the time they tell them how the end is near. So, I see my mother-in-law always talking about it and waiting and praying for it to hurry up and come upon us sooner. They are not allowed to read anything else but the books printed by the Watch Tower. My mother-in-law thinks all the books on my shelves are from the DEvil. The kids are not allowed to associate with non-Jehovah Witness kids at school....They dont believe in blood transfusion, some kids have died because of it and they plaster them on the front page of their newspaper as martyrs.....

I dont mind people who are believers and go about their business being content with what their beliefs are. I dont like the ones telling me that I am gonna burn in hell cuz I read Stephen King and God forbid if they see the non-fiction books....then my doom is 100% guaranteed

 

[javaguru]

Like the Jehovah Witness little organization. They are controling their mind so bad, its not even funny. All the time they tell them how the end is near. So, I see my mother-in-law always talking about it and waiting and praying for it to hurry up and come upon us sooner. They are not allowed to read anything else but the books printed by the Watch Tower. My mother-in-law thinks all the books on my shelves are from the DEvil. The kids are not allowed to associate with non-Jehovah Witness kids at school....They dont believe in blood transfusion, some kids have died because of it and they plaster them on the front page of their newspaper as martyrs.....

I dont mind people who are believers and go about their business being content with what their beliefs are. I dont like the ones telling me that I am gonna burn in hell cuz I read Stephen King and God forbid if they see the non-fiction books....then my doom is 100% guaranteed

The whole outrage over Harry Potter books was just embarrassing, at least the kids are reading!

 

[javaguru]

I wonder if HR has visited the museum.....
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nrNjSaQnaKQ

 

[WODIN]

$25 Million for that piece of shit.

They could have done so much for so many with that money, shows where there supposed christian values are.

 

[b0und]

I wonder if HR has visited the museum.....
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nrNjSaQnaKQ

X 1,000,000,000,000^1,000,000,000,000

OMG, are people really that fucking dumb?




b0und (at least I had a good laugh)

 

[javaguru]

"Why People Believe Strange Things"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DisyHK-PNUI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD5BowXTHIg

 

[javaguru]

Check out these quotes if you want a laugh....
http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx

My favorite so far;
"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it."

awesomestnerd, SmashBoards [Comments (149)] 2005-Nov-07


Pick3's mom posted this one.
"Occam's Razor Disagrees" Award
"I am a bit troubled. I believe my son has a girlfriend, because she left a dirty magazine with men in it under his bed. My son is only 16 and I really don't think he's ready to date yet. What's worse is that he's sneaking some girl to his room behind my back. I need help, God! I want my son to stop being so secretive!"

Linda, Good news prayer room [Comments (137)] 2006-Oct-28

 

[nimbus]

Check out these quotes if you want a laugh....
http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx

My favorite so far;
"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it."

awesomestnerd, SmashBoards [Comments (149)] 2005-Nov-07


Pick3's mom posted this one.
"Occam's Razor Disagrees" Award
"I am a bit troubled. I believe my son has a girlfriend, because she left a dirty magazine with men in it under his bed. My son is only 16 and I really don't think he's ready to date yet. What's worse is that he's sneaking some girl to his room behind my back. I need help, God! I want my son to stop being so secretive!"

Linda, Good news prayer room [Comments (137)] 2006-Oct-28

hahah that site is GREAT

 

[b0und]

Check out these quotes if you want a laugh....
http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx

"Just recently my son Bobby came out to me. I had been worried for awhile. His teachers said most of his grades were slipping and he seemed depressed and withdrawn. Bobby said he'd been hiding it for awhile because he was afraid I would reject him. I sat him down and told him that I loved him and that God loved him, but that his salvation was in danger if he did not resist his unnatural tempations. I told him how being gay would mean he would live a shorter life, and that if he couldnt change his orientation he could be celibate like most the ex-gays are. He started crying saying something along the lines of "I knew you wouldnt understand! You're just like everyone else!" before running to his room and slamming the door. What did I do wrong? I dont want to lose my son, but I fear I already have. I talked it over with his therapist, who had the ludicrous idea that homosexuality was unchangable and that trying to repress could lead to lots of psychological damage (I've dropped him and will try to be finding another therapist with more moral beliefs). I wouldnt be surprised if he's the one who's feeding my son all the homosexual propaganda about how its 'ok' to be gay. That, or how homosexuality has engulfed the media, making it seem 'cool' and 'hip' and how they were just another oppressed minority. You didnt have to worry about seeing two men making out on tv at my age! I dont want to sound like a fanatic, but Im worried what other effects will come out of this increasingly secular, immoral society obsessed with filth. Am I too late? Or is it possible to save my son [Note: the boy eventually took his own life.]"

That one was not funny at all.



b0und (fuck)

 

[b0und]

Fundamentalism In A Nutshell Award


"I didn't come to Jesus by my intelligence and neither will you my friend." JesusFollower

Ok, that one was funny.


b0und (lolol)

 

[EnderJE]

That one was not funny at all.

b0und (fuck)

It was...in a depressing sort of way.

 

[javaguru]

It was...in a depressing sort of way.

Those are the people that scare me and I'm fearless.

 

[javaguru]

Evolutionary Economics...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KVJZJ4MSic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWni57mPxes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMP3KDgSbbY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrmQMZG6f3U

 

[Yarg!]

i can sort of understand why some christians cling to evolutionism- i dont agree with it, but its alittle more understandable then some of these ABSOLUTELY FUCKING MORONS who think the earth is flat. how fucking retarded do you have to be to ignore 500 years of scientific evidence + 500 yrs of sailing, 100 yrs of flying experience? my god.. these people should be shot.

 

[javaguru]

i can sort of understand why some christians cling to evolutionism- i dont agree with it, but its alittle more understandable then some of these ABSOLUTELY FUCKING MORONS who think the earth is flat. how fucking retarded do you have to be to ignore 500 years of scientific evidence + 500 yrs of sailing, 100 yrs of flying experience? my god.. these people should be shot.

I've seen stats that claim only 25% of Americans believe in evolution and 53% of Americans believe in a "God" creator.

 

[harmonica]

i can sort of understand why some christians cling to evolutionism- i dont agree with it, but its alittle more understandable then some of these ABSOLUTELY FUCKING MORONS who think the earth is flat. how fucking retarded do you have to be to ignore 500 years of scientific evidence + 500 yrs of sailing, 100 yrs of flying experience? my god.. these people should be shot.

lmao

 

[Saintinistic]

there are a lot of reformed mushroom eaters here. cool.

 

[javaguru]

lmao

x10

 

[juiceddreadlocks]

WTF Javaguru? Get a bike and go riding or something!

 

[javaguru]

WTF Javaguru? Get a bike and go riding or something!

That's a good way to get yourself run over in this town.....natural selection in action.

 

[juiceddreadlocks]

That's a good way to get yourself run over in this town.....natural selection in action.

When fuel becomes unaffordable for certain people we'll reverse that selection pressure

 

[javaguru]

Optimistic estimates put the "easy to get at" oil will be gone in thirty years....I'm no spring chicken.

