LMAO!!!!!! First off, the site orgin has nothing to do with misquoting the professor. And your "Just after matter first appeared implies that it didn't exist until it first appeared" dude you sound like a lawyer, trying to use a play on words to sway readers to ignore what you've been claiming all along. You said matter was always present. The universe was always here. There is no before the universe; yet you said "when matter first appeared". You are redundant and avoiding your falsified claim.
And since Denny loves independent journals and pictures of Empirical evidence. I have a link to another independent journal giving evidence that the universe existed before the "Big Bang" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...icrowaves-Scientist-spots-ghost-Big-Bang.html
think about this.. a small ball of matter, just "suddenly" appeared into "nothing: out of "nothing", and all by itself in this "nothing" that contained "nothing" it "self" exploded into "nothing", and caused "everything".. That is the Big Bang in a nutshell. You can use all the technical words you want, but is not technically different than what us theist believe. It is impossible to believe and prove. Both sides are flying through faith. One believes that a magical being was the creator; while the other just uses technical logic to try and explain "genesis". Both are as equally faith driven.
The universe is always present, but only in the sense that it's been here since the start of time. "The Host" is your WWW site (creation.com), and it is distorting what the scientist said, or saying things he didn't say. The sentence "before the big bang" simply doesn't make sense because there was no such thing as time until the big bang. How many times do I have to write this before you comprehend it?
And what proof do you have that they are distorting what the scientists say? Or are you just assuming they are? And your explanation that time was created when the universe was created is right; but you are failing to understand that there could be another measurement of time before the universe was created. The time created by whatever created the universe. Obviously you aren't making a valid point. It has holes. You don't understand that we are bound by this universe, but what's outside this Universe isn't bound by this universe. So your concept of time isn't a valid argument, because time before this universe was created by either God, other universes or another unexplainable thing.
http://bigthink.com/users/michiokaku You should watch his video clip, talking about the 11 dimensional universe. It's really quite interesting. He believes that God is actually the music of the protons vibrating.
It is not impossible to believe and prove. Scientists can see the universe is expanding. We measure the light coming from distant galaxies and see a red shift: This means everything is moving away from everything else, the universe is expanding. If you need some analogy to visualize it, consider it a balloon. As you blow it up, the rubber stretches - this would be similar to how space/time (the universe) expands. If you let the air out the balloon gets smaller. If you plot where everything was 1M years ago, it was all closer together. If you do it 2M years ago, even closer together. Repeat this and you find everything had to be a singularity and 13.7B years ago. There are literally hundreds or thousands of experiments and observations that agree with this. When you see snow on a TV channel where no station broadcasting, or hear static on the radio between stations, you are picking up the radiation from the big bang itself. If it were a simple matter of faith, the really "smart" people (actual rocket scientists, and guys who invent a-bombs) wouldn't believe in it. Here's a quote from your creation.com WWW site: http://www.creationtoday.org/the-big-bang-theory/ So far so good, then the writer goes on to totally get it wrong: Actually, what was in the singularity was a sort of plasma. Not a gas, not a liquid, not a solid, but very hot. Only a (very very very) short time after the big bang (expansion) did things cool off enough for matter to form. http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html
Plasma is matter brother; which completely is accurate. http://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma-Universe.com
Believing that matter has always existed and had no beginning is faith driven because it goes against everything we know now. I speak of faith driving the cars, communication and chemical combustion because before there were these mechanics; it really didn't exist. Just like new science will be faith driven and become reality at some point. Before Dir William Crookes identified plasma in 1879; we only knew of three forms of matter, solid, liquid and gas. His discovery and faith there is something more discovered another state of matter. There maybe even more before long.
There are some scientists working on theories about the why and how of the big bang. What I've been posting about is the what of the big bang. It did what it did. You cite Michio Kaku, a well known physicist. He is presenting the idea of the multiverse, m-branes, string theory, etc. All of that stuff is highly theoretical. There's a lot of "beautiful" math that makes it elegant and all that. There just isn't any actual observed evidence or experimental evidence to prove any of it is real. It doesn't predict anything we can measure and observe. There are other theories equally as "valid" and equally as theoretical. The Penrose concentric circles image you found and posted in post #722 is quite interesting. Penrose is a great modern physicist, no doubt. He speculates as to the source of the circles. The beauty of science is that he can make his speculation, announce it to the world, and other scientists will give it rigorous scrutiny. Such as this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1656v1 (which shows that the concentric circles are typical and expected fatures of the universe as we currently understand it).
But that scrutiny doesn't explain that it always existed. There could be a connection between one boundry of space and time from this universe; to the residual boundary of space and time of another universe. Or the "starting point" of creation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology
Geez I wrote "sort of a plasma" and that's interpreted as "is plasma." At the ginormous pressure of everything packed into a singularity, there would be no solid, liquid, gas, or plasma. Those states of matter require actual particles to exist. The "sort of plasma" I referred to is so incredibly hot that there are no particles of any kind. But carry on.
I'm having trouble finding any scientific paper that reproduces Penrose's results or agrees with his findings. Good luck with that.
Plasma is plasma and it's still matter, regardless of "sort of" to avoid scrutiny by me. If something is 5% plasma; it is still matter.
OK Sort of a plasma is a bad way to describe it. A very hot soup of stuff that doesn't resemble anything in the known universe today. It was so hot and compressed and in a state where the rules of physics as we know them do not apply. It was so hot that the universe is still cooling some 13.7B years later. Those images you posted from Penrose's paper are the HEAT from the big bang.
Well i see your scrutiny and raise it this one http://www.mendeley.com/catalog/more-low-variance-circles-cmb-sky/
that's a pretty odd definition of faith you are using there. it's also irrelevant to the point you are trying to make, since the majority of scientific hypothesis turn out to be wrong and many critical scientific discoveries have been accidental and unexpected.
Ah but that would go against physics right? I mean matter cannot be created unless it's created by matter; therefor this soup you keep mentioning must have matter already in it. You can call it anything you want. Call it the Stay-puff-marshmallow man and it will still consist and be "matter".
