Versión en Español

Contents

Alleged Discrepancies

Article Reprints

Audio Resources

Bible Bullets

Darwin Day Debate

Decisive Designs

E-Books

“In the News”

Reason & Revelation

Research Articles

Scripturally Speaking

Sensible Science

Resources

Discovery for Kids

Examine the Evidence

Home Study Courses

Feedback

EBGlobal

A.P. Information

About AP

Contact AP

Copyright Statement

Help AP

Privacy Statement

Speaking Schedules

A.P. Scientists and
Auxiliary Writers


Usage Guidelines








Apologetics Press :: Sensible Science

Compress What, Where?
by Jeff Miller, M.S.

Printer version | Email this article

The Big Bang Theory speculates (rather wildly) that all matter in the Universe was initially condensed in a small, very dense, hot sphere the size of a period at the end of this sentence (Hurd, et al., p. 61). Allegedly, that ball exploded and.... But wait. To permit such outlandish speculation to proceed any further is to acquiesce to self-contradiction and illogic parading itself as “science.” We cannot grant, without a second thought, such wild assumptions.

Even if we were to grant, hypothetically, the possibility that matter could spontaneously generate (thus negating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics), or that matter could have existed forever (thus negating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) [NOTE: See Miller, 2007 for a discussion of the Laws of Thermodynamics and their application to the creation/evolution debate], there is yet another problem with the Big Bang Theory at the outset. How could all of the solid and liquid material in the Universe be compressed into one little ball? After all, one of the fundamental properties of most solids and liquids is that they cannot be compressed.

Indeed, both solids and liquids are virtually incompressible (Sonntag, 2003, p. 135). Thermal scientists operate on the certainty of this truth. We use the approximation that solids and liquids are “incompressible substances” to solve engineering problems, since such an assumption yields very low error. For example, Cengel, et al., point out that the density (the inverse of specific volume, which is volume per unit mass) of “solids and liquids essentially remain constant during a process” [e.g., the “big bang”—JM] (2008, p. 183, emp. added). Matter, by definition, is anything that has mass and takes up space. [NOTE: Technically, “antimatter” particles also contain mass and take up space (cf. Barnett and Quinn, 2002). However, the compression problem faced by the “big bang” theory is the same since antimatter, too, has mass and takes up space.] Did you catch that rather significant, even stubborn, little fact? Matter “takes up space.” The space-filling molecular particles that comprise the Universe could be compacted only so far. Even if the particles were originally arranged differently so that they formed different substances than we see today, all of the particles still had to be squeezed into a little period! But only so many sardines will fit into one can!

Is it reasonable to conclude that the 14,000+-foot-high Pikes Peak, composed of millions of tons of rock, dirt, and sand, could at one time have been condensed into a single boulder—let alone a dot? Or, consider trying to compress even a baseball-sized ball of liquid water into a period. It is an understatement to say that liquid water does not compress very well. Suggesting that the water may have been in vapor form will not help. Water vapor is an expanded form of liquid water that takes up even more space. Besides, compressing vapor only returns it to liquid water. “What about compressing water in its solid state?” That will not do, either. Liquid water, unlike most substances, expands when it freezes (i.e., it takes up more space). Besides, the alleged initial, miniature, cosmic “BB” was supposedly very hot. When one considers the vast amount of water on the Earth—glaciers, clouds, rivers (above and below the surface), lakes, streams, oceans, wells, springs, etc., it is unthinkable that it was once all crammed into a little sphere the size of a period. Even if you could postulate that the initial sphere was a neutron star (i.e., an immensely dense star), neutron stars that have only the mass of the sun crammed into them have a radius of some ten kilometers (Miller, 2008), a radius hardly small enough to fit inside a period. Besides that, Coleman Miller, Associate Professor in the Department of Astrology at the University of Maryland explains that Einstein’s general theory of relativity and Kepler’s laws imply that there is an upper limit to how much mass can even be in a neutron star (i.e., 2.2 times our Sun’s mass, again coming nowhere near the mass of the entire Universe), and such neutron stars have radii around 17 kilometers. Black holes are problematic, also, since their radii increase as their mass increases, making them very large when they are filled with large quantities of mass (Miller, 2008).

With these simple illustrations in mind, try to imagine all of the mass in the whole Universe compressed into a dot the size of a period. The very idea is absurd, comical—and completely unscientific. Such a proposal lacks even basic rationality. Apparently, there’s no room for rationality in the scientific mind infected with atheistic “faith.” Indeed, rationality and atheistic faith are mutually exclusive.

REFERENCES

Barnett, R. Michael and Helen Quinn (2002), “What is Antimatter?” Scientific American, January 24, [On-line], URL: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-antimatter-2002-01-24.

Cengel, Yunus A., Robert H. Turner, and John M. Cimbala (2008), Fundamentals of Thermal-Fluid Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill), third edition.

Hurd, Dean, George Mathias, and Susan Johnson, eds. (1992), General Science: A Voyage of Discovery (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).

Miller, Cole (2008), “Black Holes and Neutron Stars,” Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Chicago, [On-line], URL: http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/poster1.html.

Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April.

Sonntag, Richard E., Claus Borgnakke, and Gordon J. Van Wylen (2003), Fundamentals of Thermodynamics (New York: John Wiley & Sons), sixth edition.



Copyright © 2008 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Sensible Science" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org




Web site engine code is Copyright © 2003 by PHP-Nuke. All Rights Reserved. PHP-Nuke is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
Page Generation: 0.084 Seconds