 

[redsamurai]

That one was not funny at all.



b0und (fuck)

yer darn right it's not........omg, I know these might not be true, but it still made me want to smash the mother in the face with a ball peen hammer. If it's true, and the kid really did commit suicide........good for him, he got out.

 

[WODIN]

I've seen stats that claim only 25% of Americans believe in evolution and 53% of Americans believe in a "God" creator.

I don't need to "BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION." Faith is not a requirement when presented with evidence and facts.

 

[juiceddreadlocks]

I don't need to "BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION." Faith is not a requirement when presented with evidence and facts.

WTF? you old crotchety bastard!

 

[beefcake28]

Which has a better explanation of the creation of the universe?

Genesis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_according_to_Genesis
The "creation week" narrative consists of eight divine commands, or fiats, executed over six days; days three and six each contain two commands. This is followed by a seventh day of rest.

First day: God creates light. (The source of light is not mentioned; it is described by some as a "primordial light".) The light is divided from the darkness, and "day" and "night" are named.
Second day: God creates a firmament and divides the waters above it from the waters below. The firmament is named "heaven".
Third day: God gathers the waters together, and dry land appears. "Earth" and "sea" are named. Then God brings forth grass, herbs and fruit-bearing trees on the Earth.
Fourth day: God creates lights in the firmament of Heaven, to separate light from darkness and to mark days, seasons and years. Two great lights are made (note: they are not named), as well as the stars.
Fifth day: God creates birds and sea creatures, including "great sea serpents" or "great whales". They are commanded to be fruitful and multiply.
Sixth day: God creates wild beasts, livestock and reptiles upon the Earth. He then creates Man and Woman in His "image" and "likeness". They are told to "be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it." Humans and animals are given plants to eat. The totality of creation is described by God as "very good".
Seventh day: God finishes his work of creation, and rests from His work. He blesses and sanctifies the seventh day.

The Big Bang Theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory
In physical cosmology, the term Big Bang has three related meanings. It refers to the observable facts of the evolution of the universe. It is also a cosmological model in which the universe has been expanding for around 13.7 billion years (13.7 Ga), starting from a tremendously dense and hot state. The term is also used in a narrower sense to describe the fundamental 'fireball' that erupted at or close to time t=0 in the history of the universe.

Observational evidence for the Big Bang includes the analysis of the spectrum of light from galaxies, which reveal a shift towards longer wavelengths proportional to each galaxy's distance in a relationship described by Hubble's law. Combined with the assumption that observers located anywhere in the universe would make similar observations (the Copernican principle), this suggests that space itself is expanding. Extrapolation of this expansion back in time yields a state in the distant past in which the universe was in a state of immense density and temperature. This hot, dense state is the key premise of the Big Bang.

Theoretical support for the Big Bang comes from mathematical models, called Friedmann models, which show that a Big Bang is consistent with general relativity and with the cosmological principle, which states that the properties of the universe should be independent of position or orientation.

The theory of Big Bang nucleosynthesis predicts the rates at which various light elements are created in models of the early universe and gives results that are generally consistent with observations. The Big Bang model also predicts the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), a background of weak microwave radiation filling the whole universe. The discovery of the CMB in 1964 led to general acceptance among physicists that the Big Bang is the best model for the origin and evolution of the universe.




Physical cosmology

Physical cosmology
Universe · Big Bang
Age of the universe
Timeline of the Big Bang
Ultimate fate of the universe
Early universe
Inflation · Nucleosynthesis
GWB · Neutrino Background
Cosmic microwave background
Expanding universe
Redshift · Hubble's law
Metric expansion of space
Friedmann equations
FLRW metric
Structure formation
Shape of the universe
Structure formation
Galaxy formation
Large-scale structure
Components
Lambda-CDM model
Dark energy · Dark matter
History
Timeline of cosmology...
Cosmology experiments
Observational cosmology
2dF · SDSS
CoBE · BOOMERanG · WMAP
Scientists
Einstein · Friedman · Lemaître
Hubble · Penzias · Wilson
Gamow · Dicke · Zel'dovich
Mather · Smoot · others

This box: view • talk • edit



Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Overview
3 Theoretical underpinnings
3.1 FLRW metric
3.2 Horizons
4 Observational evidence
4.1 Hubble's law expansion
4.2 Cosmic microwave background radiation
4.3 Abundance of primordial elements
4.4 Galactic evolution and distribution
4.5 Other lines of evidence
5 Features, issues and problems
5.1 Horizon problem
5.2 Flatness/oldness problem
5.3 Magnetic monopoles
5.4 Baryon asymmetry
5.5 Globular cluster age
5.6 Dark matter
5.7 Dark energy
6 The future according to the Big Bang theory
7 Speculative physics beyond the Big Bang
8 Philosophical and religious interpretations
9 Notes and references
9.1 Books
10 Further reading
11 External links



History
Main article: History of the Big Bang theory
See also: Timeline of cosmology and History of astronomy
The Big Bang theory developed from observations of the structure of the universe and from theoretical considerations. In 1912 Vesto Slipher measured the first Doppler shift of a "spiral nebula" (spiral nebula is the obsolete term for spiral galaxies), and soon discovered that almost all such nebulae were receding from Earth. He did not grasp the cosmological implications of this fact, and indeed at the time it was highly controversial whether or not these nebulae were "island universes" outside our Milky Way.[1] Ten years later, Alexander Friedmann, a Russian cosmologist and mathematician, derived the Friedmann equations from Albert Einstein's equations of general relativity, showing that the universe might be expanding in contrast to the static universe model advocated by Einstein.[2] In 1924, Edwin Hubble's measurement of the great distance to the nearest spiral nebulae showed that these systems were indeed other galaxies. Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, predicted that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the universe.[3] In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the universe began as a simple "primeval atom", echoing previous speculations about the cosmic egg origin of the universe.[4]

Starting in 1924, Hubble painstakingly developed a series of distance indicators, the forerunner of the cosmic distance ladder, using the 100 inch Hooker telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory. This allowed him to estimate distances to galaxies whose redshifts had already been measured, mostly by Slipher. In 1929, Hubble discovered a correlation between distance and recession velocity—now known as Hubble's law.[5][6] Lemaître had already shown that this was expected, given the cosmological principle.[7]


Artist's depiction of the WMAP satellite gathering data to help scientists understand the Big Bang.During the 1930s other ideas were proposed as non-standard cosmologies to explain Hubble's observations, including the Milne model,[8] the oscillatory universe (originally suggested by Friedmann, but advocated by Einstein and Richard Tolman)[9] and Fritz Zwicky's tired light hypothesis.[10]

After World War II, two distinct possibilities emerged. One was Fred Hoyle's steady state model, whereby new matter would be created as the universe seemed to expand. In this model, the universe is roughly the same at any point in time.[11] The other was Lemaître's Big Bang theory, advocated and developed by George Gamow, who introduced big bang nucleosynthesis[12] and whose associates, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, predicted the CMB.[13] It is an irony that it was Hoyle who coined the name that would come to be applied to Lemaître's theory, referring to it sarcastically as "this big bang idea" during a radio broadcast.[14] For a while, support was split between these two theories. Eventually, the observational evidence, most notably from radio source counts, began to favor the latter. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964[15] secured the Big Bang as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the cosmos. Much of the current work in cosmology includes understanding how galaxies form in the context of the Big Bang, understanding the physics of the universe at earlier and earlier times, and reconciling observations with the basic theory.

