Russel M. Nelson comments on big bang theory and evolution

[_Tarski]

Well from the 3rd link it seems the word "Universe" is simply not comprehended correctly by it's common definition.

I can see multiple universes as he explains, however then our universe isn't really a universe but more of a super cluster. Being that galaxies and various parts of known space are always expanding and contracting.

The real question seems to me is; Is it possible to create life in a lab using non bio mass that is found on earth? In theory it should be possible(if modern science and evolution is close enough to the mark)

Of course (lol), because everything that is real can be duplicated in the lab easily in a few minutes. Too bad for continental drift, canyon formation and stellar nucleogenesis. /end sarcasm

[_gdemetz]

Oh, the good old days, where have they gone? Instead of nice theories to attempt to explain the universe as Newton's laws of gravity, and later Einstein's special theory of relativity, we now have a more modern brilliant group who say that everything in the universe just started from a big bang, which led to evolution and everything else (kind of like an explosion in a printing room where the result is a perfect dictionary)! Sadly, after many decades they started trying to think some more, and finally realized; hey, what was before the big bang, and what could have caused the big bang in the first place? Then, unfortunately, they tried thinking some more, and after more decades, some of them finally said; nothing was before, so the universe just happened from nothing except gravity. However, one of the brighter ones asked; where did gravity come from, but they just told him to shut up! The original founder of the "nothing theory" was the father of another scientist who did a famous experiment (the grandfather married his sister)! Ludwigm had a post of that famous experiment dated April 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM! Well, it didn't happen only in science! Music also; there used to be Beethoven, Mozart, and Handel. Now, there's JayZ, 50 cent, and Em and Em! Thank goodness for good old Mormon creation doctrine!

[_Equality]

Oh, the good old days, where have they gone? Instead of nice theories to attempt to explain the universe as Newton's laws of gravity, and later Einstein's special theory of relativity, we now have a more modern brilliant group who say that everything in the universe just started from a big bang, which led to evolution and everything else (kind of like an explosion in a printing room where the result is a perfect dictionary)!

Actually, it's nothing like that. Nothing at all.

Sadly, after many decades they started trying to think some more, and finally realized; hey, what was before the big bang, and what could have caused the big bang in the first place? Then, unfortunately, they tried thinking some more, and after more decades, some of them finally said; nothing was before, so the universe just happened from nothing except gravity.

Wrong again. But interesting that you think that thinking is unfortunate. I can see why Mormons would think so. It leads so many right out of the church.

However, one of the brighter ones asked; where did gravity come from, but they just told him to shut up!

Whatchutalkin' about, Willis? CFR.

The original founder of the "nothing theory" was the father of another scientist who did a famous experiment (the grandfather married his sister)! Ludwigm had a post of that famous experiment dated April 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM! Well, it didn't happen only in science! Music also; there used to be Beethoven, Mozart, and Handel. Now, there's JayZ, 50 cent, and Em and Em! Thank goodness for good old Mormon creation doctrine!

So your argument is that scientists who have studied physics and cosmology are wrong about the Big Bang because modern music sucks. Makes perfect sense.

[_Samantabhadra]

gdemetz, if you actually knew anything about general relativity, you would already understand that an expansionary universe is implied by the equations. Einstein was embarrassed by this result; he introduced the so-called "Cosmological Constant" in order to correct for it.

Do you know anything about integral calculus? When you take an integral, the result of the integration typically has a "+ c" (for "constant") term, since integration is the opposite of differentiation and the derivative of a constant is 0.

Anyway, a decade or so afterward, Edwin Hubble discovered the first concrete evidence that the universe was expanding, the so-called "red shift," which is like a Doppler effect for light waves. In other words, Einstein was right all along. He called his introduction of the cosmological constant "the biggest mistake" of his life. Ironically, subsequent research has shown that in all likelihood there is a cosmological constant, just not of a value that implies a static universe.

[_gdemetz]

Is that a fancy way of saying that you agree that something can come from nothing? Do you like Em and Em?

[_Samantabhadra]

"Nothing" is a nonsense word. By definition it has no referent. We can talk about the "null set," but imputing ontological characteristics onto a formal mathematical symbol--any mathematical symbol--is a dicey proposition.

No, I don't believe "something" came from "nothing." Strictly speaking I don't believe there is "something" at all because I am an anti-realist. But insofar as there is "something" that we can talk about, I buy the idea of a cyclical universe: the singularity that exploded into the Big Bang will someday coalesce into another singularity, which will explode into a new Big Bang and a new and entirely different universe. And on, and on, until cyclic existence is emptied of sentient beings. This is the direction that contemporary physical cosmology is trending toward. The other major possibility is heat death with an infinitely accelerated spacetime. But that could just as easily lead to the same result, since for a large enough delta-v at small enough scales (< Planck) our understanding basically breaks. Enter sci-fi tropes like "tear in the spacetime continuum."

