Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

And dishonest with it.......

I beg your pardon?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Precisely, we live in an age of mass education and media, the masses believe the universe came from a BB because their science teachers and/or talking heads on a TV science program tells them. I personally will not accept BBT unless or until all my outstanding questions have been answered.

What caused the BB?
Has there been other BBs?
What existed before the BB?
What is happening to the dark energy as the universe expands?
What constitutes dark energy?
The list goes on!

As of now, I accept an eternal infinite universe, for me it is case of simple logic, it couldn't be any other way.

I rid myself of the idea of that I am clever enough to ask outstanding questions. But that is just me.
I am just of the masses and not that special.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I rid myself of the idea of that I am clever enough to ask outstanding questions. But that is just me.
I am just of the masses and not that special.

Humility if it is sincere is a good start.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Humility if it is sincere is a good start.

Yeah. But I don't have that since I am of the masses. Only you have that, because you are not of the masses.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah. But I don't have that since I am of the masses. Only you have that, because you are not of the masses.

Humility and being compliantly common are not mutually exclusive qualities, and in your favor, one who claims to be humble is very probably not.

 

[gnostic]

Precisely, we live in an age of mass education and media, the masses believe the universe came from a BB because their science teachers and/or talking heads on a TV science program tells them. I personally will not accept BBT unless or until all my outstanding questions have been answered.

What caused the BB?
Has there been other BBs?
What existed before the BB?
What is happening to the dark energy as the universe expands?
What constitutes dark energy?
The list goes on!

As of now, I accept an eternal infinite universe, for me it is case of simple logic, it couldn't be any other way.

And dishonest with it.......

You are being dishonest, Ben.

I cannot read exchemist's mind, but I am drawing the conclusion that your post is less than honest. I don't know if exchemist and I agree on the same things about your post.

You have just said from the start, that you won't you accept the Big Bang theory, if YOUR LIST of questions go unanswered.

But then you on that you would only accept "an infinite universe", which I am sure those very questions you can be asked, just by substituting the "BB" with "eternal universe"?

The "eternal infinite universe" is even bigger mystery than the Big Bang theory, and to date, all models of eternal universe only exist, more hypothetical and theoretical than the Big Bang models.

At least with the Big Bang cosmology, some of the explanations and predictions have been tested, which is more than can be said about all versions of the eternal or infinite universe.

And btw, what "simple logic" were you referring to?

Logic, isn't science. Logic without evidence to support this cosmology that you believe and accept, is merely speculation, at best.

The Big Bang cosmology do provide logic, as well as testable explanations & predictions; the tests come in the form of observations, which include evidence, experiments and data.

Second, the Big Bang theory starts with t = 0 second to the present. That's the scope of the model, and proposed no explanations & predictions to the "BEFORE" the Big Bang. So you asking questions of their being "before" the BB, is irrelevant.

Now, all those optical and radio telescopes and all the space observatory missions from NASA, ESA and whatever Russian space programs have, astronomers, astrophysicists & cosmologists who have worked at these places, tried to cater for both BB models and all non-BB models, eg Static Universe model, Steady-state models, Cyclical Universe models (informally known as the Big Bounce), Multiverse models, the String Cosmology, Brane Cosmology, Loop Quantum Cosmology, and so on. Some of these alternatives, do offer "proposed" pre-BB scenario.

What the majority of observations (evidence & data) discovered, is that they support the Big Bang models, then all the alternatives.

Now, all this come back to your questions. I don't know "why" exchemist say you're question or your claims being dishonest, but to me, your list of questions are dishonest, because you are asking questions that have no bearing or relevancy to the Big Bang theory.

And your claims that you follow "simple logic" and that you accept the "eternal infinite universe", are dishonest, you haven't clarify and explain your positions and your logic.

All you have done is made claims, but you haven't demonstrate either claims.

 

[YoursTrue]

Precisely, we live in an age of mass education and media, the masses believe the universe came from a BB because their science teachers and/or talking heads on a TV science program tells them. I personally will not accept BBT unless or until all my outstanding questions have been answered.

