Your blood was in Big Bang!

[InvestigateTruth]

Something got my attention recently.
That was, everything that you see, or touch, once upon a time, was in the big bang.
Of course most people now know the big bang was the origin of the universe. But how do you feel, when for example you know the particles of the fork you have in your hand, was all in the big bang?
I know at big bang, atoms did not exist yet. But the smallest particles that generated different atoms was there. So, your spoon particles was once in the big bang.

 

[Stevicus]

I was in the Big Bang

 

[InvestigateTruth]

We are all brothers and sisters, because our father is Big Bang.
We all are Mr. And Mrs. Big Bang.

 

[Colt]

Perhaps the universe respirates? Expands and contracts on 1 billion year cycles. Giving the appearance of a big bang?

 

[Native]

Of course most people now know the big bang was the origin of the universe. But how do you feel, when for example you know the particles of the fork you have in your hand, was all in the big bang?

We know nothing about a Big Bang, but cosmological scientists ASSUME a lot of such. And they constantly repeat their assumptive story, until it become "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". Its pure mass hypnotics.
---------
Strangly, these "scientist" are no better than religious persons who believe "God" once made it all, hence modern cosmolgocial science is also a pure BELIEF SYSTEM, just like the conventional interpreted religous Creation Stories.

 

[PureX]

We know nothing about a Big Bang, but cosmological scientists ASSUME a lot of such. And they constantly repeat their assumptive story, until it become "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". Its pure mass hypnotics.
---------
Strangly, these "scientist" are no better than religious persons who believe "God" once made it all, hence modern cosmolgocial science is also a pure BELIEF SYSTEM, just like the conventional interpreted religous Creation Stories.

You are confusing science with scientism. Scientists understand that a theory remains a theory no matter how predictive it is. The scientism crowd thinks it becomes truth as soon as it successfully predicts the outcome of an experiment. These are two very different ideas of science and truth.

 

[PureX]

Something got my attention recently.
That was, everything that you see, or touch, once upon a time, was in the big bang.
Of course most people now know the big bang was the origin of the universe. But how do you feel, when for example you know the particles of the fork you have in your hand, was all in the big bang?
I know at big bang, atoms did not exist yet. But the smallest particles that generated different atoms was there. So, your spoon particles was once in the big bang.

"Particles" is a bit misleading. At that scale it's just 'differentiated phenomena'. And even that is result, not cause. But the cause lays beyond the existential result, and so remains completely beyond our reach, and comprehension. As we exist within the realm of result.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Something got my attention recently.
That was, everything that you see, or touch, once upon a time, was in the big bang.
Of course most people now know the big bang was the origin of the universe. But how do you feel, when for example you know the particles of the fork you have in your hand, was all in the big bang?
I know at big bang, atoms did not exist yet. But the smallest particles that generated different atoms was there. So, your spoon particles was once in the big bang.

Every atom in your body was forged in the furnace of the stars;

"We are all collections of chemicals made in the cataclysmic explosions of stars; we are stardust, or nuclear waste, depending on your perspective.”
- Michael brooks

 

[Native]

You are confusing science with scientism. Scientists understand that a theory remains a theory no matter how predictive it is.

Of course I don´t.
This systematic "understanding" and its scientific methodology keeps on going, despite discovering direct contradictions of predictions. Then "scientists", cosmological such, simply invent new dark stuff to patch their contradicted predictions, and in this way, they can keep holding onto their religion, which by the additions of all kinds of dark ghosts, become more and more occult.

 

[PureX]

Of course I don´t.
This systematic "understanding" and its scientific methodology keeps on going, despite discovering direct contradictions of predictions. Then "scientists", cosmological such, simply invent new dark stuff to patch their contradicted predictions, and in this way, they can keep holding onto their religion, which by the additions of all kinds of dark ghosts, become more and more occult.

They invent theories to try and explain observed phenomena. Then they try to test the theory to see if it can produce predictable results. If it foes, the theory remains viable. If it does not, they alter of invent a new theory and test it.

At no point do they declare that a theory has achieved the status of truth. Their theories either remain viable (predictive) or they don't. It's the scientism crowd that proclaims them to be truth, and then try to use them to discredit their failed understanding of religion by claiming that religious mythology is not factual. Which is just foolish nonsense from start to finish.

You are inventing scientific bogeymen for no reason. Science is not and never has been the enemy of religion. Your bogeyman is scientism, not scientists.

 

[Native]

They invent theories to try and explain observed phenomena. Then they try to test the theory to see if it can produce predictable results. If it foes, the theory remains viable. If it does not, they alter of invent a new theory and test it.

This method certainly doesn´t go for astrophysics and cosmology, which cannot be experimented with at all.

At no point do they declare that a theory has achieved the status of truth.

