I am a fan of science, but the Big Bang doesn't seem realitstic to me.

originally posted by: Astyanax
All the knowledge we have of the Sun that is not attributable to common, quotidian experience (and that's a hell of a lot) is, yes, derived from scientific inquiry.

Would it be accurate for me to say then, as myself a non-scientist, that aside from facts about the Sun I can establish on my own (looking up at it and seeing it, or feeling its warming effects) or through facts established by scientists witnessing its effects through scientific inquiry while ON Earth, that there are still objective scientific facts we know about the Sun? Perhaps some facts have been derived from sending technology into space to get a better grasp of the Sun's nature too.

To clarify: for example, it is common knowledge that the Sun is approximately 150 million kilometres away from the Earth, or that the process of photosynthesis that we experience on Earth can be directed attributed to the existence of the Sun. These kinds of facts.

Is it accurate for me to say that those last two facts I mentioned are considered scientific fact (in the sense of having the best knowledge/tools/tech at our current disposal to arrive at such a conclusion)?

(Be assured, I am 100% serious and not asking you irrelevant questions. The reason I chose the Sun is because — according to my opinion — it is arguably THE most important feature of the solar system we are in and without it, all of us on Earth would probably die if it immediately vanished and its residual effects vanished too. Or is that an exaggeration?)

I am asking these things because I don't want to misrepresent your views and I don't want you to misrepresent my views. THAT is why I suggest we are both as specific and objective as possible. I do believe you and myself (or at least myself guaranteed because I cannot speak on your behalf) will learn something important from this exchange. Perhaps what I still have to learn and can learn through this exchange is far more valuable than what you can learn from it, but as long as one of us does learn something of significance, then it is worth the effort — which I assure you is not going to be a long drawn out process, I will get to my key point in a reply in the very near future.

The problem with the Big Bang theory is that people visualize it from the perspective of a human observing a firecracker going off. It starts at a central point and expands rapidly in all directions. The Big Bang is different. It did not start as a single point and expand in all directions. If that were the case, since we have a 360 degree FOV, we could pinpoint our position in the universe and also the exact center. In trying to do so it was discovered that the universe is expanding in all directions simultaneously suggesting that the Big Bang was an explosion that occurred in an instant across the whole depth and breadth of the universe forcing expansion in every direction. For lack of better terms, east is expanding in all directions, but so is west. The two are expanding directly away from each other and directly toward each other, and every direction in between. The same is true for the entire universe.

The big bang.......as if it is not magic, like creation. What if I say a creator created the big bang?

originally posted by: ChipForBrains
The big bang.......as if it is not magic, like creation. What if I say a creator created the big bang?

Then I'll ask who created the creator. After that it's turtles all the way down, I'm afraid.

a reply to: Astyanax

Take it easy. You needn't worry: God is not debunkable.

So the conclusion that he doesn't exist is not scientific then.

You will say that the theory of a God existing is not falsifiable, so not scientific.

Then I will say that the theory of a random big bang is not falsifiable either and therefore pseudo science.

a reply to: Bedlam

Indeed, so why are people making absolute statements or acting like only one of the scenarios is plausible?

a reply to: chr0naut

Its does not change the basic premise of mathematics but it may facilitate people being able to interact with computers at the machine level directly because the machine code functions using binary or hexadecimal instructions.

I'm thinking more along the lines of when Man and machine choose to merge or interface directly.

We do indeed require a paradigm shift the likes of which humanity has yet to experience but it will never happen while we choose to fight over our religious indifference and diminishing resources.

Personally i imagine humanity requires more than just technological advancement to bring about that kind of change.

ok. think about this. no explanation makes any sense.

if at one time there was absolutely nothing there is no way anything could have been created. a big bang or burst of energy cant just create its self if there as absolutely nothing so there always had to be something. but how did that something get there if three was nothing. none of it makes sense and i doubt we will ever know how things were created in our lifetime. all we have are theories

a reply to: dannylightning

That's the point through, the theory attempts to explain the formation of our universe, essentially what happened during and after our universe sprang into existence as singularity.

It cannot address what came before the singularity because there was no space-time, hence no way to measure or observe.

It's not the theory that does not make sense , it's the limitations of the theory that appears to be the problem.

a reply to: ChipForBrains

So the conclusion that he doesn't exist is not scientific then.

That does not follow from what I said.

Then I will say that the theory of a random big bang is not falsifiable.

You can say it. That doesn't mean it's true.

Can't someone do a little bit better than this, for heaven's sake? What is this, Kindergarten Hour?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Is it accurate for me to say that those last two facts I mentioned are considered scientific fact (in the sense of having the best knowledge/tools/tech at our current disposal to arrive at such a conclusion)?

You could get a more accurate figure for the Sun-Earth distance. The Sun is not responsible for photosynthesis, it merely provides the light.

a reply to: Astyanax

I am using your own logic to point out that neither scenario is more plausible than the other, so......

You were suggesting that the existence of a creator is less plausible, or not plausible at all, right?

Something can't come from nothing. There always was and IS an ultimate reality/being that exists OUTSIDE the Universe. We are merely the finite-infinite thoughts of the All That Is. Science is leading more towards intelligent decide as they realize the simulation theory is closer to reality than mere randomness and "chance" spawning a vast Universe with sentient life and organized systems. Order must arise out of order, there must be a higher state than the previous one for it to exist, and we cannot surpass this level ourselves, so we'll never really "know" the Supreme Being, we can only fathom.

originally posted by: Astyanax
You could get a more accurate figure for the Sun-Earth distance. The Sun is not responsible for photosynthesis, it merely provides the light.

