It's kb's post just above your last post in catholic church in hot water again thread

https://DateHookup.dating/thread-1466256-61.htm#71335105

The Big Bang Theory isn't just a hypothesis or guess. It is supported by observations and measurements. The BBT is the currently accepted model of how the universe evolved from its early stages and is supported by studies of the rate galaxies are racing away from each other at proportionately faster speeds according to their distance, and by discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, which was a predicted outcome of the Big Bang, the discovery of which won the scientists concerned a Nobel Prize.

One expects that if the UB's "Space Respiration" idea was supported by observational evidence it would have excited interest among the cosmological community and assumed the status of a scientific hypothesis or theory by now.

One wonders if, as the UB author maintains, the universe is expanding and contracting in one billion year cycles, do we not observe concentric rings of galaxies in the night sky alternately advancing and receding at one billion light year intervals?

I am not going to call it the BBT, BB suffices, it is not a "theory".

When Albert Einstein was formulating his ground-breaking theory of gravity in the early 20th Century, at a time when astronomers only really knew of the existence of our own galaxy, he necessarily used the simplifying assumption that the universe has the same gross properties in all parts, and that it looks roughly the same in every direction wherever in the universe an observer happens to be located. Like Sir Isaac Newton two hundred years before him, he assumed an infinite, static or “steady state” universe, with its stars suspended essentially motionless in a vast void.

However, when Einstein tried to apply his General Theory of Relativity to the universe as a whole, he realized that space-time as whole must be warped and curved back on itself, which in itself would cause matter to move, shrinking uncontrollably under its own gravity. Thus, as early as 1917, Einstein and others realized that the equations of general relativity did not describe a static universe. However, he never quite came to terms with the idea of a dynamic, finite universe, and so he posited a mysterious counteracting force of cosmic repulsion (which he called the “cosmological constant”) in order to maintain a stable, static universe. Adding additional and arbitrary terms to a theory is not something that scientists do lightly, and many people argued that it was an artificial and arbitrary construct and at best a stop-gap solution.


As we have noted, up until that time, the assumption of a static universe had always been taken for granted. To put things into perspective, for most of history (see the section on Cosmological Theories Through History), it had been taken for granted that the static earth was the centre of the entire universe, as Aristotle and Ptolemy had described. It was only in the mid-16th Century that Nicolaus Copernicus showed that we were not the centre of the universe at all (or even of the Solar System for that matter!). It was as late as the beginning of the 20th Century that Jacobus Kapteyn’s observations first suggested that the Sun was at the centre of a spinning galaxy of stars making up the Milky Way. Then, in 1917, humanity suffered a further blow to its pride when Curtis Shapely revealed that we were not even the centre of the galaxy, merely part of some unremarkable suburb of the Milky Way (although it was still assumed that the Milky Way was all there was).

Some years later, in 1925, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble stunned the scientific community by demonstrating that there was more to the universe than just our Milky Way galaxy and that there were in fact many separate islands of stars - thousands, perhaps millions of them, and many of them huge distances away from our own.

Then, in 1929, Hubble announced a further dramatic discovery which completely turned astronomy on its ear. With the benefit of improved telescopes, Hubble started to notice that the light coming from these galaxies was shifted a little towards the red end of the spectrum due to the Doppler effect (known as “redshift”), which indicated that the galaxies were moving away from us. After a detailed analysis of the redshifts of a special class of stars called Cepheids (which have specific properties making them useful as “standard candles” or distance markers), Hubble concluded that the galaxies and clusters of galaxies were in fact flying apart from each other at great speed, and that the universe was therefore definitively growing in size. In effect, all the galaxies we see are slighly red in colour due to redshift.

Hubble showed that, in our expanding universe, every galaxy is rushing away from us with a speed which is in direct proportion to its distance, known as Hubble’s Law, so that a galaxy that is twice as far away as another is receding twice as fast, one ten times as far away if receding ten times as fast, etc. The law is usually stated as v = H0D, where v is the velocity of recession, D is the distance of the galaxy from the observer and H0 is the Hubble constant which links them. The exact value of the Hubble constant itself has long been the subject of much controversy: Hubble's initial estimates were of the order of approximately 500 kilometres per second per megaparsec (equivalent to about 160 km/sec/million light years); the most recent best estimates, with the benefit of the Hubble Telescope and the WMAP probe, is around 72 kilometres per second per megaparsec. (It should perhaps be pointed out that the Hubble constant is technically a parameter, not a constant, because it will actually change over long periods of time.)

