You are asking questions which I have already answered...

It's talking about "nothing" in OTHER PARTS of the space that would become our "universe". NOT the "singularity" itself which CAUSED the universe, which WAS something.

You'll note that it is talking about the UNIVERSE when it discusses "nothing" in the previous sentence, which is completely consistent with what I am saying. One minute, there was "nothing" where the universe was, and then there was the universe.
It is talking about the UNIVERSE and not the SINGULARITY from which the universe expanded from. Note the difference!


OMG! I can't believe you are not seeing the obvious.
My sources clearly REFUTE your claim that the theory says that there was at one time "nothing".

How did you find that web-site anyways? Let me guess. You googled "big bang theory nothing"??? And then you just made a round peg fit into a square hole to arrive at your claim?


"just came to be"?

It's funny how people who claim to believe in an eternal, never beginning, never ending all powerful entity can question the idea of an "eternal" matter/energy...

==============================================

And for the record, you didn't even answer the question you quoted...
I seriously want an answer to this question.

HOW do you reconcile your quoted statement with the statement I quoted????

In one part, it says "nothing".
In another part, it EXPLICITLY STATES that the singularity IS something.
My explanation has a consistent understanding of the two sentences.
YOUR explanation just ignores the latter sentence.

What ever bro, lets move on.


lets Assume everything I've posted from this article, so far, is bull shit.




We will now ASSUME that the outward-moving, extremely fast, ever separating atoms (shot out by the Big Bang explosion) could slow, change direction, and form themselves into immense clouds.
1 - Because gas in outer space does not clump, the gas could not build enough mutual gravity to bring it together. And if it cannot clump together, it cannot form itself into stars. The idea of gas pushing itself together in outer space to form stars is more scienceless fiction. Fog, whether on earth or in space, cannot push itself into balls. Once together, a star maintains its gravity quite well, but there is no way for nature to produce one. Getting it together in the first place is the problem. Gas floating in a vacuum cannot form itself into stars. Once a star exists, it will absorb gas into it by gravitational attraction. But before the star exists, gas will not push itself together and form a star—or a planet, or anything else. Since both hydrogen and helium are gases, they are good at spreading out, but not at clumping together.
2 - Careful analysis has revealed that there is not enough matter in gas clouds to produce stars.
3 - There would not be enough time for the gas to reach the currently known expanse of the universe, so it could form itself into stars. Evolutionists tell us that the Big Bang occurred 10 to 15 billion years ago, and stars were formed 5 billion years later. They only allow about 2½ billion years for it to clump together into stars! Their dating problem has been caused by the discovery of supposedly faraway quasars (which we will discuss later), some of which are dated at 15 billion light-years, since they have a redshift of 400 percent. That would make them 15 billion years old, which is too old to accommodate the theory. It doesn’t take a nuclear scientist to figure out the math in this paragraph. Simple arithmetic will tell you there is not enough time.
4 - Gas clouds in outer space expand; they do not contract. Yet they would have to contract to form anything. Any one of these points alone is enough to eliminate the stellar evolution theory.
5 - If the Big Bang theory were true, instead of a universe of stars, there would only be an outer rim of fast-moving matter. The outwardly flowing matter and/or gas clouds would keep moving outward without ever slowing. In frictionless space, with no matter ahead of it to collide with, the supposed matter from the initial explosion would keep moving outward forever. This fact is as solid as the ones mentioned earlier.
6 - In order for the gas to produce stars, it would have to move in several directions. First, it would have to stop flowing outward. Then it would have to begin moving in circles (stellar origin theories generally require rotating gas). Then the rotating gas would have to move closer together. But there would be nothing to induce these motions. The atoms from the supposed Big Bang should just keep rushing outward forever. Linear motion would have to mysteriously change to angular momentum.
7 - A quantity of gas moving in the same direction in frictionless space is too stable to do anything but keep moving forward.
8 - Gas in outer space which was circling a common center would fly apart, not condense together.

9 - There is not enough mass in the universe for the various theories of origin of matter and stars. The total mean density of matter in the universe is about 100 times less than the amount required by the Big Bang theory. The universe has a low mean density. To put it another way, there is not enough matter in the universe. This "missing mass" problem is a major hurdle, not only to the Big Bang enthusiasts but also to the expanding universe theorists (*P.V. Rizzo, "Review of Mysteries of the Universe," Sky and Telescope, August 1982, p. 150). Astronomers are agreed on the existence of this problem. *Hoyle, for example, says that without enough mass in the universe, it would not have been possible for gas to change into stars.

"Attempts to explain both the expansion of the universe and the condensation of galaxies must be largely contradictory so long as gravitation is the only force field under consideration. For if the expansive kinetic energy of matter is adequate to give universal expansion against the gravitational field, it is adequate to prevent local condensation under gravity, and vice versa. That is why, essentially, the formation of galaxies is passed over with little comment in most systems of cosmology."—*F. Hoyle and *T. Gold, quoted in *D.B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984). p. 8.