What caused the BB?
Has there been other BBs?
What existed before the BB?
What is happening to the dark energy as the universe expands?
What constitutes dark energy?
The list goes on!

As of now, I accept an eternal infinite universe, for me it is case of simple logic, it couldn't be any other way.

I was not a science major, in fact I was not interested in science because I was trained in different areas. I was, however, an honor student, including my academic subjects. After many years of floundering, proclaiming there was no God, I studied the Bible after God allowed me to live without knowledge of Him. I won't go into detail but when I finally wanted to know if He existed He helped me. So -- now I will say what I wanted to. I was taught as most of us were what was the dominant thinking at the time and later it was shown to be wrong by scientists. So science changes, and the present theories are taught as if they are correct, but meantime they can change.

 

[YoursTrue]

Precisely, we live in an age of mass education and media, the masses believe the universe came from a BB because their science teachers and/or talking heads on a TV science program tells them. I personally will not accept BBT unless or until all my outstanding questions have been answered.

What caused the BB?
Has there been other BBs?
What existed before the BB?
What is happening to the dark energy as the universe expands?
What constitutes dark energy?
The list goes on!

As of now, I accept an eternal infinite universe, for me it is case of simple logic, it couldn't be any other way.

At this point, I no longer think it's necessary to know these things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

At this point, I no longer think it's necessary to know these things.

That depends upon one's focus in life. For an astrophysicist it is a very important question. For me or you, not so much. It would not make one bit of difference to me if the universe was steady state or the product of the Big Bang. I merely wish to know.

So for the most part I do agree with you one this. For the average person it makes no difference at all.

 

[PureX]

Two statements ... which would you agree with?

1. If nothing exists, nothing is possible.

2. If nothing exists, anything is possible.

The universe exists, so something was possible. And yet it is all that exists, (so far as we know), therefor not anything was was possible. Just this one thing, was. SO ... did nothing exist before the universe happened. or did something other than nothing exist before the universe happened?

I lean toward #1: that if nothing exists, nothing is possible. And since something was possible, and did happen (the universe), something did/does exist before, beyond, and apart from this universe. Not nothing.

But let's say we go with #2: that when nothing exists, anything is possible. Why would only one thing happen (the universe), if anything could have? Just one thing, when ANY (an infinite set) could have? That just doesn't track well for me, logically. Especially when the one thing that did happen was so elaborate, and so complicated, and so rife with possibilities within itself!

By this reasoning, philosophically, I have to go with the supposition that existence transcends the universe. And would thereby transcend the rules that the universe has to obey. Which does put it in an environment that would be a proper home for "God".

 

[Nakosis]

Just watching a show on cable about astronomy and exploration of space and the possibility scientists say of life out there. (It's so stupid...) So they say they see no signs of life out there, and then wonder if there is life like ours. Imagine that. Life like ours somewhere out there maybe. So it just hasn't "evolved" yet, I suppose. Or maybe these evolved beings look like? a horror being?

We know life exists in the universe, us right? The possibility is 100%. I'd guess this increases the likelihood of other life in the universe. Maybe not a 100% guarantee but more likely than not based on the minimum knowledge we have.

 

[YoursTrue]

Being some of the universe is over 9 billion years older than earth... They could have a near 9 billion year head start.

Just looking over some old posts, my question is if you think there could be life out there on other planets, who knows maybe moons and stars, do you think they look like life on the earth? Raccoons, monkeys, humans?

 

[We Never Know]

Just looking over some old posts, my question is if you think there could be life out there on other planets, who knows maybe moons and stars, do you think they look like life on the earth? Raccoons, monkeys, humans?

That would depend on many things
-environment being top in my opinion.

But I wouldn't think they would be like us

 

[YoursTrue]

We know life exists in the universe, us right? The possibility is 100%. I'd guess this increases the likelihood of other life in the universe. Maybe not a 100% guarantee but more likely than not based on the minimum knowledge we have.