Artist's impression of the 'metric expansion' of the universe - click for larger version
(Click for a larger version)
Artist's impression of the "metric expansion" of the universe
(Source: Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang)
This expansion, usually referred to as the "metric expansion" of space, is a “broad-brush effect” in that individual galaxies themselves are not expanding, but the clusters of galaxies into which the matter of the universe has become divided are becoming more widely separated and more thinly spread throughout space. Thus, the universe is not expanding "outwards" into pre-existing space; space itself is expanding, defined by the relative separation of parts of the universe. Returning to the image of the expanding universe as a balloon inflating, if tiny dots are painted on the ballon to represent galaxies, then as the balloon expands so the distance between the dots increases, and the further apart the dots the faster they move apart. Another analogy often used (and maybe even clearer) is that of a raisin cake expanding as it bakes, so that the raisins (galaxies) gradually all move away from each other.

In such an expansion, then, the universe continues to look more or less the same from every galaxy, so the fact that we see all the galaxies receding from us does not necessarily mean that we are at the very centre of the universe: observers in all other galaxies would also see all the other galaxies flying away according to the same law, and the pattern of galactic dispersal would appear very much the same from anywhere in the cosmos.

The fact that a theory is "en vogue" does not make it true.

*
Not only is "the kingdom of God is within you," but the kingdom of God is surely not the abomination that is the Catholic church, and not only is there a pre-personal fragment of God within every normal minded human being from about the age of 5 or so on, but the Spirit of Truth was bestowed upon all mankind, not just the apostles or followers of Jesus, at Pentecost.

And aligning one's will perfectly with God's will, perfectly with the fragment of God within us, as Elijah and Enoch did, is the way to be "translated" directly from here to the Mansion worlds, by-passing normal mortal death.

(2Ki 2:11) And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

A chariot of spiritual flames.

Gen 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

"By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God." (Heb 11:5)

Enoch was "translated."



Hope this isn't off topic too much.

Jesus said "The kingdom of God is within you." This a profound truth that that Jesus taught that has been lost by Christianity. There is an actual pre-personal fragment of God within every human being. When you align your will perfectly with God's will as Enoch and Elijah did, you FUSE and become one with that fragment of God and you are "translated" in a "chariot of [spiritual] flames" directly to "the mansion worlds" which Jesus referred to as the "many mansions in my Father's house." (John 14:2) They are not exactly "heaven" but they have been perceived as such in human visions and literature. There's seven mansion worlds, the "seven heavens."

*
I guess what I'm trying to say with regard to the big bang theory is that the "facts" that seem to support it may very well also support other explanations.

The dominant motion in the universe is the smooth expansion known as Hubble's Law. Recessional Velocity = Hubble's constant times distance. V = Ho D. where V is the observed velocity of the galaxy away from us, usually in km/sec. H is Hubble's "constant", in km/sec/Mpc.
Hubble's Law
www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/hubbles_law.htm

A better explanation here:

How is it proved that the Universe is expanding? (Intermediate ...

It seems to me that one could believe or disbelieve the big bang theory and still be a good Christian. This seems to me a scientific, not religious, topic, kind of like discussing whether or not Pluto is a planet or discussing why Mars is red.

When we discuss the evolution hypothesis we are discussing something with religious overtones, but I don't see any religious overtones in the big bang theory. I could be wrong.

KB, my point is, how is that a religious question? Why are we discussing it on the religion forum?

Because some atheists argue that the universe somehow self-created.

Because you brought it up in the hot water thread! You introduced it!!
Any questions?????????????????

curious.astro.cornell.edu/...the-universe/.../expansion...the-universe/626-how-is-it-pro...

OK, do you deny the inflationary nature of the universe and Hubbles law? That he proved it?

What part do you disagree with:

That Universe did expand and is inflationary?

Or just what caused it to occur?

Yes, yes, we all know that. We all know that "the BBT is the currently accepted theory of how the universe evolved from its its early stages."

It's "en vogue," as I said already.