Thank you for correcting me. I did think before your reply that the two questions I mentioned were relatively equal in terms of validity, but I did not actually have in-depth knowledge about photosynthesis and its relation to the Sun (or at least I was probably taught it but cannot remember that specific information when I asked before. Either way, it was a fault on my end). So yes, I was wrong on how I stated both facts and made them appear equally as reasonable to conclude. I do believe the "Sun-Earth distance" fact is more important for the key point I wish to make in the future so I will only pursue that fact from now on, but I am happy to revisit the photosynthesis one as well if you believe differently in the future, just remind me if I try to avoid doing so.

In terms of the Sun-Earth distance fact, do you believe the absolutely best approximate answer we could have for that fact (as of today) is significantly different to the current most widely accepted fact of about 150 million kilometres?

In other words: if 150 million kilometres is not accurate enough but 180 million would be more accurate, do you believe that would constitute a significant enough reason to change the general consensus from approx. 150 to approx. 180? OR, if approx. 150 is not the most accurate we can get right now, and say approx. 155 is probably closer to more accurate, should the general consensus of approx. 150 be changed to approx. 155?

I ask these questions because: the first assumes that a difference of about 30 million km difference is probably worth reconsidering (even if in "space terms" it is not a very large difference), but in the second example a difference of 5 million km (1/6 the distance) does not appear, to me personally, to be a big enough deal to officially change the current approx. consensus of 150.

Even if it were possible to get an exact measurement of distance between Sun-Earth, do you think the official scientific consensus would still be a whole, non-decimal number? It doesn't seem significant to me to NOT round it off to a whole number (and not specify that it's an approximation) just to be as accurate as possible when having it presented the current way guarantees you are less likely to get caught up in unnecessary semantics.

I am almost ready to go on the offensive, I promise, I just need to be certain I am not unintentionally misrepresenting your views first. Otherwise there is no point in us discussing it at all.

a reply to: Raggedyman

The OP asked a question about "The Big Bang" from a pop-culture perspective. The premise is shallow. If I argue that building houses in the real world is as simple as snapping legos together, I would be derided -- and rightfully so.

Sorry, you don't get to imply something isn't "true" (whatever that means) because you don't understand it and have done none of the work required to get you there.

Pop-culture TV about big bangs, aside, obviously. :p

I think that what actually bothers me about pop-culture SIM theory most of all has nothing to do with the core hypothesis. I blame marketing more than anything else.

One of the smartest and most interesting cosmologists I've read this decade argues that (what we describe as) "big bang(s)" has occurred more than once and is likely always occurring (in some form) and that there are (potentially) quadrillions of "big bang-like events outside of the limit of our Hubble volume. It is a hypothesis grounded in observation and underpinned by math and is (arguably) more interesting than the SIM hypothesis (on a pop-culture level).

Yet, SIMS are evergreen and the notion that our "bang" arose from "nothing" is rampant.

F it. Houses arise from NOTHING from now on, as do cars, TV's, jet skis and bags of dope. We can call it, "big make."

a reply to: droid56
From a theoretical perspective, the big bang portends the rate at which the observable universe is expanding. This rate of expansion is used to make calculations that, for now, seem to be holding true.

If you imagine the universe contracting at the same rate it is expanding, then it naturally devolves into a single point.

No one really knows the origin of all, but theories that support the big bang are useful for modern physics calculations.

I'm not smart enough to know what it all means, and I'm not a physicist, but I understand why people accept the big bang and will do so until a better theory comes along. It just like how I accept that airplane pilots and aircraft designers know so much more than me about aerodynamics that I place my safety in their hands whenever I board a plane.

originally posted by: IntandemDJ
Something can't come from nothing. There always was and IS an ultimate reality/being that exists OUTSIDE the Universe. We are merely the finite-infinite thoughts of the All That Is. Science is leading more towards intelligent decide as they realize the simulation theory is closer to reality than mere randomness and "chance" spawning a vast Universe with sentient life and organized systems. Order must arise out of order, there must be a higher state than the previous one for it to exist, and we cannot surpass this level ourselves, so we'll never really "know" the Supreme Being, we can only fathom.

We could be no more than a colony of cells in a drop of water in the grand scheme of things, unable to see or imagine what's beyond the drop. No one knows.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: SirKonstantin
a reply to: droid56


I believe i found this on IFLScince. The new theory is a super nova of sorts in the 4th dimension collapsed and exploded in our 3rd Dimension and poof! Big Bang.

So something else existed before the universe, from which our universe came.

Damn...good point. I wouldn't know much about dimensional existence.

originally posted by: icanteven

originally posted by: IntandemDJ
Something can't come from nothing. There always was and IS an ultimate reality/being that exists OUTSIDE the Universe. We are merely the finite-infinite thoughts of the All That Is. Science is leading more towards intelligent decide as they realize the simulation theory is closer to reality than mere randomness and "chance" spawning a vast Universe with sentient life and organized systems. Order must arise out of order, there must be a higher state than the previous one for it to exist, and we cannot surpass this level ourselves, so we'll never really "know" the Supreme Being, we can only fathom.

We could be no more than a colony of cells in a drop of water in the grand scheme of things, unable to see or imagine what's beyond the drop. No one knows.

That's exactly true, but that still necessitates a higher ultimate reality, order, intention, and design. Something had to set evolution into being, something had to set the "big bang" into being. It literally cannot come from nothing, that is absurdism.