Scientists Theorize the Big Bang may not Have happened

[pete311]

It's bullshit. Want to be all scientific? Tell me that law again about creating something from nothing? Get back to me when you figure it out. And not with some theory. The Holy Bible has as much basis in fact as scientific theory. Bring some FACTS.

I don't think you comprehended my post, try again

[pete311]

Read this 3 part intro series on inflation
https://www.physicsforums.com/insigh...0-orientation/

These two are also very good
https://www.physicsforums.com/insigh...ical-horizons/
https://www.physicsforums.com/insigh...good-bad-ugly/

[DragonStryk72]

Typical, people making their own astrophysical and cosmological conclusions with little to no astrophysical or cosmological education. The big bang is still the overwhelmingly accepted model. We have strong evidence and math that describes the universe to the first second. Before that, sure, it's mostly educated conjecture. By all means, put your God there. For now...

The theory is still based on a lot hand-waving, and don't even start on that "lots of science" line. Lots of science said that said that miasma cause infections, and it didn't stop cholera from proving them wrong. Even then, with proof, it took YEARS for them to admit the proof was true.

Lots of science said the maggots and flies were created by rotting meat, until someone proved once and for all that was crap.

Without a LOT of handwaving, the big bang doesn't really work.

[pete311]

Without a LOT of handwaving, the big bang doesn't really work.

I don't think you have a clue of what you are talking about.

[DragonStryk72]

I don't think you have a clue of what you are talking about.

Really? Okay, so here we go: Dark energy and dark matter were made up. Even astrophysists admit to this point. Why? Because Einstein's theory of relativity created a point by which we could theorize the beginning of the universe. The problem, came when it was realized that expansion is occuring at a vastly faster rate than Einstein's theory alower for. This is what led to the creation of dark energy and matter, to fill the gap.

This comes to a head with the fact that most points of academic review posit the theory of relativity to be correct, along with allowing for dark matter and energy. Now, posits are necessary to an extent, or we'd have to reprove gravity, and the existence of life every time we start anything. However, when theoretical physics get taken as posits, that presents a serious problem in the review stage.

This, btw, is why it is still the Big Bang Theory, and the Theory of Relativity, not laws.

[Drummond]

Two fairly simple points of my own to make ...

Firstly, those who want to be immovably wedded to the 'inviolable' principle that scientific fact and method cannot be questioned, might like to reflect on the fact that all of existence itself defies science.

Has the Universe always existed ? If so, then why does it have any need to change or evolve ?? What could possibly be the point, or function, of that change ? Yet, all observations show that it has, is, and will continue to.

Secondly, if something created the Universe, by sheer definition alone, a God MUST be responsible. Everything we see in the Universe positively screams 'DESIGN' .. physical laws themselves follow, and can be described by, logical process. And, what power to design then create the Universe could ever, possibly, FAIL to be definable as a God ? We have no way of referring to such a force, or intelligence, any other way.

With a God as designer, all things are possible. If the Universe did start, and via a Big Bang ... well, why couldn't a God have done that ? And for that matter, keep on doing it .. time and again ? How do we know that our Universe is the first one that's ever existed ?

Mankind's intelligence is limited, our ability to fully comprehend our very existence likewise limited. We may never get close to understanding what completely explains it ... though we may arrogantly believe otherwise.

[pete311]

This, btw, is why it is still the Big Bang Theory, and the Theory of Relativity, not laws.

There are misconceptions on what a scientific theory is
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

"As used in science, I think that it is important to realize that, in spite of the differences (see below), these terms share some things in common. Both are based on tested hypotheses; both are supported by a large body of empirical data; both help unify a particular field; both are widely accepted by the vast majority (if not all) scientists within a discipline. Furthermore, both scientific laws and scientific theories could be shown to be wrong at some time if there are data to suggest so."

[pete311]

Two fairly simple points of my own to make ...

Firstly, those who want to be immovably wedded to the 'inviolable' principle that scientific fact and method cannot be questioned, might like to reflect on the fact that all of existence itself defies science.

Has the Universe always existed ? If so, then why does it have any need to change or evolve ?? What could possibly be the point, or function, of that change ? Yet, all observations show that it has, is, and will continue to.

Secondly, if something created the Universe, by sheer definition alone, a God MUST be responsible. Everything we see in the Universe positively screams 'DESIGN' .. physical laws themselves follow, and can be described by, logical process. And, what power to design then create the Universe could ever, possibly, FAIL to be definable as a God ? We have no way of referring to such a force, or intelligence, any other way.

With a God as designer, all things are possible. If the Universe did start, and via a Big Bang ... well, why couldn't a God have done that ? And for that matter, keep on doing it .. time and again ? How do we know that our Universe is the first one that's ever existed ?

Mankind's intelligence is limited, our ability to fully comprehend our very existence likewise limited. We may never get close to understanding what completely explains it ... though we may arrogantly believe otherwise.