The Nanos Research survey for CTV News found 37 per cent agreed that the Trudeau government’s decision to take in 25,000 Syrians was “about right.” Another 28 per cent said Canada should take even more than that.
Meanwhile, 28 per cent said they preferred to take in fewer than 25,000 and seven per cent said they were unsure.
RELATED STORIES
Liberals sticking to plan for 25,000 refugees
Strong support for accepting more Syrian refugees: Nanos poll
Support for taking in more than 25,000 Syrians was highest in Atlantic Canada (45%) and lowest in the Prairies (19%).
Although the poll suggests most Canadians agree with taking at least 25,000 refugees, the country appears more divided on whether the government is moving at the right pace.
While 51 per cent of those polled agreed the government is moving at the right pace, 40 per cent said the Liberals are moving too quickly, four per cent said too slowly and five per cent said they were unsure.

Good idea. Suggest you read what the UB says before further unwarranted critique.

http://truthbook.com/urantia-book/paper-12-the-universe-of-universes#U12_6_0

This is a better link for its at the start of Paper 12 THE UNIVERSE OF UNIVERSES.

http://truthbook.com/urantia-book/paper-12-the-universe-of-universes#U12_6_0

Unwarranted critique?

I was responding to others on the BBT , including from Urantians.

I thought this thread was about BBT not Urantia. I just happened to notice that Urantia is against it, and that puzzled me as the only Christians who oppose it are the SDA, Mormons and some Pentecostals.

Heck, not even the Vatican opposes it since 1951.

Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory

I gave no "unwarranted " critique at all of Urantia.

Just found the Urantia sites that oppose it all, will have to read what they say when I get time. Kinda surprised me why they have such a hard on for it. Perhaps its the dimensions of it upsets their interplanetary theories. I`ll have to do some reading.

Nver thought it would be an issue until I checked where your stuff was coming from, and found that Urantia site on it.

Commenting on the subject of the Big Bang Theory is not "unwarranted" critique, just because you follow a group that says you are supposed to disagree with it.

The characteristic of the universe stated more frequently than any other in the Bible is its being “stretched out.” Five different Bible authors pen such a statement in eleven different verses: Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15; and Zechariah 12:1. Job 37:18 appears to be a twelfth verse. However, the word used for “heavens” or “skies” is shehaqîm which refers to the clouds of fine particles (of water or dust) that are located in Earth’s atmosphere,8 not the shamayim, the heavens of the astronomical universe.9 Three of the eleven verses, Job 9:8; Isaiah 44:24; and 45:12 make the point that God alone was responsible for the cosmic stretching.

What is particularly interesting about the eleven verses is that different Hebrew verb forms are used to describe the cosmic stretching. Seven verses, Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 51:13; and Zechariah 12:1 employ the Qal active participle form of the verb natah. This form literally means “the stretcher out of them” (the heavens) and implies continual or ongoing stretching. Four verses, Isaiah 45:12; 48:13; and Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15 use the Qal perfect form. This form literally means that the stretching of the heavens was completed or finished some time ago.

That the Bible really does claim that the stretching out of the heavens is both “finished” and “ongoing” is made all the more evident in Isaiah 40:22. There we find two different verbs used in two different forms. In the first of the final two parallel poetic lines, “stretches out” is the verb natah in the Qal active participle form. In the second (final) line the verb “spreads them out” (NASB, NIV, NKJV) is mathah (used only this one time in the Old Testament) in the waw consecutive plus Qal imperfect form, so that literally we might translate it “and he has spread them out . . .” The participles in lines one and three of Isaiah 40:22 characterize our sovereign God by His actions in all times, sitting enthroned above the earth and stretching out the heavens, constantly exercising his creative power in His ongoing providential work. This characterization is continued with reference to the past by means of waw consecutive with the imperfect, the conversive form indicating God’s completed act of spreading out the heavens. That is, this one verse literally states that God is both continuing to stretch out the heavens and has stretched them out.

This simultaneously finished and ongoing aspect of cosmic stretching is identical to the big bang concept of cosmic expansion. According to the big bang, at the creation event all the physics (specifically, the laws, constants, and equations of physics) are instantly created, designed, and finished so as to guarantee an ongoing, continual expansion of the universe at exactly the right rates with respect to time so that physical life will be possible.

This biblical claim for simultaneously finished and ongoing acts of creation, incidentally, is not limited to just the universe’s expansion. The same claim, for example, is made for God’s laying Earth’s foundations (Isaiah 51:13; Zechariah 12:1). This is consistent with the geophysical discovery that certain long-lived radiometric elements were placed into the earth’s crust a little more than four billion years ago in just the right quantities so as to guarantee the continual building of continents.