Huge strides in Big Bang cosmology have been made since the late 1990s as a result of major advances in telescope technology as well as the analysis of copious data from satellites such as COBE,[16] the Hubble Space Telescope and WMAP.[17] Cosmologists now have fairly precise measurement of many of the parameters of the Big Bang model, and have made the unexpected discovery that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating (see dark energy).


Overview
See also: Timeline of the Big Bang
A graphical timeline is available here:
Graphical timeline of the Big BangExtrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[18] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly not earlier than the Planck epoch. The early hot, dense phase is itself referred to as "the Big Bang",[19] and is considered the "birth" of our universe. Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the universe has a calculated age of 13.7 ± 0.2 billion years.[20] The agreement of these three independent measurements strongly supports the ΛCDM model that describes in detail the contents of the universe.

The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models, the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−35 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially.[21] After inflation stopped, the universe consisted of a quark-gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles.[22] Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle-antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and anti-leptons—of the order of 1 part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe.[23]

The universe continued to grow in size and fall in temperature (and hence the typical energy of each particles was decreasing). Symmetry breaking phase transitions put the fundamental forces of physics and the parameters of elementary particles into their present form.[24] After about 10−11 seconds, the picture becomes less speculative, since particle energies drop to values that can be attained in particle physics experiments. At about 10−6 seconds, quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons. The small excess of quarks over antiquarks led to a small excess of baryons over antibaryons. The temperature was now no longer high enough to create new proton-antiproton pairs (similarly for neutrons-antineutrons), so a mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 1010 of the original protons and neutrons, and none of their antiparticles. A similar process happened at about 1 second for electrons and positrons. After these annihilations, the remaining protons, neutrons and electrons were no longer moving relativistically and the energy density of the universe was dominated by photons (with a minor contribution from neutrinos).

A few minutes into the expansion, when the temperature was about a billion Kelvins and the density was about that of air, neutrons combined with protons to form the universe's deuterium and helium nuclei in a process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis.[25] Most protons remained uncombined as hydrogen nuclei. As the universe cooled, the rest mass energy density of matter came to gravitationally dominate that of the photon radiation. After about 380,000 years the electrons and nuclei combined into atoms (mostly hydrogen); hence the radiation decoupled from matter and continued through space largely unimpeded. This relic radiation is known as the cosmic microwave background radiation.[26]

Over time, the slightly denser regions of the nearly uniformly distributed matter gravitationally attracted nearby matter and thus grew even denser, forming gas clouds, stars, galaxies, and the other astronomical structures observable today. The details of this process depend on the amount and type of matter in the universe. The three possible types of matter are known as cold dark matter, hot dark matter and baryonic matter. The best measurements available (from WMAP) show that the dominant form of matter in the universe is cold dark matter. The other two types of matter make up less than 20% of the matter in the universe.[17]

The universe today appears to be dominated by a mysterious form of energy known as dark energy. Approximately 70% of the total energy density of today's universe is in this form. This dark energy causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate, observed as a slower than expected expansion at very large distances. Dark energy in its simplest formulation takes the form of a cosmological constant term in Einstein's field equations of general relativity, but its composition is unknown and, more generally, the details of its equation of state and relationship with the standard model of particle physics continue to be investigated both observationally and theoretically.[7]

All these observations can be explained by the ΛCDM model of cosmology, which is a mathematical model of the Big Bang with six free parameters. As noted above, there is no compelling physical model for the first 10−11 seconds of the universe. To resolve the paradox of the initial singularity, a theory of quantum gravitation is needed. Understanding this period of the history of the universe is one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics.


Theoretical underpinnings
The Big Bang theory depends on two major assumptions:

The universality of physical laws
The cosmological principle—the universe is homogeneous and isotropic
These ideas were initially taken as postulates, but today there are efforts to test each of them. For example, the first assumption has been tested by observations showing that largest possible deviation of the fine structure constant over much of the age of the universe is of order 10-5.[27] Also, General Relativity has passed stringent tests on the scale of the solar system and binary stars while extrapolation to cosmological scales has been validated by the empirical successes of various aspects of the Big Bang theory.[28]

If the large-scale universe appears isotropic as viewed from Earth, the cosmological principle can be derived from the simpler Copernican principle, which states that there is no preferred (or special) observer or vantage point. To this end, the cosmological principle has been confirmed to a level of 10-5 via observations of the CMB.[29] The universe has been measured to be homogeneous on the largest scales at the 10% level.[30]


FLRW metric
Main articles: Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric and Metric expansion of space
General relativity describes spacetime by a metric, which determines the distances that separate nearby points. The points themselves (galaxies, stars, etc.) are specified using a coordinate chart or "grid" that is laid down over all spacetime. The cosmological principle implies that the metric should be homogeneous and isotropic on large scales, which uniquely singles out the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric (FLRW metric). This metric contains a scale factor, which describes how the size of the universe changes with time. This enables a convenient choice of a coordinate system to be made, called comoving coordinates. In this coordinate system, the grid expands along with the universe, and objects that are moving only due to the expansion of the universe remain at fixed points on the grid. While their coordinate distance (comoving distance) remains constant, the physical distance between two such comoving points expands proportionally with the scale factor of the universe.[31]

The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points. Because the FLRW metric assumes a uniform distribution of mass and energy, it applies to our universe only on large scales—local concentrations of matter such as our galaxy are gravitationally bound and as such do not experience the large-scale expansion of space. Sizes of objects which are defined by laws and constants of physics (say, size of an atom, or of a chunk of solid like meter stick, or of a Solar system) do not change (because those laws and constants do not change).[citation needed]


Horizons
Main article: Cosmological horizon
An important feature of the Big Bang spacetime is the presence of horizons. Since the universe has a finite age, and light travels at a finite speed, there may be events in the past whose light has not had time to reach us. This places a limit—a "past horizon"—on the most distant objects that can be observed. Conversely, because space is expanding, and more distant objects are receding ever more quickly, light emitted by us today may never "catch up" to very distant objects. This defines a "future horizon," which limits the events in the future that we will be able to influence. The presence of either type of horizon depends on the details of the FRW model that describes our universe. Our understanding of the universe back to very early times suggests that there was a past horizon, though in practice our view is limited by the opacity of the universe at early times. If the expansion of the universe continues to accelerate, there is a future horizon as well.[32]


Observational evidence
The earliest and most direct kinds of observational evidence (sometimes called the three pillars of the Big Bang theory) are the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background, and the abundance of light elements (see Big Bang nucleosynthesis). Many other lines of evidence now support the picture, notably various properties of the large-scale structure of the cosmos which are predicted to occur due to gravitational growth of structure in the standard Big Bang theory.