So you think things evolved maybe look like humans?

 

[YoursTrue]

That would depend on many things
-environment being top in my opinion.

But I wouldn't think they would be like us

No, huh? That's a start as far as I am concerned. But here's where I stop for short of moving into the ludicrous. thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

We know life exists in the universe, us right? The possibility is 100%. I'd guess this increases the likelihood of other life in the universe. Maybe not a 100% guarantee but more likely than not based on the minimum knowledge we have.

The possibility? That seems to be a conundrum, huh? The possibility exists that maybe there's not.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are being dishonest, Ben.

I cannot read exchemist's mind, but I am drawing the conclusion that your post is less than honest. I don't know if exchemist and I agree on the same things about your post.

You have just said from the start, that you won't you accept the Big Bang theory, if YOUR LIST of questions go unanswered.

But then you on that you would only accept "an infinite universe", which I am sure those very questions you can be asked, just by substituting the "BB" with "eternal universe"?

The "eternal infinite universe" is even bigger mystery than the Big Bang theory, and to date, all models of eternal universe only exist, more hypothetical and theoretical than the Big Bang models.

At least with the Big Bang cosmology, some of the explanations and predictions have been tested, which is more than can be said about all versions of the eternal or infinite universe.

And btw, what "simple logic" were you referring to?

Logic, isn't science. Logic without evidence to support this cosmology that you believe and accept, is merely speculation, at best.

The Big Bang cosmology do provide logic, as well as testable explanations & predictions; the tests come in the form of observations, which include evidence, experiments and data.

Second, the Big Bang theory starts with t = 0 second to the present. That's the scope of the model, and proposed no explanations & predictions to the "BEFORE" the Big Bang. So you asking questions of their being "before" the BB, is irrelevant.

Now, all those optical and radio telescopes and all the space observatory missions from NASA, ESA and whatever Russian space programs have, astronomers, astrophysicists & cosmologists who have worked at these places, tried to cater for both BB models and all non-BB models, eg Static Universe model, Steady-state models, Cyclical Universe models (informally known as the Big Bounce), Multiverse models, the String Cosmology, Brane Cosmology, Loop Quantum Cosmology, and so on. Some of these alternatives, do offer "proposed" pre-BB scenario.

What the majority of observations (evidence & data) discovered, is that they support the Big Bang models, then all the alternatives.

Now, all this come back to your questions. I don't know "why" exchemist say you're question or your claims being dishonest, but to me, your list of questions are dishonest, because you are asking questions that have no bearing or relevancy to the Big Bang theory.

And your claims that you follow "simple logic" and that you accept the "eternal infinite universe", are dishonest, you haven't clarify and explain your positions and your logic.

All you have done is made claims, but you haven't demonstrate either claims.

No dishonesty at all, for if and when those questions have been properly addressed, an eternal universe is revealed to the one who seeks and finds truth. . Reality is what it is, it is not a belief in, nor a concept of, nor any other mental representation of, it is what it is. But you must realize it yourself, no one else can tell you.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

At this point, I no longer think it's necessary to know these things.

Yes, the underlying unity of all that is, is the absolute eternal reality.

 

[metis]

Because I am aware that human understanding of what they are in the context of the universe at this stage of evolution on this planet is very limited

That's like implying that we know nothing on the subject. We know a ton, but there's tons left for us to still investigate.

Reality is what it is, what one group call evolution, another may call universal creation or God creation.

Both can be true.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's like implying that we know nothing on the subject. We know a ton, but there's tons left for us to still investigate.

Both can be true.

That's what I mean, human knowledge and understanding is limited generally. And people are not equal, think of a bell curve where the higher evolved are on the leading edge of the curve and the least are the trailing. The education system and msm cater for the average which is the vast bulk of humanity of the crest of the curve.

Sure, but there is only one reality, the different names humans use to represent the one same reality has to do with different cultural experiences of peoples and nations,