It Takes Faith No Matter Whatever You Believe

© Reuters:  Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has produced a new, more detailed picture of the infant universe shown in this image released on March 16, 2006. Colors indicate “warmer” (red) and “cooler” (blue) spots. The white bars show the “polarization” direction of the oldest light. This new information helps to pinpoint when the first stars formed and provides new clues about events that transpired in the first trillionth of a second of the universe.

And God Said, “Let there Be Light!”

Basic Theory For The Big Bang: Cosmology starts by assuming that the large-scale evolution of spacetime can be determined by applying Einstein’s field equations of Gravitation (‘EFE’) everywhere: global evolution will follow from local physics. The standard models of cosmology  are based on the assumption that once one has averaged over a large enough physical scale, isotropy is observed by all fundamental observers (the preferred family of observers associated with the average motion of matter in the universe). When this isotropy is exact, the universe is spatially homogeneous as well as isotropic. The matter motion is then along irrotational and shearfree geodesic curves with tangent vector uª, implying the existence of a canonical time-variable t obeying uA = −t,a. The Robertson-Walker (‘RW’) geometries used to describe the large-scale structure of the universe [180, 230] embody these symmetries exactly. Consequently they are conformally flat, that is, the Weyl tensor is zero: Ashampoo_Snap_2014.07.21_17h13m40s_009_

this tensor represents the free gravitational field, enabling non-local effects such as tidal forces and gravitational waves which do not occur in the exact RW geometries. Comoving coordinates can be chosen so that the metric takes the form:Ashampoo_Snap_2014.07.21_17h21m25s_011_

where S(t) is the time-dependent scale factor, and the worldlines with tangent vector u a = dxa/dt represent the histories of fundamental observers. The space sections {t = const} are surfaces of homogeneity and have maximal symmetry: they are 3-spaces of constant curvature K = k/S2 (t) where k is the sign of K. The normalized metric dσ2 characterizes a 3-space of normalized constant curvature k; coordinates (r, θ, φ) can be chosen such thatAshampoo_Snap_2014.07.21_17h24m27s_012_

where f(r) = {sin r, r, sinh r} if k = {+1, 0, −1} respectively. The rate of expansion at any time t is characterised by the Hubble parameter H(t) = S/S ˙. To determine the metric’s evolution in time, one applies the Einstein Field Equations (‘EFE’), showing the effect of matter on space-time curvature, to the metric (2,3). Because of local isotropy, the matter tensor Tab necessarily takes a perfect fluid form relative to the preferred worldlines with tangent vector uª:Ashampoo_Snap_2014.07.21_17h30m47s_013_

(c is the speed of light). The energy density µ(t) and pressure term p(t)/c2 are the timelike and spacelike eigenvalues of Tab. The integrability conditions for the EFE are the energy-density conservation equation Ashampoo_Snap_2014.07.21_17h33m44s_014_

This becomes determinate when a suitable equation of state function w := pc²/µ relates the pressure p to the energy density µ and temperature T : p = w(µ, T )µ/c2 (w may or may not be constant). Baryons have {pbar = 0 ⇔ w = 0} and radiation has {pradc² = µrad/3 ⇔ w = 1/3, µrad = aT↑4 rad}, which  imply Ashampoo_Snap_2014.07.21_17h39m11s_015_

The scale factor S(t) obeys the Raychaudhuri equation Ashampoo_Snap_2014.07.21_17h50m10s_016_

where κ is the gravitational constant and Λ the cosmological constant.1 This shows that the active gravitational mass density of the matter and fields present is µgrav := µ + 3p/c². For ordinary matter this will be positive:Ashampoo_Snap_2014.07.21_17h52m51s_017_