10 - Hydrogen gas in outer space does not clump together. *Harwit’s research disproves the possibility that hydrogen gas in outer space can clump together. This is a major breakthrough in disproving the Big Bang and related origin of matter and stars theories. The problem is twofold: (1) The density of matter in interstellar space is too low. (2) There is nothing to attract the particles of matter in outer space to stick to one another. Think about it a minute; don’t those facts make sense?
This point is so important (for it devastates the origin of stars theory) that *Harwit’s research should be mentioned in more detail:
*Harwit’s research dealt with the mathematical likelihood that hydrogen atoms could stick together and form tiny grains of several atoms, by the random sticking of interstellar atoms and molecules to a single nucleus as they passed by at a variable speed. Using the most favorable conditions and the maximum possible sticking ability for grains, Harwit determined that the amount of time needed for gas or other particles to clump together into a size of just a hundred-thousandth of a centimeter in radius—would take about 3 billion years! Using more likely rates, 20 billion years would be required—to produce one tiny grain of matter stuck together out in space. As with nearly all scientists quoted in our 1,326-page Evolution Disproved Series (which this book is condensed from), *Harwit is not a Creationist (*M. Harwit, Astrophysical Concepts, 1973, p. 394).
11 - *Novotny’s research findings are also very important. *Novotny, in a book published by Oxford University, discusses the problem of "gaseous dispersion." It is a physical law that gas in a vacuum expands instead of contracts; therefore it cannot form itself into stars, planets, etc. That which cannot happen, cannot happen given any amount of time. Do you agree?
If you agree, you are being scientific (for you are agreeing with scientific facts); if you disagree, you are fooling yourself.

Its just like a merry go round.

1) Other parts of space as in those areas which were not the singularity.
2) No. I'm saying that the big bang started out as a singularity, which did not encompass our entire universe. The singularity EXPANDED into other parts of the universe.


1, 2) It is your assumption that this thing you speak of must transcend time and space.
3) "need nothing but its self to sustain"? What does matter need to sustain itself?
4) It is also your assumption that this thing must have a will.

I see no logical argument for those assumptions.

And STILL you avoid my question.

HOW do you reconcile your quoted statement with the statement I quoted????

In one part of that text, it says "nothing".
In another part of the SAME TEXT, it EXPLICITLY STATES that the singularity IS something.
My explanation has a consistent understanding of the two sentences.
YOUR explanation just ignores the latter sentence.


This leaves us with at least a couple possibilities.
1) The guy who wrote it inherently contradicted himself without even realizing it, and all the scientists who support the theory (and this supposed contradiction) don't even realize it... (or they do realize it and don't care)
or
2) You are misinterpreting the one portion of text and ignoring the other portion of text.

Which seems more likely, especially considering I have quoted multiple web-sites which explicitly acknowledge that SOMETHING did exist during and before the big bang.

The claims made in these points are not true. Large masses of particles do form. They are called interstellar clouds. These clouds can become very massive, spin, and form hydrogen. When they form hydrogen, they're called molecular clouds. Molecular clouds can be a million times larger than the sun. You may have heard of the Orion Molecular Cloud and the Taurus Molecular Cloud, which sometimes cover parts of the Orion and Taurus constellations.

The most obvious response to this is that one of those timings is incorrect. Most likely it is the redshift estimate, since the original color of the light emitted by the quasar is unknown.

Ironically, this "fact" is indeed as solid as the ones mentioned earlier. In an explosion, not all particles travel at the same speed, which means that not everything would be on the rim.

Further, the speed of everything in the universe will constantly slow down, since it is attracted by the gravity of all other objects. If the density of the universe is above a certain "critical density" (calculated by Alexander Friedmann?), then everything in the universe will eventually reverse its velocity and condense back in upon itself. If not, it will continue to slow down without ever stopping.

The density of the universe is unknown, especially considering that black holes, the most dense objects in the universe, are totally invisible.

Pretty much every single scientist in the world would disagree with these claims.

If you dispute any of the facts I listed, I will provide evidence at your request.

I had intended to write this in response to one of your earlier posts, however you posted it along with several other posts, and responding to the entire thing at once would have been very time consuming.

Jax, your like a breath of fresh air. Thank you for responding to the material instead of, well, you know.



Originally Posted by JayD
1 - Because gas in outer space does not clump, the gas could not build enough mutual gravity to bring it together.
...
2 - Careful analysis has revealed that there is not enough matter in gas clouds to produce stars.
...
4 - Gas clouds in outer space expand; they do not contract. Yet they would have to contract to form anything.
...
6 - In order for the gas to produce stars, it would have to move in several directions.
...
7 - A quantity of gas moving in the same direction in frictionless space is too stable to do anything but keep moving forward.
...
8 - Gas in outer space which was circling a common center would fly apart, not condense together.
...
10 - Hydrogen gas in outer space does not clump together.
"The claims made in these points are not true. Large masses of particles do form. They are called interstellar clouds. These clouds can become very massive, spin, and form hydrogen. When they form hydrogen, they're called molecular clouds. Molecular clouds can be a million times larger than the sun. You may have heard of the Orion Molecular Cloud and the Taurus Molecular Cloud, which sometimes cover parts of the Orion and Taurus constellations."

But there already bound by pre existing circumstance. Where talking about in the begining. In which case, all these points ARE true. We really cant move on to the rest of your post till we clear this up.

Ah thanks. Maybe I don't show it, but truthfully I am enjoying my debates with you as well.

Okay, let me try to explain.

Interstellar clouds are held together by gravity. They are very large and there is a lot of mass in these clouds.

In the initial explosion, there would have been dust scattered all over the galaxy somewhat randomly. There would be regions of higher density and regions of lower density. The dust in the lower-density regions would slowly become attracted by the gravitational pull of the dust in the higher-density regions. Eventually these particles would form together into interstellar clouds.

Does that make sense? Do you understand? I have this desire to draw an illustration using MS Paint...