Here’s the Last Little Modification to LambdaCDM

May 17, 2007 in God | by bigbang4god

We’ve learned that the singularity never happened. Like 500 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean, that’s a good start! But it’s not enough. We’re not through.

After the singularity, the atheist LambdaCDM model next tells us that something called ‘inflation’ occurred. [Clever folk, those atheists. They know we all believe in economic inflation {but who really understands it's cause?}, so why not ask us to believe in a cosmic kind of 'inflation'?]

‘Inflation’ is just as impossible as was the singularity. ‘Inflation’ is supposed to be a time, after the singularity, in which the universe expanded at a speed greater than the speed of light! I hope that makes you LOL.

We know that that cannot happen, right? Didn’t some guy say that even if an object just reached the speed of light it would be infinitely heavy? Didn’t he say that the speed of light cannot be exceeded? Doesn’t most everybody believe this guy? I know his GTR is pretty well accepted. His special theory was well enough received to lead to the atomic bomb. I don’t think a process, i.e., ‘inflation’, that violates the GTR can be seriously considered.

Just like the singularity, ‘inflation’ is another figment of the atheist imagination. Again, we have to ask, as we did last post, why do the atheists love it?

That’s easy. It goes back to the discovery that confirmed the big bang as fact. The straw that broke the back of the big bang detractors, i.e., Hoyle and his ‘Steady State’ theory. A discovery that was predicted long before it was found. What am I referring to? The CMB [cosmic microwave background radiation -- now it's referred to, usually, as CMB rather than CMBR]. The existence of the CMB was predicted by Gamow way back in 1948. Originally visible light, now, over 13 billion years later, it would have red-shifted all the way to the microwave spectrum. And be really cold; almost absolute zero. And be visible no matter in what direction you looked.

In 1963, it was discovered, accidentally, by Penzias and Wilson. They got the nobel prize for its discovery in 1978. Subsequent data collected by COBE and WMAP have confirmed everything Gamow predicted.

The CMB is often referred to as the big bang fossil. Physical proof that the big bang occurred. It cannot be doubted by any reasonable, honest person; nor can the big bang be doubted.

That’s the problem the atheists faced. Theists know that God created the big bang. No singularity; no ‘inflation’; God. [Although it seems I'm the only theist who will integrate God into a big bang cosmology -- see next post.] The atheists had to come up with a theory that avoided God. It takes two impossibilities to do it. The singularity wasn’t enough [it got rid of God, but didn't give us the universe]. ‘Inflation’ gave us the CMB. The CMB gives us the universe. That’s why the atheists had to have it.

But two impossibilities don’t make a right, right? As Eddington said, “Accidental truth of a conclusion is no compensation for erroneous deduction.” Next post we’ll make it clear when God created the universe, that is, when ‘in the beginning’ began.

9 comments

Comments feed for this article

May 18, 2007 at 9:53 am

IconoclasticGoat

I’m sorry, but you have some misconceptions about relativity and cosmology. One of the implications of relativity is that objects with mass cannot move within space faster than the speed of light. Space itself, however, can expand at a rate faster than the speed of light, and objects within that space can be taken along for the ride, so to speak. That is allowed by general relativity.

People didn’t come up with inflation to rule out God. There are good scientific reasons for believing that inflation occurred. Nor did the minds who came up with inflation as an explanation just forget about the rules of relativity. Quite the opposite, in fact. Inflation was discovered using one of the equations of general relativity. In case you’re curious, this is the equation: d^2a/dt^2 / a = – 4 pi / 3 ([rho] + 3 p)

a is the scale factor of the universe.
[rho] is the energy density
p is the pressure density

May 18, 2007 at 3:43 pm

bigbang4god

Hi I. Goat:
Don’t be sorry about being young. I like commos to young people because they are so passionate in their ignorance.

You buy that semantic nightmare of ‘taken along for the ride’, eh wot? I would suggest it is you who have been taken for the ride.

I haven’t finished Eddington’s ‘The Mathematical Theory of Relativity’, but I’ve learned one thing from it. The equation you quote is not from GTR. All GTR equations are written in tensor calculus. What you claim is a GTR equation is somebody’s supposed solution. I didn’t find that solution in Eddington’s book. [I didn't look for it all that long.] Perhaps you can give me a page cite. I have the second edition, soft cover. Thanks.

Anyway, I love the equation. 3 unknown and unknowable variables. Makes for a tuff solution, right?