Hubble's law expansion
Main article: Hubble's law
See also: distance measures (cosmology)
Observations of distant galaxies and quasars show that these objects are redshifted—the light emitted from them has been shifted to longer wavelengths. This can be seen by taking a frequency spectrum of an object and matching the spectroscopic pattern of emission lines or absorption lines corresponding to atoms of the chemical elements interacting with the light. From this analysis, a redshift can be measured. If this is interpreted as a Doppler shift, the recessional velocity of the object can be calculated. For some galaxies, it is then possible to estimate distances via the cosmic distance ladder. When the recessional velocities are plotted against these distances, a linear relationship known as Hubble's law is observed:[5]


where

v is the recessional velocity of the galaxy or other distant object
D is the distance to the object and
H0 is Hubble's constant, measured to be (70 +2.4/-3.2) km/s/Mpc by the WMAP probe.[20]
Hubble's law has two possible explanations. Either we are at the center of an explosion of galaxies—which is untenable given the Copernican principle—or the universe is uniformly expanding everywhere. This universal expansion was considered mathematically in the context of general relativity well before Hubble made his analysis and observations, and it remains the cornerstone of the Big Bang theory as developed by Friedmann, Lemaître, Robertson and Walker.

The theory requires the relation v = HD to hold at all times, where D is the proper distance, v = dD / dt, and v, H, and D all vary as the universe expands (hence we write H0 to denote the present-day Hubble "constant"). For distances much smaller than the size of the observable universe, the Hubble redshift can be thought of as the Doppler shift corresponding to the recession velocity v. However, the redshift is not a true Doppler shift, but rather the result of the expansion of the universe between the time the light was emitted and the time that it was detected.[33]


Cosmic microwave background radiation
Main article: Cosmic microwave background radiation

WMAP image of the cosmic microwave background radiationDuring the first few days of the universe, the universe was in full thermal equilibrium, with photons being continually emitted and absorbed, giving the radiation a blackbody spectrum. As the universe expanded, it cooled to a temperature at which photons could no longer be created or destroyed. The temperature was still high enough for electrons and nuclei to remain unbound, however, and photons were constantly "reflected" from these free electrons through a process called Thomson scattering. Because of this repeated scattering, the early universe was opaque to light.

When the temperature fell to a few thousand Kelvin, electrons and nuclei began to combine to form atoms, a process known as recombination. Since photons scatter infrequently from neutral atoms, radiation decoupled from matter when nearly all the electrons had recombined, at the epoch of last scattering, 380,000 years after the Big Bang. These photons make up the CMB that is observed today, and the observed pattern of fluctuations in the CMB is a direct picture of the universe at this early epoch. The energy of photons was subsequently redshifted by the expansion of the universe, which preserved the blackbody spectrum but caused its temperature to fall, meaning that the photons now fall into the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The radiation is thought to be observable at every point in the universe, and comes from all directions with (almost) the same intensity.

In 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson accidentally discovered the cosmic background radiation while conducting diagnostic observations using a new microwave receiver owned by Bell Laboratories.[15] Their discovery provided substantial confirmation of the general CMB predictions—the radiation was found to be isotropic and consistent with a blackbody spectrum of about 3 K—and it pitched the balance of opinion in favor of the Big Bang hypothesis. Penzias and Wilson were awarded a Nobel Prize for their discovery.

In 1989, NASA launched the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite (COBE), and the initial findings, released in 1990, were consistent with the Big Bang's predictions regarding the CMB. COBE found a residual temperature of 2.726 K and in 1992 detected for the first time the fluctuations (anisotropies) in the CMB, at a level of about one part in 105.[16] John C. Mather and George Smoot were awarded Nobels for their leadership in this work. During the following decade, CMB anisotropies were further investigated by a large number of ground-based and balloon experiments. In 2000–2001, several experiments, most notably BOOMERanG, found the universe to be almost geometrically flat by measuring the typical angular size (the size on the sky) of the anisotropies. (See shape of the universe.)

In early 2003, the first results of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy satellite (WMAP) were released, yielding what were at the time the most accurate values for some of the cosmological parameters. This satellite also disproved several specific cosmic inflation models, but the results were consistent with the inflation theory in general.[20] This satellite is still gathering data. Another satellite will be launched within the next few years, the Planck Surveyor, which will provide even more accurate measurements of the CMB anisotropies. Many other ground- and balloon-based experiments are also currently running; see Cosmic microwave background experiments.


Abundance of primordial elements
Main article: Big Bang nucleosynthesis
Using the Big Bang model it is possible to calculate the concentration of helium-4, helium-3, deuterium and lithium-7 in the universe as ratios to the amount of ordinary hydrogen, H.[25] All the abundances depend on a single parameter, the ratio of photons to baryons, which itself can be calculated independently from the detailed structure of CMB fluctuations. The ratios predicted (by mass, not by number) are about 0.25 for 4He/H, about 10-3 for 2H/H, about 10-4 for 3He/H and about 10-9 for 7Li/H.[25]

The measured abundances all agree at least roughly with those predicted from a single value of the baryon-to-photon ratio. The agreement is excellent for deuterium, close but formally discrepant for 4He, and a factor of two off for 7Li; in the latter two cases there are substantial systematic uncertainties. Nonetheless, the general consistency with abundances predicted by BBN is strong evidence for the Big Bang, as the theory is the only known explanation for the relative abundances of light elements, and it is virtually impossible to "tune" the Big Bang to produce much more or less than 20–30% helium.[34] Indeed there is no obvious reason outside of the Big Bang that, for example, the young universe (i.e., before star formation, as determined by studying matter supposedly free of stellar nucleosynthesis products) should have more helium than deuterium or more deuterium than 3He, and in constant ratios, too.


Galactic evolution and distribution
Main articles: Large-scale structure of the cosmos, Structure formation, and Galaxy formation and evolution
Detailed observations of the morphology and distribution of galaxies and quasars provide strong evidence for the Big Bang. A combination of observations and theory suggest that the first quasars and galaxies formed about a billion years after the Big Bang, and since then larger structures have been forming, such as galaxy clusters and superclusters. Populations of stars have been aging and evolving, so that distant galaxies (which are observed as they were in the early universe) appear very different from nearby galaxies (observed in a more recent state). Moreover, galaxies that formed relatively recently appear markedly different from galaxies formed at similar distances but shortly after the Big Bang. These observations are strong arguments against the steady-state model. Observations of star formation, galaxy and quasar distributions and larger structures agree well with Big Bang simulations of the formation of structure in the universe and are helping to complete details of the theory.[35]


Other lines of evidence
After some controversy, the age of universe as estimated from the Hubble expansion and the CMB is now in good agreement with (i.e. slightly larger than) the ages of the oldest stars, both as measured by applying the theory of stellar evolution to globular clusters and through radiometric dating of individual Population II stars.

The prediction that the CMB temperature was higher in the past has been experimentally supported by observations of temperature-sensitive emission lines in gas clouds at high redshift. This prediction also implies that the amplitude of the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect in clusters of galaxies does not depend directly on redshift; this seems to be roughly true, but unfortunately the amplitude does depend on cluster properties which do change substantially over cosmic time, so a precise test is impossible.