Nothing really scientific here, but.... certainly this forum shows how limited human intelligence is. The universe screams design to you because you don't understand how anything works. When you don't understand for some reason people always give up and attribute it to a God. I have no problem with people people saying God started the big bang, but he certainly didn't design anything. Why create a mind blowingly large universe just to fill it up with 99.9% nothing. It's a total fuck up waste.

[Drummond]

Nothing really scientific here, but.... certainly this forum shows how limited human intelligence is. The universe screams design to you because you don't understand how anything works. When you don't understand for some reason people always give up and attribute it to a God. I have no problem with people people saying God started the big bang, but he certainly didn't design anything. Why create a mind blowingly large universe just to fill it up with 99.9% nothing. It's a total fuck up waste.

What a giveaway, eh ?

Pete, how can anything 'work' - much less be too complicated for me to understand its workings ! - unless it was designed to work ??

I take it you'll concede scientists, in trying to figure out the universe, have to apply their intelligence to the task ? That they calculate, logically, explanations for what they learn ? How could any of such a process even be applicable, much less WORK, unless they're unravelling the design itself ?

A scientist discovers the process by which our Sun produces energy. That process follows logical sequence, obeying in the process the laws by which this Universe operates. But ... HOW can any of that exist, how and why would it need any study of such a process, unless following design parameters ?

To suppose that all we know, down to logical process ITSELF, is a mere product of 'chance', or something 'random', makes no sense. Well -- does it ?

You say:

Why create a mind blowingly large universe just to fill it up with 99.9% nothing. It's a total fuck up waste.

Has it occurred to you that your statement is based on a massive preconception, UNTESTED ?

Latest theories say that only a small percentage of the total matter in the Universe is actually directly detectable to us ... that 'Dark Matter' makes up most of it. Now .. we can only deduce what's in the Universe from observation (after all, have we BEEN to the rest of the Universe, or, do we only look out at it with means limited by ourselves ... ?). What if this '99.9% nothing' only LOOKS LIKE 'nothing', because, get this, it's DARK ?? And what if what we cannot see enables what we CAN see, to exist in its present form ?

Could it be, Pete, that you are suffering misconceptions because of your inability to grasp the full extent of DESIGN involved ? H'mm ?

Think about it.

[pete311]

To suppose that all we know, down to logical process ITSELF, is a mere product of 'chance', or something 'random', makes no sense. Well -- does it ?


Latest theories say that only a small percentage of the total matter in the Universe is actually directly detectable to us ... that 'Dark Matter' makes up most of it.

It only makes no sense because you don't understand advanced cosmology and quantum dynamics. Nobel prize winners in physics do and I'm throwing in with them.

Dark matter is still mostly empty space. A hydrogen atom is about 99.9999999999996% empty space. But still, what is the point of creating a seriously enormous universe filled with a few burning gas balls and some dusty comets. Oh and then in a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny spec of space make a faulty designed earth with a few super faulty cavemen. Yeah, that makes sense. Real intelligent designer there. You must understand how seriously seriously insignificant we are to the universe. An asteroid could come by wipe us out and the universe doesn't blink. Where is your God then?

[Gunny]

I don't think you comprehended my post, try again

I skimmed your post. Ain't a whole about you to understand. I responded to the thread title. You just got lucky it was you I quoted.

[Abbey Marie]

It only makes no sense because you don't understand advanced cosmology and quantum dynamics. Nobel prize winners in physics do and I'm throwing in with them.

Dark matter is still mostly empty space. A hydrogen atom is about 99.9999999999996% empty space. But still, what is the point of creating a seriously enormous universe filled with a few burning gas balls and some dusty comets. Oh and then in a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny spec of space make a faulty designed earth with a few super faulty cavemen. Yeah, that makes sense. Real intelligent designer there. You must understand how seriously seriously insignificant we are to the universe. An asteroid could come by wipe us out and the universe doesn't blink. Where is your God then?

And those same Nobel prize winners and their successors have been known to change their minds about their theories. But you go ahead and throw in with them like they are omniscient.

[pete311]

And those same Nobel prize winners and their successors have been known to change their minds about their theories. But you go ahead and throw in with them like they are omniscient.

That is the beauty of science. It keeps getting better, corrected, refined. A dusty old book of poorly written fairy tales that explains nothing about the world does not.

[pete311]

I skimmed your post. Ain't a whole about you to understand. I responded to the thread title. You just got lucky it was you I quoted.

The big bang theory says nothing about the moment of creation. It's about the process of what happened instantly after. Furthermore you seem to love the "something from nothing" statement. Where do you get that from? Do you know what "nothing" is in science? There is no such thing. According to quantum dynamics even a perfect vacuum is not empty. So what makes you think there was "nothing"?

[Gunny]

The big bang theory says nothing about the moment of creation. It's about the process of what happened instantly after. Furthermore you seem to love the "something from nothing" statement. Where do you get that from? Do you know what "nothing" is in science? There is no such thing. According to quantum dynamics even a perfect vacuum is not empty. So what makes you think there was "nothing"?

Need to learn and understand what you're talking about before you start running your suck.