(the ‘Strong Energy Condition’), so ordinary matter will tend to cause the universe to decelerate (S < ¨ 0). It is also apparent that a positive cosmological constant on its own will cause an accelerating expansion (S >¨ 0). When matter and a cosmological constant are both present, either result may occur depending on which effect is dominant. The first integral of equations (5, 7) when S˙ 6= 0 is the Friedmann equation Ashampoo_Snap_2014.07.21_17h54m30s_018_             This is just the Gauss equation relating the 3-space curvature to the 4-space curvature, showing how matter directly causes a curvature of 3-spaces [45, 50]. Because of the spacetime symmetries, the ten EFE are equivalent to the two equations (7, 9). Models of this kind, that is with a Robertson-Walker (‘RW’) geometry with metric (2, 3) and dynamics governed by equations (5, 7, 9), are called Friedmann-Lemaˆıtre universes (‘FL’ for short). The Friedmann equation (9) controls the expansion of the universe, and the conservation equation (5) controls the density of matter as the universe expands; when S˙ 6= 0 , equation (7) will necessarily hold if (5, 9) are both satisfied. Given a determinate matter description (specifying the equation of state w = w(µ, T ) explicitly or implicitly) for each matter component, the existence and uniqueness of solutions follows both for a single matter component and for a combination of different kinds of matter, for example µ = µbar + µrad + µcdm + µν where we include cold dark matter (cdm) and neutrinos (ν). Initial data for such solutions at an arbitrary time t0 (eg. today) consists of, • The Hubble constant H0 := (S/S ˙ )0 = 100h km/sec/Mpc; • A dimensionless density parameter Ωi0 := κµi0/3H2 for each type of matter present (labelled by i); • If Λ 6= 0, either ΩΛ0 := Λ/3H², or the dimensionless deceleration parameter q0 := −(S/S ¨ )0H‾². 1A cosmological constant can also be regarded as a fluid with pressure p related to the energy density µ by {p = −µc2 ⇔ w = −1}. Given the equations of state for the matter, this data then determines a unique solution {S(t), µ(t)}, i.e. a unique corresponding universe history. The total matter density is the sum of the terms Ωi0 for each type of matterpresent, for example Ashampoo_Snap_2014.07.21_18h30m25s_019_

and the total density parameter Ω0 is the sum of that for matter and for the cosmological constant: Ashampoo_Snap_2014.07.21_18h33m09s_020_

Evaluating the Raychaudhuri equation at the present time gives an important relation between these parameters: when the pressure term p/c2 can be ignored relative to the matter term µ (as is plausible at the present time), Ashampoo_Snap_2014.07.21_18h35m55s_021_

This shows that a cosmological constant Λ can cause an acceleration (negative q0); if it vanishes, the

expression simplifies:  showing how matter causes a deceleration of the universe. EvaluatingAshampoo_Snap_2014.07.21_18h41m04s_023_

the Friedmann equation (9) at the time t0, the spatial curvature isAshampoo_Snap_2014.07.21_18h36m55s_022_

The value Ω0 = 1 corresponds to spatially flat universes (K0 = 0), separating models with positive spatial curvature (Ω0 > 1 ⇔ K0 > 0) from those with negative spatial curvature (Ω0 < 1 ⇔ K0 < 0). The FL models are the standard models of modern cosmology, surprisingly effective in view of their extreme geometrical simplicity. One of their great strengths is their explanatory role in terms of making explicit the way the local gravitational effect of matter and radiation determines the evolution of the universe as a whole, this in turn forming the dynamic background for local physics (including the evolution of the matter and radiation). The value Ω0 = 1 corresponds to spatially flat universes (K0 = 0), separating models with positive spatial curvature (Ω0 > 1 ⇔ K0 > 0) from those with negative spatial curvature (Ω0 < 1 ⇔ K0 < 0). The FL models are the standard models of modern cosmology, surprisingly effective in view of their extreme geometrical simplicity. One of their great strengths is their explanatory role in terms of making explicit the way the local gravitational effect of matter and radiation determines the evolution of the universe as a whole, this in turn forming the dynamic background for local physics (including the evolution of the matter and radiation).

For a fuller and more complete eplanation go to: Issues in the Philosophy of Cosmology by George F R Ellis. Of the Mathematics Department and Applied Mathematics University of Cape Town in Rondebosch, Cape Town 8001, South Africa.

All right, did you get all that?  That is alright, I doubt that as many as 2 percent of Americans can understand the underlying premise of the Big Bang explanation of the universe.  While I cannot find the statistics most atheist will profess to believe that it explains the beginning of everything, as well as almost all of those who call themselves scientists do.  However, most American’s do not have that same faith in those equations