Anyway, don’t be so quick to criticize. I see even you can’t buy the singularity. LambdaCDM dies without it. So thanks for that agreement.

Wait til you see the rest of my cosmology. What do you have against having creation begin with an act of God? Works for me. Shortly I’ll have the next post.

May 19, 2007 at 4:38 pm

IconoclasticGoat

The equation I wrote is derived from Einstein’s field equations in the FLRW metric. It is one formulation of one of the two Friedmann equations.

I have never read Eddington’s book. However, here is a citation from “Modern Astrophysics” (first edition) by Carroll and Ostlie. Page 1313: “To describe the inflation of this bubble containing the presently observable universe, we begin with the general relativistic version of Eq. (27.12)* for the acceleration of the scale factor. According to general relativity, the density, [rho], in this equation is replaced by the mass-energy density, u, and the pressure, P, to produce

d^2R/dt^2 = -4/3 pi G ((u + 3P)/c^2) R

”

* Equation 27.12 is

d^2R/dt^2 = -4/3 pi G [rho] R

and describes the acceleration of a hypothetical universe using Newtonian mechanics.

Here, Carroll and Ostlie use R instead of a to represent the scale factor. The equation I wrote before lacks the factors G and 1/c^2, because G and c are often normalized to unity.

The equation is, in fact, solvable, together with the other Friedmann equation, for a variety of universes. Alan Guth discovered inflation when he considered the acceleration of a universe that exists in a supercooled state, in which the universe has a nonzero Higgs field value. The universe would have negative pressure and so would accelerate rapidly. We now know that the Higgs field could not have been responsible, but another hypothetical field called the inflaton would serve the same role.

There is no evidence that God started the big bang.

You are factually incorrect on the following statements:

- Relativity forbids space to stretch faster than c.

- The Lambda-CDM model requires a singularity.

May 20, 2007 at 3:58 am

bigbang4god

Hi again, I. Goat:
You are an atheist, right? Since the atheist position is no longer valid, let’s wait until I tell you why before we chat further. I don’t expect to convince morally deficient folk. Remember, Einstein accepted the existence of God before he died [not a personal God, but God -- defined as the creator of the unverse.] Please read Kierkegaard’s ‘Attack on Christendom’ before you respond again — you have no beef with the creator of the universe; just Christendom. Don’t we all?

May 20, 2007 at 9:57 am

IconoclasticGoat

Let’s make that three things you’re factually wrong about:

1) Relativity forbids space to stretch faster than c.
2) The Lambda-CDM model requires a singularity.
3) I, who go by Iconoclastic Goat, am morally deficient.

Look, I’m not going to go out and read Kierkegaard for you when you won’t even acknowledge when you’re wrong (and instead respond with ad hominem attacks). I know that you’re trying to incorporate science into your worldview, and that’s great. But one of the beauties of science is that errors are acknowledged when one is confronted with contrary evidence. Imagine where we would be if scientists never admitted that the universe is accelerating, or that the earth is old, or viruses evolve, because they were too stubborn to admit that they were wrong.

I have tried to point out how you are wrong, in as much scientific detail I can cram into blog comments, as politely as I can. But you have responded with derision and arrogance. I’m used to flames on the internet; I’m a gamer. But if you have any interest in making your worldview match reality you really should listen to what I’m saying to you. Relativity does not forbid space to stretch faster than the speed of light. This is not a matter that is open to differing opinions, though it is a matter often fraught with confusion. It’s a common misconception, especially among many of the astrophysics students I’ve met who are learning it for the first time. You can go to your nearest university, track down an astronomy professor, and ask him or her yourself. They will tell you the exact same thing that I did.

The same goes for ‘the Lambda-CDM model requires a singularity.’ Sorry, but that’s wrong too.

I don’t have a ‘beef’ with God. I simply don’t think that there is any good evidence for his existence. That goes for a hypothetical creator of the universe as well as the God of Christendom. Please don’t put words in my mouth. Have you ever met an atheist before? What makes you think that atheists necessarily are just confusing their objections to Christianity with objections to God? Because you read a book *about* atheists rather than *by* an atheist trying to describe what they think? That isn’t very fair.

May 21, 2007 at 1:14 pm

bigbang4god

Impatient, aren’t you? I’ve invited you to await the completion of my weblog. It will include ‘good evidence for his [God's] existence’. Then we can talk all you like. ’til then.

September 2, 2007 at 2:10 am

Lambros