How often do you read of scientific articles which starts with a notion that the standing theories are not the full truth? How often do you read articles, which time and time again repeat the same unsubstantiated cosmological claims? How do you think this affect ordinary readers?

You are inventing scientific bogeymen for no reason. Science is not and never has been the enemy of religion. Your bogeyman is scientism, not scientists.

Science simply mostly ignores religion and mythology, which IMHO in fact superseeds much of the modern cosmology if correctly interpreted.

By ignoring this, modern cosmological science has itself become the "fairy tale", they themself think of mythology and religion.

Deal with your own bogeymen, and I´ll deal with mine - if I can find one.

 

[ChristineM]

So, your spoon particles was once in the big bang.

To extrapolate, atoms are recycled, anything living is made of "big bang stuff" when it dies it decomposes and gives up those atoms for use elsewhere. Be it the soil or grass, the air you breathe, and the atoms used to grow and sustain your body.

In that way we are all made up of dead people

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course most people now know the big bang was the origin of the universe.

That is an incorrect statement.
Big bang theory is not a theory of origins of the universe.

But how do you feel, when for example you know the particles of the fork you have in your hand, was all in the big bang?
I know at big bang, atoms did not exist yet. But the smallest particles that generated different atoms was there. So, your spoon particles was once in the big bang.

It's the law of conservation. Matter / energy can't be created or destroyed. So all that exists in a real sense has always existed.
Everything is constantly "recycled". I think it's amazing and very poetic.

Like the idea that the atoms that make up your body were forged in the core of stars and during supernovae millions of lightyears away and billions of years ago.
It's awe inspiring and a true marvel.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We know nothing about a Big Bang, but cosmological scientists ASSUME a lot of such. And they constantly repeat their assumptive story, until it become "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". Its pure mass hypnotics.
---------
Strangly, these "scientist" are no better than religious persons who believe "God" once made it all, hence modern cosmolgocial science is also a pure BELIEF SYSTEM, just like the conventional interpreted religous Creation Stories.

Yeah, let's just ignore the vast amounts of evidence and ridiculously accurate predictions by the big bang model that were tested and confirmed.
Let's instead just pretend that it's all make-belief like religion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The scientism crowd thinks it becomes truth as soon as it successfully predicts the outcome of an experiment.

Who are those people?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Every atom in your body was forged in the furnace of the stars;

"We are all collections of chemicals made in the cataclysmic explosions of stars; we are stardust, or nuclear waste, depending on your perspective.”
- Michael brooks

I like the half-joke by Lawrence Krauss:

"The atoms that make up your body were forged in the nuclear infurnus of stars and the heavier atoms were forged during super novae. So forget about Jesus... the STARS died so that you could be here"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science simply mostly ignores religion and mythology,

Not "mostly".
Rather "fully".

And rightfully so.

 

[ratiocinator]

It's the law of conservation. Matter / energy can't be created or destroyed. So all that exists in a real sense has always existed.

Sort of, but it's a bit more complicated than that. First, conservation. 'Matter' is not a well defined term in physics, its meaning deepens on context. (Note the 'm' in E = mc² is mass, not matter.) Conservation laws do not represent some magic indestructible 'stuff', they are the direct consequence of symmetries in the laws of physics (Noether's theorem), so energy is conserved because the laws of physics don't change over time, and momentum is conserved because they don't change from place to place.

As for the 'stuff', if current theories are correct, then the nature of 'stuff', the basic set of particles and forces, has changed since the BB. The distinctions we now see would not have initially been present. It's thought they are the result of symmetry breaking.

This article has several problems* and much of it is conjecture or hypothesis, but it gives an idea about what the current understanding is. Note that we don't get the current set of forces and fundemental particles until 10⁻¹² seconds after BB, and we don't get hadrons (including protons and neutrons) until 10⁻⁶ seconds.

Timeline of the early universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, going back to the big bang is a bit problematic but it is entirely true that the lighter atoms that we are made of were made shortly after the BB and the heaver ones were made in stars.

---

* For example, don't take the 'size of the universe' too literally, I think they mean the size of the observable universe extrapolated back. Also, hardly any cosmologists think there was a literal singularity.

 

[Callisto]

Every atom in your body was forged in the furnace of the stars;

"We are all collections of chemicals made in the cataclysmic explosions of stars; we are stardust, or nuclear waste, depending on your perspective.”
- Michael brooks

- Ted Theodore Logan, Bill S. Preston, Socrates

 

[Audie]

We know nothing about a Big Bang, but cosmological scientists ASSUME a lot of such. And they constantly repeat their assumptive story, until it become "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". Its pure mass hypnotics.
---------
Strangly, these "scientist" are no better than religious persons who believe "God" once made it all, hence modern cosmolgocial science is also a pure BELIEF SYSTEM, just like the conventional interpreted religous Creation Stories.

Like all creationists, you rely on falsehoods
you make up.