Features, issues and problems
While very few researchers now doubt the Big Bang occurred, the scientific community was once divided between supporters of the Big Bang and those of alternative cosmological models. Throughout the historical development of the subject, problems with the Big Bang theory were posed in the context of a scientific controversy regarding which model could best describe the cosmological observations (see the history section above). With the overwhelming consensus in the community today supporting the Big Bang model, many of these problems are remembered as being mainly of historical interest; the solutions to them have been obtained either through modifications to the theory or as the result of better observations. Other issues, such as the cuspy halo problem and the dwarf galaxy problem of cold dark matter, are not considered to be fatal as it is anticipated that they can be solved through further refinements of the theory.

The core ideas of the Big Bang—the expansion, the early hot state, the formation of helium, the formation of galaxies—are derived from many independent observations including Big Bang nucleosynthesis, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure and Type Ia supernovae, and can hardly be doubted as important and real features of our universe.

Precise modern models of the Big Bang appeal to various exotic physical phenomena that have not yet been observed in terrestrial laboratory experiments or incorporated into the Standard Model of particle physics. Of these features, dark energy and dark matter are the most secure, while inflation and baryogenesis remain speculative: they provide satisfying explanations for important features of the early universe, but could be replaced by alternative ideas without affecting the rest of the theory.[36] Explanations for such phenomena remain at the frontiers of inquiry in physics.

The following is a short list of Big Bang "problems" and puzzles:


Horizon problem
Main article: Horizon problem
The horizon problem results from the premise that information cannot travel faster than light. In a universe of finite age, this sets a limit—the particle horizon—on the separation of any two regions of space that are in causal contact.[37] The observed isotropy of the CMB is problematic in this regard: if the universe had been dominated by radiation or matter at all times up to the epoch of last scattering, the particle horizon at that time would correspond to about 2 degrees on the sky. There would then be no mechanism to cause these regions to have the same temperature.

A resolution to this apparent inconsistency is offered by inflationary theory in which a homogeneous and isotropic scalar energy field dominates the universe at some very early period (before baryogenesis). During inflation, the universe undergoes exponential expansion, and the particle horizon expands much more rapidly than previously assumed, so that regions presently on opposite sides of the observable universe are well inside each other's particle horizon. The observed isotropy of the CMB then follows from the fact that this larger region was in causal contact before the beginning of inflation.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle predicts that during the inflationary phase there would be quantum thermal fluctuations, which would be magnified to cosmic scale. These fluctuations serve as the seeds of all current structure in the universe. Inflation predicts that the primordial fluctuations are nearly scale invariant and Gaussian, which has been accurately confirmed by measurements of the CMB.


Flatness/oldness problem
Main article: Flatness problem

The overall geometry of the universe is determined by whether the Omega cosmological parameter is less than, equal to or greater than 1. From top to bottom: a closed universe with positive curvature, a hyperbolic universe with negative curvature and a flat universe with zero curvature.The flatness problem (also known as the oldness problem) is an observational problem associated with a Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric.[37] The universe may have positive, negative or zero spatial curvature depending on its total energy density. Curvature is negative if its density is less than the critical density, positive if greater, and zero at the critical density, in which case space is said to be "flat". The problem is that any small departure from the critical density grows with time, and yet the universe today remains very close to flat.[38] Given that a "natural" timescale for departure from flatness might be the Planck time, 10−43 seconds, the fact that the universe has reached neither a Heat Death nor a Big Crunch after billions of years requires some explanation. For instance, even at the relatively "late" age of a few minutes (the time of nucleosynthesis), the universe must have been within one part in 1014 of the critical density, or it would not exist as it does today.[39]

A resolution to this problem is offered by inflationary theory. During the inflationary period, spacetime expanded to such an extent that its curvature would have been smoothed out. Thus, it is believed that inflation drove the universe to a very nearly spatially flat state, with almost exactly the critical density.


Magnetic monopoles
Main article: Magnetic monopole
The magnetic monopole objection was raised in the late 1970s. Grand unification theories predicted topological defects in space that would manifest as magnetic monopoles. These objects would be produced efficiently in the hot early universe, resulting in a density much higher than is consistent with observations, given that searches have never found any monopoles. This problem is also resolved by cosmic inflation, which removes all point defects from the observable universe in the same way that it drives the geometry to flatness.[37]


Baryon asymmetry
Main article: Baryon asymmetry
It is not yet understood why the universe has more matter than antimatter.[23] It is generally assumed that when the universe was young and very hot, it was in statistical equilibrium and contained equal numbers of baryons and anti-baryons. However, observations suggest that the universe, including its most distant parts, is made almost entirely of matter. An unknown process called "baryogenesis" created the asymmetry. For baryogenesis to occur, the Sakharov conditions must be satisfied. These require that baryon number is not conserved, that C-symmetry and CP-symmetry are violated and that the universe depart from thermodynamic equilibrium.[40] All these conditions occur in the Standard Model, but the effect is not strong enough to explain the present baryon asymmetry.


Globular cluster age
In the mid-1990s, observations of globular clusters appeared to be inconsistent with the Big Bang. Computer simulations that matched the observations of the stellar populations of globular clusters suggested that they were about 15 billion years old, which conflicted with the 13.7-billion-year age of the universe. This issue was generally resolved in the late 1990s when new computer simulations, which included the effects of mass loss due to stellar winds, indicated a much younger age for globular clusters.[41] There still remain some questions as to how accurately the ages of the clusters are measured, but it is clear that these objects are some of the oldest in the universe.


Dark matter
Main article: Dark matter

A pie chart indicating the proportional composition of different energy-density components of the universe, according to the best ΛCDM model fits. Roughly ninety-five percent is in the exotic forms of dark matter and dark energyDuring the 1970s and 1980s, various observations (notably of galactic rotation curves) showed that there is not sufficient visible matter in the universe to account for the apparent strength of gravitational forces within and between galaxies. This led to the idea that up to 90% of the matter in the universe is dark matter that does not emit light or interact with normal baryonic matter. In addition, the assumption that the universe is mostly normal matter led to predictions that were strongly inconsistent with observations. In particular, the universe today is far more lumpy and contains far less deuterium than can be accounted for without dark matter. While dark matter was initially controversial, it is now indicated by numerous observations: the anisotropies in the CMB, galaxy cluster velocity dispersions, large-scale structure distributions, gravitational lensing studies, and X-ray measurements of galaxy clusters.[42]

The evidence for dark matter comes from its gravitational influence on other matter, and no dark matter particles have been observed in laboratories. Many particle physics candidates for dark matter have been proposed, and several projects to detect them directly are underway.[43]


Dark energy
Main article: Dark energy
Measurements of the redshift–magnitude relation for Type Ia supernovae have revealed that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating since the universe was about half its present age. To explain this acceleration, general relativity requires that much of the energy in the universe consists of a component with large negative pressure, dubbed "dark energy". Dark energy is indicated by several other lines of evidence. Measurements of the cosmic microwave background indicate that the universe is very nearly spatially flat, and therefore according to general relativity the universe must have almost exactly the critical density of mass/energy. But the mass density of the universe can be measured from its gravitational clustering, and is found to have only about 30% of the critical density.[7] Since dark energy does not cluster in the usual way it is the best explanation for the "missing" energy density. Dark energy is also required by two geometrical measures of the overall curvature of the universe, one using the frequency of gravitational lenses, and the other using the characteristic pattern of the large-scale structure as a cosmic "ruler".

