Quote:
"What was the Big Bang"?
Was? It wasn´t anything and it isn´t anything but a silly theory.
And that's nothing but a simple declaration with a silly attempt at the logical fallacy of attempting to force a conclusion by intimidation.
ThePainevulTruth,
To me, it seems that all these great ideas of the beginning of the Universe, is just wild speculation, by a bunch of scientists who have no idea of what really happened. But no matter how absurd their dreams are there will always be some who believe them, because, just as evolutionists say, the only other explanation is Creation by God, and that is unthinkable.
Yes.
When you leave God out of His Creation, you have made the biggest mistake possible, slightly compared to leaving the speed of light, squared, out of the Energy formula. These wild speculations are what they come up with, with many of their speculations going against laws of nature.
The fact remains we have no clue either way.
Take the Idea of a Singularity; impossible, even though we know that 99.9 % of all atoms is space, if you took all the space out of the atoms that make up the earth, you would still have the size of a grapefruit, what about the billionions of stars, and the planets, which scientists have found out are more than the stars. Singularity??? At least scientists should dream up something, at least a little more sensible.
Well, most admit that the singularity didn't exist. It's merely a mental place holder for the nothingness that existed one Planck Epoch before the universe appeared at a finite time and with finite dimensions. The most important concept to understand about the universe is that its existence is enabled by the divisibility of its space and time.
Then, just as impossible, is the Big Bang Theory, which is not fit to be even considered, because it goes against basic principles, that all scientists know; explosions cause chaos, the larger the explosion, the greater the chaos. Scientists say The Big Bang Was the greatest explosion ever. Let’s come up with a rational theory, please!!!
Chaos yes, explosion no. Expansion of chaos which evolved into order because of the expansion, is I think the best way to express it.
Even if any of these theory were possible, there would still be a great problem, what or WHO caused these things to happen, because they cannot happen in the Universe we know today.
The universe didn't happen in a universe, it happened in a timeless, distanceless non-local ether that I've been calling Quantumland--and that's "where" quantum transactions take. It's that Quantumland into which the universe is expanding.
Also, don’t try to use the concept of Zervanism, which states; with endless time and endless chances to happen, anything can happen. Scientist have even put this to the mathematical test, and found that chances greater than, I believe, 40,000 to 1 cannot happen, no matter how long infinity is. They have found that the chance that the Universe, just Happened, the way we find it today, is 1to all the atoms in the known Universe. Absolutely Impossible!!
I wasn't familiar with that term, but while I don't have the wherewithal to argue against, it intuitively appears to be just another empty argument with a name. Yes, we can't rule out spontaneous creation just and we can't rule out a supernatural creation, but that's a far as we can go.
This is the preposterous ideas of scientists who try to leave God out of His own Creation.
Which is just as preposterous as saying God caused it. There is no evidence either way, and if God exists, it has to be because It designed it that way...for a reason--the gift of free will.
What caused the cause of the big bang?
If we can answer the first, we'll have the second, if there is one.
What is?
There is evidence for the Big Bang, primarily the still expanding universe, which if you put that into reverse is one reason that the Big Bang seems the most plausible explanation.
Well, at least you come to a point, one Planck Epoch after the imaginary "singularity".
But the trouble is that when you throw this out, scientists then start asking, "Who created God?" So it gets us no further in our understanding of the universe.
Because we don't have, and probably never will have, evidence either way. Making stuff up about it is how the theists came up with God. The answer appears to be unknowable.
I could, but I do not feel like it. You really should look into it yourself. I know that most of the atheists here fit that category. Very few if any are anti-theists or strong atheists.
I just recoil at making conclusions based on anecdotal evidence. So until shown otherwise, I leave the door open. I would look into it myself, but there's no relevant study or whatnot available that I know of.
So you did not understand the video or the source that you sited.
Yes, I do understand it, especially where it talks about slowing expansion, which is now shown not to be the case, and previously compacted matter, which is pure unfounded supposition.
Once again, only the universe was we know it would have been in a very small volume.
T
???
The source you have does not say that they entire universe was in a very small area.
But the whole theory is based on the expansion of the universe, meaning it is ever larger, meaning looking backward, it is ever smaller but does not go back to something infinitely small--the singularity.
And the video itself pointed out how the "singularity" was a misleading term to people like you. Even your Wiki article does not rule out an infinitely large universe.
But it is ruled out by definition. Something infinite cannot expand. It's the same thing as saying that the infinite got larger or more infinite.
You have an oversimplified view of the universe at the time of the Big Bang. Watch the video again. The "singularity" was only the time when the laws of the universe as we know them break down. It does not mean that everything was concentrated in one point.
I've said that repeatedly. It's a construct, an imaginary point zero backed in from before the first actual moment of the universe.
You appear to be conflating our observable universe, and it is argued that the actual universe is at least many times larger than that, with the entire universe.
That's what I was talking about with the universe expanding pushing the red shift beyond light speed and making the universe no longer being observable beyond that point or "edge"?
And again, the expansion of the universe is accelerating. The import of that is as huge as the universe itself.
Unfortunately, based the experimental results of quantum mechanics, one can only conclude the mental Universe is ALL that exists
So we're back to the Moon not being there unless we're looking at it a la the Copenhagen Interpretation which is all but gone were it not for the bitter clingers. RE: the Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which is slowly being accepted, albeit with much kicking and screaming.
But regardless of the evidence and the results, the clockwork Universe materialists are not going to let go of their cherished beliefs. The clockwork Universe is easier on the brain. People simply refuse to accept the idea the Universe is complex, messy, and not possible to represent with clean mathematical equations. People just love their own dogmas.
None more so than the dogma that if God wanted us to understand the universe, He would have explained it to us--which would put us back to before the Stone Age.
Colliding membranes (various string/superstring theories)
Vacuum bubble (see previous attachment, quantum theory, a universe from nothing)
Colliding universes (Dr Mersini-Houghton et at)
Spawning universes (Dr Lee Smolin et al)
But those are all just different names for the same thing, explanations with no evidence to support them--like calling God a pink unicorn.
We understand that cause precedes event
But this case is so enigmatic and absent of evidence, that we can't assume there was a cause, only that it happened--and if God did do it, it's that way by design.
, and many attempting to pin down the mechanism for the bb make the mistake of assuming causality was definable in the same or similar terms pre bb.
Exactly so, and the mechanism could as likely be supernatural as natural.
Until the laws of thermodynamics began to coalesce around 10e-34 of a second after the event causality has no meaning. The natural laws were not there at the start, the substance of the universe was far to dense for the natural laws as we understand them to exist.
Just because we can't deduce a cause, or there wasn't a cause, that doesn't mean the impetus for natural law wasn't there from the beginning. Something had to be working to coalesce order out of all that chaos from the beginning, or we'd still be stuck at the beginning.
Was the raw material there at the start? As far as i know that is an unknown, even the world leading cosmologists don't know, hence the reason for so many hypothesis.
It either had to be there at the beginning, or created along the way by the same incomprehensible mechanism that initiated the BB in the first place, and I see no evidence for the latter.
There are many competing Aeither theories:
Aether Theory 101 | Blue Science
I like this cause for the Big Bang: Our Big Bang was the result of a star collapsing to a black hole in another previously existing space-time dimension.
That's no more or less reasonable, or likely, than saying God did it. They're both made up out of whole cloth.
The evidence being the energy going into accelerating the expansion of our Universe has to come from somewhere.
That's the same thing as saying the universe had to come from somewhere. Lack of evidence is not evidence.
