scientists arguing about the big bang and before it

prominent and cutting edge scientists disagree with each others opinions about the big bang and what, if anything came before it in this tv documentary.
they basically agree that the old science of established cosmology is incorrect and offer their own opinions and ideas,
contains footage of michio kaku, roger penrose and stephen hawkings.


interesting ideas in this video, but they don't\can't explain where any of whatever it was before the big bang (if indeed there really was a big bang) came from.

in my opinion, it's all just a load of something and nothing, or, yin and yang.
but i'm not on their salary...

link

Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK only

In my opinion the energy that exploded from the big bang had to come from somewhere. I think it's a possibility that our big bang and our universe weren't the first, only one among and infinite line of universes and big bangs. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed, meaning the energy that makes up the universe has always existed in one form or another.

reply to post by xavi1000


oh. oops. sorry. :\

Maybe all of it has always been here.
Maybe the so-called remnants of the big bang is really the left overs of a super huge star that went pop.

VoidHawk
Maybe all of it has always been here.
Maybe the so-called remnants of the big bang is really the left overs of a super huge star that went pop.

Hmmm...that's an interesting thought 👍

Something had to pre exist.

Darn Brits don't let us Finns watch all their movies.....Oh yeah, I'm a yooper not a Finn....I guess I understand now.

I have never been a believer of the Big Bang Theory. Read the definition of science and explain to me how this is being taught as science. We have NO IDEA if the BBT is even remotely possible. It is nothing more than a guess being taught to the masses as FACT because some "educated" people decided we ALL needed to go along with their idea of life.

Read science books that indoctrinate our youth. They almost ALL say the entire universe was compressed into the size of a period on a printed page. They then say that dot was spinning super fast and BANG, it exploded and created everything (minus the matter that made up the period, where did that come from?). They then go on to say this is why our galaxy and all galaxies are in a disk/spinning formation. WELL, that's funny, because we have found a few that spin BACKWARDS from the rest, so how is that possible if your theory is correct? No one ever answered that.

Imagine taking the evidence for the BBT to court. I haven't found ONE scientist willing to say they have enough evidence to win a case, yet we continue teaching it as THE WAY things came to be. I am OK with it being taught as ONE theory, but not THE theory. Just my opinion.

Maybe the big bang is still happening

reply to post by IroncladFT


I totally agree with that. There is a one in a million chance that the BBT may be right. And I am being generous with those odds.

Until we build a time machine that will enable us to see what really happened people will always be arguing about it. I think the big collision theory is more believable than the big bang theory. For people that hasn't heard of the big collision theory it's when two dimensions collide.

reply to post by taoistguy


THE DOCTOR!

reply to post by taoistguy


Hawking is a deplorable philosopher. He should stick to science and stop making embarrassingly naive statements about things that are clearly beyond him - everything came from nothing? Duh...

ThePublicEnemyNo1

VoidHawk
Maybe all of it has always been here.
Maybe the so-called remnants of the big bang is really the left overs of a super huge star that went pop.

Hmmm...that's an interesting thought 👍

Something had to pre exist.

What about this one...

Nothing cannot exist... because nothingness itself is something.

Peace,

Korg.

i find it interesting how they try to understand it with their science terms but they fail and squirm. they can only do so by broadening their terms. science can only go so far. it's like trying to undertand art or music or love with mathematics...you miss the point.

reply to post by IroncladFT


The good thing about science is that its truth is independent of your beliefs. The cosmic background microwave radiation exists whether you "believe in it" or not.

F4guy
reply to post by IroncladFT

 

The good thing about science is that its truth is independent of your beliefs. The cosmic background microwave radiation exists whether you "believe in it" or not.

Yes, but it's implication - whether it demonstrates that there was once a Big Bang, collision between two branes, etc - IS a matter of belief. What sometimes we call scientific truth is really an arbitrary paradigm by means of which the observations/data are interpreted - a paradigm that can be swept away almost overnight if these observations contradict it.

So much for "scientific truth". It's often no more than what the loudest scientific mouths shout.

F4guy
The good thing about science is that its truth is independent of your beliefs. The cosmic background microwave radiation exists whether you "believe in it" or not.

Independent of beliefs? Cmon man, anyone with common sense who listens to THEORIES brought forth by scientists KNOWS there is a lot of personal beliefs in those theories. Especially on topics humans CANNOT and WILL NEVER know or understand. Science says the earth was created 20 billion years ago (even though the age has changed like 10 times over the past 100 years). 20 billion years ago. Now let that sink in and tell me this is 100% scientific fact and does not include PERSONAL BELIEFS!

I love science, but what has occurred is we as a culture allow "EDUCATED" folks to dictate OUR truth. Whether it's right or wrong we don't know for sure because we trust others who SAY they know for us and we just swallow it as fact.

So again, the pure definition of science CANNOT be used to explain the BBT. I am still waiting for ANY scientist on the planet to answer me these questions.

1. Where did all of the "stuff" (dirt, matter, debris, elements, etc...) come from that was compressed and building energy, then conveniently just exploded creating everything? In that theory, the "stuff" was already CREATED but something happened to it to condense it and cause it to "pop". So did the big bang come first, or was the stuff to create the POSSIBLE event here first? That's not science, its a personal GUESS/THEORY.

2. Where did the laws come from that govern our universe (gravity, centrifugal force, inertia, etc...)? But more importantly, why is it they are NOT changing if the BBT is correct? Wouldn't the laws evolve with an ever changing universe that was made by chance through a huge explosion? I would think they couldn't remain constant.

3. The sun is 98% hydrogen and helium, yet if the BBT were true, how is it every other planet has only 1% or less of these two elements? And the earth just happens to be made up of just the right amounts to sustain life. Coincidence?

Again, I LOVE science, but when you try to sell me a personal guess as science and expect me to just jump on board, it's not going to happen. Science needs to learn to just say, WE HAVE NO IDEA! Nothing wrong with being honest.

reply to post by taoistguy


Let's answer this question with a quote from the amazing movie 'Mr. Nobody'; before the Big Bang, there was no 'before', because time is a result from the expansion of the universe.

SyrioForel
reply to post by taoistguy

 

Let's answer this question with a quote from the amazing movie 'Mr. Nobody'; before the Big Bang, there was no 'before', because time is a result from the expansion of the universe.

that's just a semantic 'trick'. scientiically speaking, there has to be a 'before' in the sense of by what process, an where did this singularity come from in the first place?