scientists arguing about the big bang and before it

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.

No, the spatial trajectory is the result of the change/event trajectory. Space is a result of Time.

By the way, how can anyone see that video if the link doesn't actually work?

reply to post by taoistguy


I find it really funny how all these guys think they are on the cutting edge of knowledge, discovering things and thinking thoughts that are blindingly revolutionary, but if they were to face Narada Muni or Sri Vyasadev or Siddhartha Gautama in debate they would be like little children in comparison, and these guys knew all this thousands of years before and left it behind them already because they travelled the path of direct personal experience which leads to an actual goal rather than ONLY the path of intellectualisation, which leads round and round in circles.


P.S I do have a lot of respect for these guys.. its just funny to think how sure of themselves they were and still are, to the point that only now they are beginning to call into question their previous set of "facts" and when they come to a new explanation how many hundreds of years will pass before scientists open their minds again?

IroncladFT

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.

The Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation is not 2.725K only because that is what I believe it to be, although I do so believe. Because using our readouts from COBE and Planck when I was a postdoc at ESA in Cologne, we measured it, we listened to it, and we took its temperature. I guess engaging in the self-deluding rhetorical tautology that all science is only a belief is an easy way out because it relieves the person of the hard business of learning the science and math involved in achieving a true understanding of the fundamental natural processes around us.

I would like to view a documentary where they set-up an in-person think tank with those scientists to see what theories can be bounced off each other and grow; not separate footage of what each separate scientist is musing about. In that way, hopefully, they could at least defend their theories or have them disproved (peer reviewed in real time).

"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded."
-Terry Pratchet.

You know for someone who is claiming to love science, you sure have a poor understanding of it.

IroncladFT

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!

The way you stressed the word "theories" suggests that you don't know what the scientific definition of a theory is. This site should help you:

What is a Scientific Theory?

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

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.

First the Big Bang Theory is kind of mislabeled (thanks to people like you who don't believe it). It wasn't an explosion. What happened is that all the matter in the universe was compressed into a point (so to answer your question, yes the "stuff" was already created just in a different form) then it just started to expand.

How the Big Bang Theory Works

Although the big bang theory is famous, it's also widely misunderstood. A common misperception about the theory is that it describes the origin of the universe. That's not quite right. The big bang is an attempt to explain how the universe developed from a very tiny, dense state into what it is today. It doesn't attempt to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the big bang or even what lies outside the universe.

Another misconception is that the big bang was a kind of explosion. That's not accurate either. The big bang describes the expansion of the universe. While some versions of the theory refer to an incredibly rapid expansion (possibly faster than the speed of light), it's still not an explosion in the classic sense.

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.

Laws are constant. Don't be absurd by the way. Just because the universe is changing doesn't mean that laws that govern it are also in a state of flux. Also, just because science doesn't have an answer to something, doesn't mean it is failing. Scientists just haven't been able to answer those questions yet. You don't rush science, you let it discover things then interpret the results.

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?

Because stars (you know, what the sun is) create heavier elements through fusion. In the beginning, huge stars came first that burned EXTREMELY hot and fast. They were all made up of hydrogen and fused into helium. Then they exploded. The explosions created more elements which dissipated into the universe. New stars formed as well as planets out of this debris. Small planets like Earth couldn't hold light gases such as hydrogen and helium on the planet so they escaped into the further recesses of space, only to be captured by gas giants. Meanwhile, metals such as iron collided and sunk to the core of these small planets.

Come to think of it, science has answers to all the questions in your point number 3. Apparently you aren't looking hard enough (or are willingly blind) to find them.

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.

Love is too strong a word to describe your feelings for science. You may like science, but for someone to love it (especially by emphasizing the word love like you have) you shouldn't be harboring these simple misconceptions about it.

How about looking into and understanding into and out the theories that you are calling into doubt before you start questioning them? Otherwise you just look silly spewing misinformed and ill-formed opinions.

reply to post by taoistguy


Meh.
Seems to me that the Big Bang is just another, albeit secular, creation myth.
Made by creatures that cannot stand to admit they just don't know.

buster2010
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.

Correct me If Iam wrong here but space telescopes look back in time don't they? so the new James webb telescope may be able to look back further than the hubble and maybe we will see the big bang happen one day.
Or am I confused and stupid?.

What is it, then, that establishes boundaries on either space or time for a Universe to exist within? I contend space and time are infinite dimensions that never began, cannot change, and will not end. Parasitic contents within space time such as particles, energy and consciousness are the mirror image of space time. It has a beginning, there is only change, there is always an end.

The Akashik records do not exist or are not accessible before the big bang which is when a black whole exploded into a star.
Since the records are light/sound frequency based the best I can tell is there was intelligent dark atoms that were just a cloud of 'invisible' gas. Who cares about that, animals fart everyday and no one cares except maybe the global warming crowd lol

If the scientists are really that keen, they should fly into the suns core and then they will meet their maker, and everything would be explained, but then they would have to kill you

What I can tell is before I make a big bang with a chick I need to formulate an idea, then created a magnetic effect, then mount E-peen erupts after the twin towers have been spread and the bank is ready for the deposit.

If all the galaxies are expanding away from the central big bang, why do we see galaxies colliding? we are told that Andromeda is bearing down on us, from two and a half million light years away, yet the universe is expanding, expanding inwards?!

pikestaff
If all the galaxies are expanding away from the central big bang, why do we see galaxies colliding? we are told that Andromeda is bearing down on us, from two and a half million light years away, yet the universe is expanding, expanding inwards?!

Space is expanding but the galaxies can move relative to a reference point in space, so galactic collisions are not at all incompatable with expansion. Think of flies crawling on the surface of a balloon being inflated. They can still run into one another.

The BBT is a placeholder no more or less. It is indicative of a place and time we don't understand. Nothing wrong with keeping the placeholder the only problem is if a better theory comes along we need to replace it.
It could be just as possible that as the program began from the source the code keeps expanding. When it reaches equilibrium will the expansion halt or will the program will just stop running...

reply to post by datasdream


Yet it is so often called fact.
Which is rather funny considering that the very predictions that are supposed to prove the big bang are updated to keep the theory when observation dis-proves it.

for me, the difficult part to grasp is how did something come from nothing?

I don't think it was just some random event that created the universe.

what if the universe was "created"?

In the beginning there was nothing - there still is nothing but it appears to be some thing because of naming. Remove the names and labels and what is there - just this.
What is this?
Not a thing appearing.

reply to post by taoistguy


Everything about 'before' destroys their hypothesis ... which is why the Subject is always dismissed or downplayed.