Negative pressure is a property of vacuum energy, but the exact nature of dark energy remains one of the great mysteries of the Big Bang. Possible candidates include a cosmological constant and quintessence. Results from the WMAP team in 2006, which combined data from the CMB and other sources, indicate that the universe today is 74% dark energy, 22% dark matter, and 4% regular matter.[17] The energy density in matter decreases with the expansion of the universe, but the dark energy density remains constant (or nearly so) as the universe expands. Therefore matter made up a larger fraction of the total energy of the universe in the past than it does today, but its fractional contribution will fall in the far future as dark energy becomes even more dominant.

In the best current model of the Big Bang, dark energy is explained by the presence of a cosmological constant in the theory of General Relativity. However, the size of the constant that properly explains dark energy is surprisingly small relative to naive estimates based on ideas about quantum gravity. Distinguishing between the cosmological constant and other explanations of dark energy is an active area of current research.


The future according to the Big Bang theory
Main article: Ultimate fate of the universe
Before observations of dark energy, cosmologists considered two scenarios for the future of the universe. If the mass density of the universe was greater than the critical density, then the universe would reach a maximum size and then begin to collapse. It would become denser and hotter again, ending with a state that was similar to that in which it started—a Big Crunch.[32] Alternatively, if the density in the universe was equal to or below the critical density, the expansion would slow down, but never stop. Star formation would cease as all the interstellar gas in each galaxy is consumed; stars would burn out leaving white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes. Very gradually, collisions between these would result in mass accumulating into larger and larger black holes. The average temperature of the universe would asymptotically approach absolute zero—a Big Freeze. Moreover, if the proton was unstable, then baryonic matter would disappear, leaving only radiation and black holes. Eventually, black holes would evaporate. The entropy of the universe would increase to the point where no organized form of energy could be extracted from it, a scenario known as heat death.

Modern observations of accelerated expansion imply that more and more of the currently visible universe will pass beyond our event horizon and out of contact with us. The eventual result is not known. The ΛCDM model of the universe contains dark energy in the form of a cosmological constant. This theory suggests that only gravitationally bound systems, such as galaxies, would remain together, and they too would be subject to heat death, as the universe expands and cools. Other explanations of dark energy—so-called phantom energy theories—suggest that ultimately galaxy clusters, stars, planets, atoms, nuclei and matter itself will be torn apart by the ever-increasing expansion in a so-called Big Rip.[44]


Speculative physics beyond the Big Bang

A graphical representation of the expansion of the universe with the inflationary epoch represented as the dramatic expansion of the metric seen on the left. Image from WMAP press release, 2006. (Detail)While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined in the future. Little is known about the earliest moments of the universe's history. The Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems[45] require the existence of a singularity at the beginning of cosmic time. However, these theorems assume that general relativity is correct, but general relativity must break down before the universe reaches the Planck temperature, and a correct treatment of quantum gravity may avoid the singularity.

There may also be parts of the universe well beyond what can be observed in principle. If inflation occurred this is likely, for exponential expansion would push large regions of space beyond our observable horizon.

Some proposals, each of which entails untested hypotheses, are:

models including the Hartle-Hawking boundary condition in which the whole of space-time is finite; the Big Bang does represent the limit of time, but without the need for a singularity.[46]
brane cosmology models[47] in which inflation is due to the movement of branes in string theory; the pre-big bang model; the ekpyrotic model, in which the Big Bang is the result of a collision between branes; and the cyclic model, a variant of the ekpyrotic model in which collisions occur periodically.[48]
chaotic inflation, in which inflation events start here and there in a random quantum-gravity foam, each leading to a bubble universe expanding from its own big bang.[49]
Proposals in the last two categories see the Big Bang as an event in a much larger and older universe, or multiverse, and not the literal beginning.


Philosophical and religious interpretations
The Big Bang is a scientific theory, and as such stands or falls by its agreement with observations. But as a theory which addresses, or at least seems to address, creation itself, it has always been entangled with theological and philosophical implications. In the 1920s and '30s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[50] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the theory's inventor, Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest. Lemaître himself always insisted that as a physical theory, the Big Bang has no religious implications; and yet the congruence between his scientific and religious beliefs is apparent in his famous description of the beginning of the universe as "a day without yesterday"—alluding to the creation account in Genesis. George Gamow had no compunction in describing the graphs of conditions in the Big Bang as "divine creation curves", and sent a copy of his book The Creation of the Universe to the pope; yet even he favoured an oscillating model in which the Big Bang was not a literal beginning. To this day, many people's reactions to the Big Bang theory, both positive and negative, are influenced by how well it can be harmonised with their religious and philosophical world views.

Some interpretations of the Big Bang theory go beyond science, and some purport to explain the cause of the Big Bang itself (first cause). These views have been criticized by some naturalist philosophers as being modern creation myths. Some people believe that the Big Bang theory is inconsistent with traditional views of creation such as that in Genesis, for example, while others, like astronomer and old Earth creationist Hugh Ross, believe that the Big Bang theory lends support to the idea of creation ex nihilo.[51]

A number of Christian and traditional Jewish sources have accepted the Big Bang as a possible description of the origin of the universe, interpreting it to allow for a philosophical first cause. Pope Pius XII was an enthusiastic proponent of the Big Bang even before the theory was scientifically well-established,[52][53] and consequently the Roman Catholic Church has been a prominent advocate for the idea that creation ex nihilo can be interpreted as consistent with the Big Bang. This view is shared by many religious Jews in all branches of rabbinic Judaism. Some groups contend the Big Bang is also consistent with the teaching of creation according to Kabbalah. [54]

Some modern Islamic scholars[55] believe that the Qur'an parallels the Big Bang in its account of creation, described as follows: "Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit of creation, before We clove them asunder?" (Ch:21,Ver:30). The claim has also been made that the Qur'an describes an expanding universe: "The heaven, We have built it with power. And verily, We are expanding it." (Ch:51,Ver:47).[56] Parallels with the Big Crunch and an oscillating universe have also been suggested: "On the day when We will roll up the heavens like the rolling up of the scroll for writings, as We originated the first creation, (so) We shall reproduce it; a promise (binding on Us); surely We will bring it about." (Ch:21,Ver:104).