Finally, the Bible indirectly argues for a big bang universe by stating that the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, and electromagnetism have universally operated throughout the universe since the cosmic creation event itself. In Romans 8 we are told that the entire creation has been subjected to the law of decay (the second law of thermodynamics). This law in the context of an expanding universe establishes that the cosmos was much hotter in the past. In Genesis 1 and in many places throughout Job, Psalms, and Proverbs we are informed that stars have existed since the early times of creation. As explained in two Reasons To Believe books,10 even the slightest changes in either the laws of gravity or electromagnetism would make stars impossible. As already noted in the accompanying article, gravity, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics yield stable orbits of planets around stars and of electrons around the nuclei of atoms only if they operate in a universe described by three very large rapidly expanding dimensions of space.

I never said it was a "fad." "En vogue" does not mean a "fad" to me, necessarily. Hula-hoops were a fad. Fads are frivolous.

Dun :Just found the Urantia sites that oppose it all,


Furch :You did? And where are they? Give the links please. And there are a lot of them? And you say they "oppose it all"? What all? There are non-Urantia plasma physicists who do not agree with the big bang. Opposing the big bang is not a Urantia thing. Nor does The Urantia Book "oppose" the big bang theory.

Dun:will have to read what they say when I get time.


FurchMe too. Give the links please.

The Zohar is mostly written in what has been described as a cryptic, obscure style of Aramaic.[2] Aramaic, the day-to-day language of Israel in the Second Temple period (539 BCE – 70 CE), was the original language of large sections of the biblical books of Daniel and Ezra, and is the main language of the Talmud.[3]

The Zohar first appeared in Spain in the 13th century, and was published by a Jewish writer named Moses de León. De León ascribed the work to Shimon bar Yochai ("Rashbi"), a rabbi of the 2nd century during the Roman persecution[4] who, according to Jewish legend,[5][6] hid in a cave for thirteen years studying the Torah and was inspired by the Prophet Elijah to write the Zohar. This accords with the traditional claim by adherents that Kabbalah is the concealed part of the Oral Torah.

Dun :Kinda surprised me why they have such a hard on for it.


Furch :A hard-on for what? Give the links please. It sounds like you are science shaming Urantians because they don't believe about the popular big bang theory the way that you believe.

And the science behind the Big Bang creation of the universe is that it happened from a point of infinite temperature, infinite density, infinitesimal in size that is physically indescribable, mathematically unverified, and beyond the conceptions of space and time because certain parameters of the observed movement of galaxies were put into a computer model and then run backwards, especially when all that we call matter accounts for only 4% of the energy of the universe.

How can one really believe that the entire vast universe of energy and matter BANGED into inflationary existence 13.8 billion years ago from a infinitesimally hot, dense point smaller than a proton because that's what a computer model backward extrapolation of parameters of observed movement of galaxies ends with called a "singularity" of unknown and unverifiable characteristics.

Expansion of the Universe

This was Hubble's discovery that prompted the development of the model -- we find that distant objects are moving away from us, with more distant objects moving away at higher velocities.

This expansion is perhaps the most obvious prediction of the Big Bang -- if the universe is expanding, this will cause all objects to be moving away from each other. If we imagine, for example, that all objects become twice as far away over some period of time, that means a galaxy 50 Mpc (million parsec) away must move another 50 Mpc, while an galaxy 100 Mpc moves 100 Mpc in the same time. Thus, the galaxy twice as far away must be receding twice as rapidly, which is exactly what we observe.The Cosmic Microwave Background

As the expansion is traced backward, the universe gets smaller. As the same energy is put into a smaller and smaller box, the temperature goes up (gas cools as it expands and heats when it shrinks), so the universe must have been very, very hot a long time ago. [I'm oversimplifying here in a way that turns out to be particularly important for dark energy, but is not important for this discussion.]

Very early in the universe, it was so hot that protons and electrons could not form hydrogen. This led to an opaque plasma, so light could not travel through the universe. Around 400,000 years after the Big Bang, it cooled enough to form hydrogen, and we can see photons emitted at that time, which have been traveling to us for nearly 14 billion years!

The Big Bang predicts that this radiation should have a specific temperature (we know how long it has been cooling), should have a blackbody spectrum, and because the entire universe is expanding, should be incredibly uniform. This relic radiation, called the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), was predicted in 1948, observed in 1965, and the 1978 Nobel Prize was awarded for its discovery. Later observations by the COBE, WMAP, and Planck satellites have confirmed to increasing precision that we find exactly the CMB predicted by the Big Bang theory.