The bottom line is that we don't know how universes form, but we do understand how they develop once they have been formed, or more precisely how our universe developed after it was formed. If you doubt the Big Bang you are doubting general relativity, QM, and everything in between, very much including Newton. Advances in physical understanding that don't build on previous physical understanding or form a superset of explanatory power are precisely useless. The reason the Big Bang is accepted cosmology is because there is no other explanation that is capable of fitting a) the data b) existing physical theories. As it happens, the Big Bang is compatible with a cyclical universe and my "religious" beliefs, so I feel no tension there. YMMV.

Also, I've never owned any of his albums, but I appreciate Eminem's technical proficiency and delivery, and I enjoy his contributions to Dr. Dre's Chronic: 2001. I'm also an avid fan of Beethoven, although I find Handel tedious and while I do like Mozart I agree with the Emperor ("too many notes!").

[_hatersinmyward]

it seems you still do not have any comprehension of the most basic cosmological concepts including, but not limited to, the Big Bang Theory. Your last question relates to abiogenesis, which is entirely different from the cosmological questions regarding the history of the universe.

3rd link 13:31 Multiple Universes. You're the ignorant one.

[_Tarski]

"Nothing" is a nonsense word. By definition it has no referent. We can talk about the "null set," but imputing ontological characteristics onto a formal mathematical symbol--any mathematical symbol--is a dicey proposition.

No, I don't believe "something" came from "nothing." Strictly speaking I don't believe there is "something" at all because I am an anti-realist. But insofar as there is "something" that we can talk about, I buy the idea of a cyclical universe: the singularity that exploded into the Big Bang will someday coalesce into another singularity, which will explode into a new Big Bang and a new and entirely different universe. And on, and on, until cyclic existence is emptied of sentient beings. This is the direction that contemporary physical cosmology is trending toward. The other major possibility is heat death with an infinitely accelerated spacetime. But that could just as easily lead to the same result, since for a large enough delta-v at small enough scales (< Planck) our understanding basically breaks. Enter sci-fi tropes like "tear in the spacetime continuum."

The bottom line is that we don't know how universes form, but we do understand how they develop once they have been formed, or more precisely how our universe developed after it was formed. If you doubt the Big Bang you are doubting general relativity, QM, and everything in between, very much including Newton. Advances in physical understanding that don't build on previous physical understanding or form a superset of explanatory power are precisely useless. The reason the Big Bang is accepted cosmology is because there is no other explanation that is capable of fitting a) the data b) existing physical theories. As it happens, the Big Bang is compatible with a cyclical universe and my "religious" beliefs, so I feel no tension there. YMMV.

Also, I've never owned any of his albums, but I appreciate Eminem's technical proficiency and delivery, and I enjoy his contributions to Dr. Dre's Chronic: 2001. I'm also an avid fan of Beethoven, although I find Handel tedious and while I do like Mozart I agree with the Emperor ("too many notes!").

If there is not "something" to make true or false statements about then I suppose nothing you say can be any more true or false than a snore or burp. But yet you went on about it for a while.

[_Equality]

it seems you still do not have any comprehension of the most basic cosmological concepts including, but not limited to, the Big Bang Theory. Your last question relates to abiogenesis, which is entirely different from the cosmological questions regarding the history of the universe.

3rd link 13:31 Multiple Universes. You're the ignorant one.

No, you are mixing up concepts. When I said your last question referred to abiogenesis, I was referring to this comment from you:

The real question seems to me is; Is it possible to create life in a lab using non bio mass that is found on earth? In theory it should be possible(if modern science and evolution is close enough to the mark)

Abiogenesis is the study of how life came to exist on earth. That comment from you does not refer to multiple universes, which are discussed briefly in the hour-long video that I posted, but which are really tangential to the discussion of the Big Bang and the history of the universe in which we dwell. Is English your first language? Do you have more than a grade-school education? I ask because I find it difficult to communicate with you, and I think part of the problem is you are either not advanced enough in your educational development to engage in the discussion, or you have the education but lack the skill in communicating it.

[Guest]

That comment from you does not refer to multiple universes, which are discussed briefly in the hour-long video that I posted, but which are really tangential to the discussion of the Big Bang and the history of the universe in which we dwell.

How is it tangential?



universe: the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.

When most people think universe they see it as space without limits or bounds.

If there are multiple universes as your sources suggests, then universe by the video's definition would be a measurable part of space. If in fact multiple universes exist, then by default the big bang was sub-atomic particles being released in all directions.