A suggestion of a Big Bang can also be found in Taoism, a branch of Chinese philosophy. The first verse of the Tao Te Ching is: "... It was from the Nameless that Heaven and Earth sprang; The named is but the mother that rears the ten thousand creatures, each after its kind."[citation needed]


Notes and references
^ Slipher, V. M.. "The radial velocity of the Andromeda nebula". Lowell Observatory Bulletin 1: 56–57.
Slipher, V. M.. "Spectrographic observations of nebulae". Popular Astronomy 23: 21–24.
^ Friedman, A (1922). "Über die Krümmung des Raumes". Z. Phys. 10: 377–386. (German) (English translation in: Friedman, A (1999). "On the Curvature of Space". General Relativity and Gravitation 31: 1991–2000. DOI:10.1023/A:1026751225741. )
^ Lemaître, G. (1927). "Un Univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extragalactiques". Annals of the Scientific Society of Brussels 47A: 41. (French) Translated in: (1931) "Expansion of the universe, A homogeneous universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 91: 483–490.
^ Lemaître, G. (1931). "The evolution of the universe: discussion". Nature 128: suppl.: 704.
^ a b Edwin Hubble (1929). "A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 15: 168–173.
^ E. Christianson (1995). Edwin Hubble: Mariner of the Nebulae. Farrar Straus & Giroux. ISBN 0374146608.
^ a b c P. J. E. Peebles and Bharat Ratra (2003). "The cosmological constant and dark energy". Reviews of Modern Physics 75: 559–606. DOI:10.1103/RevModPhys.75.559. arXiv:astro-ph/0207347.
^ E. A. Milne (1935). Relativity, Gravitation and World Structure. Oxford University Press.
^ R. C. Tolman (1934). Relativity, Thermodynamics, and Cosmology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. LCCN 340-32023. Reissued (1987) New York: Dover ISBN 0-486-65383-8.
^ Zwicky, F (1929). "On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines through Interstellar Space". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 15: 773–779. Full article (PDF)
^ Hoyle, Fred (1948). "A New Model for the Expanding universe". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 108: 372.
^ R. A. Alpher, H. Bethe, G. Gamow (1948). "The Origin of Chemical Elements". Physical Review 73: 803.
^ R. A. Alpher and R. Herman (1948). "Evolution of the Universe". Nature 162: 774.
^ Simon Singh. Big Bang. Retrieved on 2007-05-28.
^ a b A. A. Penzias and R. W. Wilson (1965). "A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s". Astrophysical Journal 142: 419.
^ a b Boggess, N.W., et al. (COBE collaboration) (1992). "The COBE Mission: Its Design and Performance Two Years after the launch". Astrophysical Journal 397: 420, Preprint No. 92-02. DOI:10.1086/171797.
^ a b c D. N. Spergel et al. (WMAP collaboration) (2006). "Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Implications for Cosmology". Retrieved on 2007-05-27.
^ S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis (1973). The large-scale structure of space-time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-20016-4.
^ There is no consensus about how long the Big Bang phase lasted: for some writers this denotes only the initial singularity, for others the whole history of the universe. Usually at least the first few minutes, during which helium is synthesised, are said to occur "during the Big Bang".
^ a b c Spergel, D. N.; et al. (2003). "First-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters". The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 148: 175—194. DOI:10.1086/377226.
^ Guth, Alan H. (1998). The Inflationary Universe: Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins. Vintage. ISBN 978-0099959502.
^ Schewe, Phil, and Ben Stein (2005). "An Ocean of Quarks". Physics News Update, American Institute of Physics 728 (#1). Retrieved on 2007-05-27.
^ a b Kolb and Turner (1988), chapter 6
^ Kolb and Turner (1988), chapter 7
^ a b c Kolb and Turner (1988), chapter 4
^ Peacock (1999), chapter 9
^ Ivanchik, A. V.; A. Y. Potekhin and D. A. Varshalovich (1999). "The fine-structure constant: a new observational limit on its cosmological variation and some theoretical consequences". Astronomy and Astrophysics 343: 439.
^ Detailed information of and references for tests of general relativity are given at Tests of general relativity.
^ This ignores the dipole anisotropy at a level of 0.1% due to the peculiar velocity of the solar system through the radiation field.
^ Goodman, J. (1995). "Geocentrism reexamined". Physical Review D 52: 1821. DOI:10.1103/PhysRevD.52.1821.
^ d'Inverno, Ray (1992). Introducing Einstein's Relativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-859686-3. Chapter 23
^ a b Kolb and Turner (1988), chapter 3
^ Peacock (1999), chapter 3
^ Steigman, Gary. "Primordial Nucleosynthesis: Successes And Challenges". arXiv:astro-ph/0511534.
^ E. Bertschinger (2001). "Cosmological perturbation theory and structure formation". arXiv:astro-ph/0101009.
Edmund Bertschinger (1998). "Simulations of structure formation in the universe". Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 36: 599–654.
^ If inflation is true, baryogenesis must have occurred, but not vice versa.
^ a b c Kolb and Turner (1988), chapter 8
^ Strictly, dark energy in the form of a cosmological constant drives the universe towards a flat state; but our universe remained close to flat for several billion years, before the dark energy density became significant.
^ R. H. Dicke and P. J. E. Peebles. "The big bang cosmology — enigmas and nostrums". S. W. Hawking and W. Israel (eds) General Relativity: an Einstein centenary survey: 504–517, Cambridge University Press.
^ A. D., Sakharov (1967). "Violation of CP invariance, C asymmetry and baryon asymmetry of the universe". Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 5: 32. (Russian) Translated in JETP Lett. 5, 24 (1967).
^ Navabi, A. A.; N. Riazi (2003). "Is the Age Problem Resolved?". Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy 24: 3.
^ Keel, Bill. Galaxies and the Universe lecture notes - Dark Matter. Retrieved on 2007-05-28.
^ Yao, W. M.; et al. (2006). "Review of Particle Physics". J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 33: 1–1232. DOI:10.1088/0954-3899/33/1/001. Chapter 22.
^ (2003) "Phantom Energy and Cosmic Doomsday". Phys.Rev.Lett. 91: 071301. arXiv:astro-ph/0302506.
^ Hawking, Stephen; and Ellis, G. F. R. (1973). The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-09906-4.
^ J. Hartle and S. W. Hawking (1983). "Wave function of the universe". Phys. Rev. D 28: 2960.
^ Langlois, David (2002). "Brane cosmology: an introduction". arXiv:hep-th/0209261.
^ Linde, Andre (2002). "Inflationary Theory versus Ekpyrotic/Cyclic Scenario". arXiv:hep-th/0205259.
^ A. Linde (1986). "Eternal chaotic inflation". Mod. Phys. Lett. A1.
A. Linde (1986). "Eternally existing self-reproducing chaotic inflationary universe". Phys. Lett. B175.
^ Kragh, Helge (1996). Cosmology and Controversy. Princeton University Press. ISBN 069100546X.
^ Ross, Hugh. Putting the Big Bang to the Test. Retrieved on 2006-09-19.
^ Pius XII (1952). "Modern Science and the Existence of God". The Catholic Mind 49: 182–192.
^ Lemaître protested, objecting to religious endorsement of any scientific theory, even his own. See Kragh (1996): 258.
^ The Kabbalah Centre. Adam and Atom. Retrieved on 2006-11-12.
^ Ahmad, Mirza Tahir (1987). Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth. Islam International Publications Ltd. ISBN 1-85372-640-0. Part 4, chapter 5: The Quran and Cosmology
^ There are more prosaic translations of this verse which do not suggest an expanding universe including "And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and We are Makers of the vast extent." and "With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of space". However, Islamic scholars generally consider only the original Arabic text to be authoritative, and many state that the original Arabic text indeed indicates an expanding universe.

Books
Kolb, Edward; Michael Turner (1988). The Early Universe. Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-201-11604-9.
Peacock, John (1999). Cosmological Physics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521422701.