God vs Big Bang by country

It is curious Americans reject the concept at a much higher rate than do the rest of the countries in this survey, I will look into that at a later date as this is getting rather long as it is. But let us put that aside, and turn to the atheist and scientists believe in Scientism, which it the believe science and only science can provide answers about universe and everything in it.  If one explanation, that is all a theory is, does not works out and has to be replaced with another one they will say that is the scientific method in action, which is crap.  The scientific method is a five step process:  1.) Question – Ask a question. 2.) Hypothesis – Make an educated guess about your question. 3.) Experiment – Test your hypothesis and record your results. 4.) Data – Analyze your data to come to a conclusion 5.) Conclusion – Restate your question and findings / results.  You will hear a lot of talk about ‘falsification’ but in the two major arms of Scientism, Cosmology and Evolution, you cannot do any experimenting, you can only observe and draw conclusions. In Cosmology there are many other competing theories of the universe creation currently being considered, and some of these have at least as good a claim as the big Bang theory to be regarded as ‘the best currently available theory’ and ‘the theory we should provisionally accept until the complete quantum cosmology is developed’. These competitors include, but are not limited to, (a) Guth’s original inflationary theory, (b) Linde’s, Albrecht’s and Steinhardt’s new inflationary theory, (c) Linde’s theory of chaotic inflation, (d) Tryon’s, Gott’s and others’ theories that there are many universes (one of which is ours) that emerged as ‘vacuum fluctuations’ from a background empty space, (e) Hartle’s and Hawking’s theory that the universe’s wave function is a function of three dimensional spatial geometries but not of a fourth temporal dimension, (f) Everett’s theory of branching universes, and many other theories of current interest. None of them address the problem of why there should be anything instead of nothing.  Scientism alway looks to the how, and never the why.  Why should everything that is just decided to jump out of nothing is not something that they will address, because it is something that Scientism cannot answer.  Why we have branes, why we can think, why we think some things are wrong while other things are right is not under their consideration.  Or even why consciousness  should exists.  Many of those who believe in Scientism will argue that we live in a purely deterministic universe, that every act was caused by a preceding act (except for the Big Bang), cause and effect if you will.  Speaking of will they will even deny that free will exist.  For example: The Chronicle Review

David Eagleman uses this example to illustrate how our genetic blueprint partially determines our actions, including our moral behavior. The rest is determined by our environments; by the forces that act upon us throughout our journeys from zygotes to corpses. And this is it—we are physical beings, and so our natures and our nurtures determine all that we are and all that we do.

I wonder if Eagleman applies this reasoning to his own life as well as he does to the masses?  No free will, no culpability.  If someone was to break into his home, rape and kill his wife and children, would he be so forgiving as to why they did it?

Stay safe.


It occurred to me that I may be giving the false impression that I understand the that math I put at the top of this post that explained the Big Bang Theory, I don’t.  Although I have studied all of these at the undergraduate and some at the master level: algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, linear algebra, differential equations, real analysis, complex analysis, abstract algebra (includes group theory, ring theory, field theory, and module theory), number theory, logic, probability, statistics, functional analysis, algebraic geometry, differential geometry,numerical analysis, set theory, category theory, analytic geometry, Fourier Transform, statistics,  I knew how to complex and imaginary numbers, how to plot a vector, how to use and manipulate matrices, how to go into ‘S’ Doman and return using the Laplace transform. I learned how to do math in base 2, 8, 10, and 16, how to add, subtract, multiply and divide. As well how to convert from one base to another. I learned how to set up a truth table in any number system, studied Boolean algebra. I studied and made my living worked on both digital and analog computer systems for over 30 years. During this time I stay abreast of the current state of the art in as many disciplines as I could.

In spite of that background I cannot follow the mathematical arguments put forth to justify the Big Bang Theory, or any of the others that I mentioned.

Update 2:

I just came across this, it also seems that Americans are not buying the Global Warming scam are much as the rest of the world, tied with India in this disbelief. Poll:


The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

8 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Spot on with this write-up, I actually feel this site needs much more attention. I’ll probably be back again to read more,
    thanks for the information!

  2. Fantastic views on that!

  3. How can i allow anyone to write on my Blogspot blog?

    • I have no idea.

  4. For my Creative Writing class we have to write a short story, I really want to write some thing along the lines of Columbine, but I’m worried about the reaction of my teacher. As far as I know, he has no personal history with the idea, but … I don’t know. What would you want to see out of a short story for a creative writing class?.

  5. I want to start a blog. It seems like blogspot is really popular. Does anyone have another free site that they like where you can make a blog?.

  6. how can i start a blog without having my own website?

  7. Nice post. I love science but they assume too much. For starters, they assume that they know what Einstein said was unknowable – the fundamental laws of Nature. As Dr. Robert Lanza said, “We have failed to protect science against speculative extensions of nature, continuing to assign physical and mathematical properties to hypothetical entities beyond what is observable in nature.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: