the faith of science:
the beginning?
science claims that the universe had a beginning. two of the respected models coincide... that the time before the heat was "10^11 power kelvin" of heat was less than one second... far less.
to simplify these complex ideas... imagine... no, instead of imagining remember when you saw a person inflating a balloon with air or helium.
the balloon material was near itself and later separated. this is the model to describe the galaxies moving apart. science faith claims that the universe spreads apart and therefore in the past was nearer denser in the way the inflated balloon surface is further than before the inflation. we caan choose a random point in time and say on your birthday the expansion was "a certain radius" and we know that after that point the inflation spread apart more than that status at that time. before that time the mass of the universe was nearer and denser... than at the defined time. [in other words: the status of the universe at a point in time at a certain time frame, after that, the balloon spreaads inflating and continues to separate. in contrast before that time and earlier, the earlier in time the nearer the galaxies and mass was in density until infinite density as explained below.
when the mass of the universe was in a small volume, in the distant past, calculated as over ten billion "years" [the time equal to one circling of our planet around sun, before it started circling] ago... at some ancient time, there was a time when the temperature can be known by calculation 10^11 degrees kelvin.
how much time would pass for the matter of the universe to cool from "infinite density" to that temperature? both of the respected models coincide: 1/100th of a second. source w' pages 135-136.
in one model they calculate the "max-heat" possible. all the mass in the universe at infinite density. the heat is not infinite due to the variety of particles. calculations show that max-heat at infinite density is 2x10^12k. [source weinberg page 135]. the universe cooled from infinite density and that temperature to 10^11 in... very quickly... around 1% of a second.
in contrast the quark theory... preferd despite no observed quarks [some call that particle straton] interprets protons as built from quarks. the equations "work". this model coincides with the time calculated... the time to cool from "infinite density and infinite heat" until the less hot 10^11 is known to be around 1/100 or 1% of a second. we dont know which... happened was the temperature higher than 2x10^12 like the quark model or never higher hotter than that like the max-hi model... yet both coincide about the time calculated before the temperature cooled to 10^11 degrees kelvin.
we also know the time when the first hadrons for example protons formed even before the first electron formed. a proton isolated called hydrogen not an atm due to lacking electron but a positive hydrogen ion of one proton.
the particle called proton is famously known having positive magnetic charge. and is far more stable than neutrons which survive and regenerate around four times each hour [source w' paage 163] in contrast protons are stable. protons can exist at 10^13k so at max-heat, as above 20^12, there was not an earlier hotter phase. instead at infinite density protons existed during that time era corroberted 0.01 seconds. however in quark model protons did not exist until the temperature cooled to 1.089x10^13k during that era 1% second. the the temperature cooled quickly to 10^11 degrees kelvin as above.
in the faith of science i notice a "paradox."
at the moment when the temperature was 10^11k as defined above 1%s after the beginning as defined above by corroberation of models.... science has faith that electrons were present [w' p. 103] despite admitting on page 163 that is too hot for the threshold temperature of electrons... until 5.9x10^9.
on the other hand if we assume infinite time for the universe then the heat would have dissapated to zero except near stars which generate heat. we know between stars has some heat greater than zero degrees kelvin around 3 k as observed as radiation even far from stars for example above our atmosphere. the gas giants are gas state not solid despite being far from the sun.
if iwould start i would accept the time frame 10^11 for calculating infinite density but jump from 10^11 to 10^9 when electron first "materialized" as mass from thermal radiation.
in simple terms if we ask "how was matter created" science has an answer thermal radiation materialized as the universe expanded and cooled... adn during that 1%second before 10^11 k protons existed... ergo religion changes and alters it claim "fine we know how matter formed but who made the energy? must have been god" so they prove... but who can realy reach any conclusion? just kuz the book genesis is the only claim is that the one to accept? what if a group of weak magical fairies made the first thermal enery? that is also possible we did not see.
if i accept and believe the detail in science that "threshold" is 5.9x10^9 as above then at the time when the temperature was that temperature and hotter whether to max-hi 10^12x2 or hotter i cannot accept that electrons existed at that heat as claimed in the science book... so if i dont accept science anyway nor religion book genesis which is known to have "misleading details and wrong information" i can offer a better explanation... no beginning. instead of asking when was the beginning ask if a begining occurd? i doubt it did. we never saw with observation.
can an electron exist hotter than its threshold? that violates the definition of threshold. he coulda wrote that point and described as "before electrons materialized" but instead wrote a paradox that both protons and electrons existed at that time of that heat.
so if you have trouble accepting "man was shaped from dirt" in genesis chapter 1-2 you dont need toaccept that electrons existed at the time hotter than threshold.
the book corinthian echoes this old testament claim kuz christians aaccept that idea too god could... but could from nothing without dirt what actually ooccured "we" never saw by observation.
the beginning?
science claims that the universe had a beginning. two of the respected models coincide... that the time before the heat was "10^11 power kelvin" of heat was less than one second... far less.
to simplify these complex ideas... imagine... no, instead of imagining remember when you saw a person inflating a balloon with air or helium.
the balloon material was near itself and later separated. this is the model to describe the galaxies moving apart. science faith claims that the universe spreads apart and therefore in the past was nearer denser in the way the inflated balloon surface is further than before the inflation. we caan choose a random point in time and say on your birthday the expansion was "a certain radius" and we know that after that point the inflation spread apart more than that status at that time. before that time the mass of the universe was nearer and denser... than at the defined time. [in other words: the status of the universe at a point in time at a certain time frame, after that, the balloon spreaads inflating and continues to separate. in contrast before that time and earlier, the earlier in time the nearer the galaxies and mass was in density until infinite density as explained below.
when the mass of the universe was in a small volume, in the distant past, calculated as over ten billion "years" [the time equal to one circling of our planet around sun, before it started circling] ago... at some ancient time, there was a time when the temperature can be known by calculation 10^11 degrees kelvin.
how much time would pass for the matter of the universe to cool from "infinite density" to that temperature? both of the respected models coincide: 1/100th of a second. source w' pages 135-136.
in one model they calculate the "max-heat" possible. all the mass in the universe at infinite density. the heat is not infinite due to the variety of particles. calculations show that max-heat at infinite density is 2x10^12k. [source weinberg page 135]. the universe cooled from infinite density and that temperature to 10^11 in... very quickly... around 1% of a second.
in contrast the quark theory... preferd despite no observed quarks [some call that particle straton] interprets protons as built from quarks. the equations "work". this model coincides with the time calculated... the time to cool from "infinite density and infinite heat" until the less hot 10^11 is known to be around 1/100 or 1% of a second. we dont know which... happened was the temperature higher than 2x10^12 like the quark model or never higher hotter than that like the max-hi model... yet both coincide about the time calculated before the temperature cooled to 10^11 degrees kelvin.
we also know the time when the first hadrons for example protons formed even before the first electron formed. a proton isolated called hydrogen not an atm due to lacking electron but a positive hydrogen ion of one proton.
the particle called proton is famously known having positive magnetic charge. and is far more stable than neutrons which survive and regenerate around four times each hour [source w' paage 163] in contrast protons are stable. protons can exist at 10^13k so at max-heat, as above 20^12, there was not an earlier hotter phase. instead at infinite density protons existed during that time era corroberted 0.01 seconds. however in quark model protons did not exist until the temperature cooled to 1.089x10^13k during that era 1% second. the the temperature cooled quickly to 10^11 degrees kelvin as above.
in the faith of science i notice a "paradox."
at the moment when the temperature was 10^11k as defined above 1%s after the beginning as defined above by corroberation of models.... science has faith that electrons were present [w' p. 103] despite admitting on page 163 that is too hot for the threshold temperature of electrons... until 5.9x10^9.
on the other hand if we assume infinite time for the universe then the heat would have dissapated to zero except near stars which generate heat. we know between stars has some heat greater than zero degrees kelvin around 3 k as observed as radiation even far from stars for example above our atmosphere. the gas giants are gas state not solid despite being far from the sun.
if iwould start i would accept the time frame 10^11 for calculating infinite density but jump from 10^11 to 10^9 when electron first "materialized" as mass from thermal radiation.
in simple terms if we ask "how was matter created" science has an answer thermal radiation materialized as the universe expanded and cooled... adn during that 1%second before 10^11 k protons existed... ergo religion changes and alters it claim "fine we know how matter formed but who made the energy? must have been god" so they prove... but who can realy reach any conclusion? just kuz the book genesis is the only claim is that the one to accept? what if a group of weak magical fairies made the first thermal enery? that is also possible we did not see.
if i accept and believe the detail in science that "threshold" is 5.9x10^9 as above then at the time when the temperature was that temperature and hotter whether to max-hi 10^12x2 or hotter i cannot accept that electrons existed at that heat as claimed in the science book... so if i dont accept science anyway nor religion book genesis which is known to have "misleading details and wrong information" i can offer a better explanation... no beginning. instead of asking when was the beginning ask if a begining occurd? i doubt it did. we never saw with observation.
can an electron exist hotter than its threshold? that violates the definition of threshold. he coulda wrote that point and described as "before electrons materialized" but instead wrote a paradox that both protons and electrons existed at that time of that heat.
so if you have trouble accepting "man was shaped from dirt" in genesis chapter 1-2 you dont need toaccept that electrons existed at the time hotter than threshold.
the book corinthian echoes this old testament claim kuz christians aaccept that idea too god could... but could from nothing without dirt what actually ooccured "we" never saw by observation.
No comments:
Post a Comment