Further reading
For an annotated list of textbooks and monographs, see physical cosmology.
Alpher, R. A.; R. Herman (August 1988). Reflections on early work on 'big bang' cosmology. Physics Today, 24–34.
Mather, John C.; John Boslough (1996). The very first light: the true inside story of the scientific journey back to the dawn of the universe, 300. ISBN 0-465-01575-1.
Singh, Simon (2004). Big Bang: The most important scientific discovery of all time and why you need to know about it. Fourth Estate.
Cosmic Journey: A History of Scientific Cosmology. American Institute of Physics.
Feuerbacher, Björn; Ryan Scranton (2006). Evidence for the Big Bang.
Misconceptions about the Big Bang. Scientific American (March 2005).
The First Few Microseconds. Scientific American (May 2006).

Dood...

http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/7441279-post6.html

 

[jackangel]

jguru, wtf, that's just obnoxious. you fucking god-haters...

 

[EnderJE]

Those are the people that scare me and I'm fearless.

The son didn't scare me.

The mother did and still does. If my child was dead, I think I'd show a little more anguish rather then posting something that Steve Urkel would say..."did I do that?"

 

[javaguru]

jguru, wtf, that's just obnoxious. you fucking god-haters...

Krishna loves you .......in the Biblical sense...

 

[Saintinistic]

who gives a shit if most of the world believes in god. it doesnt mean its real. majority rule doesnt equate to being correct or right. too funny watching the god lovers grabbing their most beloved Satans toolbox of insults and threats to defend their beliefs. if you truly believed you wouldnt even be bothered because you would know you were right. but the doubt in others creates doubt of self... classic.

 

[WODIN]

WTF? you old crotchety bastard!

How's it going juicedhairweave?

 

[javaguru]

who gives a shit if most of the world believes in god. it doesnt mean its real. majority rule doesnt equate to being correct or right. too funny watching the god lovers grabbing their most beloved Satans toolbox of insults and threats to defend their beliefs. if you truly believed you wouldnt even be bothered because you would know you were right. but the doubt in others creates doubt of self... classic.

The number of atheists/agnostics have been rising in the US, up 50% from the late 1980's by some accounts. In Britain up to 44% of the population is atheist/agnostic.

 

[javaguru]

Actually, we do know how the world was created. And the solar system. And to a lesser extent (obviously) the galaxy.

The only problem is mathematics breaking down at the singularity -- so the lack of anything is for the big bang or creation of the universe, i.e four-dimensional spacetime. However, time is assymetric, so if time itself was created at the initial singularity, we couldn't see or comprehend before it's creation anyways.

I just watched a Science Channel documentary on String theory, Parallel Universes and M-Theory. I know it's far from proven or complete but it did seem to provide some interesting hypotheses.

For those who don't know what it is;Basically, it's unique in that it provides a mechanism for the "Big Bang", a hole which creationists like to point out in the "Big Bang Theory" to give credence for their assertion of a creator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

In physics, M-theory (sometimes also called U-theory) is a proposed "master theory" that unifies the five superstring theories. Drawing on the work from a number of string theorists (including Chris Hull, Paul Townsend, Ashoke Sen, Michael Duff and John H. Schwarz), Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study suggested its existence at a conference at USC in 1995, and used M-theory to explain a number of previously observed dualities, sparking a flurry of new research in string theory called the second superstring revolution.

In the early 1990s, it was shown that the various superstring theories were related by dualities, which allow physicists to relate the description of an object in one string theory to the description of a different object in another theory. These relationships imply that each of the string theories is a different aspect of a single underlying theory, proposed by Witten, and named "M-theory".

M-theory is not yet complete; however it can be applied in many situations (usually by exploiting string theoretic dualities). The theory of electromagnetism was also in such a state in the mid-19th century; there were separate theories for electricity and magnetism and, although they were known to be related, the exact relationship was not clear until James Clerk Maxwell published his equations, in his 1864 paper A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field. Witten has suggested that a general formulation of M-theory will probably require the development of new mathematical language. However, some scientists have questioned the tangible successes of M-theory given its current incompleteness, and limited predictive power, even after so many years of intense research."

 

[javaguru]

This is the introduction link.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_M-theory

"M-theory is a theory of physics that deals with the extension of superstring theory. It is somewhat contentious in the physics community, as it lacks empirical evidence. If ever experimentally verified, M-theory and string theory would represent remarkable advances in science."

 

[javaguru]

Atheists the least trusted????
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/03/24/67686

March 24, 2006

Survey: U.S. trust lowest for atheists
By Jeannine Aquino

Atheists are America's least trusted group, according to a national survey conducted by University sociology researchers.

Based on a telephone survey of more than 2,000 households and in-depth interviews with more than 140 people, researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, homosexuals and other groups as "sharing their vision of American society." Americans are also least willing to let their children marry atheists.

"It tells us about how Americans view religion," said Penny Edgell, an associate sociology professor and the study's lead researcher. "Many Americans seem to believe some kind of religious faith is central to being a good American and a good person."

The study will appear in the April issue of the "American Sociological Review." Professor Joseph Gerteis and associate professor Douglas Hartmann are study co-authors. It is the first in a series of national studies conducted by the American Mosaic Project, a three-year project that looks at race, religion and cultural diversity in the United States.

Edgell said Americans traditionally have been a religious people and associate faith with being a good citizen. The survey results indicate that this belief hasn't changed, Edgell said.

Those surveyed tended to view people who don't believe in a god as the "ultimate self-interested actor who doesn't care about anyone but themselves," Edgell said.

Cole Ries, the president of the Maranatha Christian Fellowship said he does not agree with that perception.

"Atheists seem to be concerned with the human good," he said. "Where I differ as a Christian is that I'm more concerned with God's will than man's will."

Still, Ries said, "I don't believe that anybody is really an atheist. I believe that deep down everyone knows there is a god."

Robert O'Connor, a sophomore and member of Campus Atheists and Secular Humanists, said he was not surprised by the survey results.

Americans generally are very religious, O'Connor said, and people usually are suspicious about those who do not share the same beliefs.

"People really strongly believe that religion and good morals are one and the same," O'Connor said. "Increasing problems of society - for example, juvenile delinquency - are being blamed on lack of religious value."

Joe Foley, co-chairman for Campus Atheists and Secular Humanists, was not surprised by the results, either.

"I know atheists aren't studied that much as a sociological group, but I guess atheists are one of the last groups remaining that it's still socially acceptable to hate," Foley said.

First-year pharmacy student Amanda Wawrzynia, however, found the study reasonable.

She said she would have ranked atheists at the bottom of the list of those sharing the same vision of American society.

"I would rather have my kids marry someone of a different religion than someone who has none," she said.

Yet Benjamin Abrams, a member of the Jewish student center Hillel, said he was surprised people would have reservations about their children marrying atheists.

"I understand if people want to marry someone of a similar faith, but I don't understand why it would be any different from marrying a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian," Abrams said. "It's another religious belief. I don't understand why atheism would have negative connotations."

Abrams said Judaism teaches that people's actions, not one's beliefs, are what matter most.

"(Atheists) should have the same rights to not believe as someone would have the right to believe," he said.

First-year biology student Joe Reutiman calls the results a "sad state of affairs."

"(Atheists) have the right to believe whatever they want, even if that belief is nothing," Reutiman said. "They shouldn't have to fit in with the clean-cut American life like a Norman Rockwell painting."