The Big Bang: Did It Really Happen?

[Cassandra1405241487 0]

However when it gets to a point that 95% of the scientific community which specialize in that subject area agrees on something then then you know it has been checked and rechecked and more importantly that new scientific advances have been made with its help.  That is the point where disagreement with the conclusion in question begins to strain credulity.

In the 1960s, 99% of the experts in cosmology claimed that Einstein's concept of the "cosmological constant", the ad hoc term expressing the gravitational effect of "dark [unknown and unseen] matter", was a methodological disaster. You'll find meanmouths about the concept in Hawking's and Penrose's popular books. Now 99% of the experts in cosmology believe in its existence. In fact, if you question it, you're a heretic.

In the 1950s, 99% of the experts in sleep research claimed that people dream only during REM sleep. This was the ultimate dogma of dream research. In 2005, 99% of the experts in sleep research claim that there is also non-REM dreaming.

In the 1960s, 99% of biologists claimed that in any organic system with the slightest pretension to being lifelike, information was stored and transfered from generation to generation only in nucleic acids. This was the ultimate dogma of genetics. In 2005, 99% of biologists believe in the existence of prions. As to the ultimate dogma, they say "Well, um...".

Please use the Net (or your local library, with the librarian's help) to check on these facts.

Should I go on?

Anything which opposes the beliefs of 95% of the experts in a science indeed strains credulity. It is extremely unlikely that 95% of a group of extremely intelligent people who have dedicated their lives to researching a subject should get it wrong in a big way, or at least later claim to have gotten it wrong. It almost never happens. Except when it does.

[twitch 0]

I think this is a topic that will go on for ever (excuse the pun). We need to move and see what other people have to say.

[GameUltra 0]

The big bang and life it's self is perplexing, I tpyically opt not to think of it, it hurts my head, no I'm not stupid, I actually see myself as pretty smart, I'm in all honors classes, and do well in school. But think of this, something had to have created the universe and life, the big bang you may say, but what created the big bang, god? Well what created god? Everything must fall into exsistance somehow...

How is it in any possibility that we exsist, it is impossible for anything to be exsist, yet impossible for anything not to exsist. Since EVERYTHING must be created somehow and nothing can just create it's self then there is no way anything could have ever been made, but the fact we can all think, see, and live proves it is impossible for there to be nothing.

 

It's something that will, and never will be answered, why is there life, why is there the universe, it's the age old question, and no matter what anyone who is highly or even slightly religious says, god would have had to have been created by something, and that something by something, and so on, it's really not possible at all to form a hypothesis, and in my opinion anyone who does is entirely wrong, I cannot form a hypothesis, nor can you or anyone else.

[scherzi 0]

Hehe, maybe this will be too much Engish for me. I will try to explain myself.

 

Big bang?

 

At this point of the topic discussion we have reviewed the major guidelines of this theory:

 

- Universe is expanding and galaxies with it, or it is changing its scale, that is the same.

- We see the turn into blue effect of the distant galaxies due to its movement as we hear changing the horn of a train passing away.

- etc.

 

What is all about?

Words. (remember The Matrix?, yep the film)

 

What are words? They express the thoughts of people and let us communicate. What do we talk about? About perception. Perception is more or less the world that we can see around with our senses. Our senses are dependent of our body structure and travel over our body as electrical signals. Electrical signals are made by electrons. Electros are something like little particles that we cannot see even with a microscope and are around in all the Universe. Everything that is solid has electrons from our point of view of what solid is.

 

The question is:

Could a group of electrons explain the Universe? I think it cannot

 

Well, some people can reply: "God is the explanation". Maybe is my response.

 

I will ask something. If God is the response, tell me what or how God is.

 

The response: God is (a large list of qualities) and finally: God is infinite (for example) and incomprehensible because of its grandeur.

 

Well about infinite. Infinite is only a mathematical concept. The concept per se is illogical and irrational. What infinite means in maths is that the result of a certain situation is unknown and cannot be explained and there is no result for that argument. Also in physics infinite is related to some phenomenon where something "grows" constantly like the mas of the center of a black hole. However is "infinite" because is unknown and seems to be very big.

 

Then, are we crazy that explain the world with illogical words? Nope.

 

We are consistent with the logic. The logic are the rules that tell to our brain how to think. We instinctively apply those rules that are innate.

 

Children are teached the basic rules of nature (classical ones). They aren't able to understand abstract concepts so teachers tell them that the rules are absolute in order to them to understand it. The problem is that when they are young men and women usually teachers aren't able or haven't the time to tell them that these rules and concetps leart in the childhood are only ideas, but not absolute concepts. They will teach their children the same way.

 

I personally think that the logic is based in two concepts: life and death, existence and not existence, yes and no. Any of them is good. That's why logic works. It's the end of the chain.

 

Our brain is built to grant existence and fear non existence. Nothing more.

 

Do you believe that the human being is only an ape that falled from a tree? I hope it is not.

 

But whatever I hope or believe the fact is that I cannot demonstrate anything else what I can define properly and according to logic and perception.

 

I cannot say if the Big Bang ever happened or if it will be a Big Crunch. Science doesn't studies the nature itself or the origin of the world because it's impossible for a size limited brain. If the Universe is everything in nature (God is supposed to be beyond the nature "supra natura") and we are a part of the universe, we aren't able to fit all the information of the Universe into a part of it, that's illogical.

 

And about God. I will ask you a question. Wich size is God compared with universe?

 

God is infinite according to Saint Tomas of Aquino. Then if U is the lengh of the universe and G is the lengh of God U/G=0 and G/U=infinite.

 

And this?

 

hehe. something divided by infinite is equal to zero and infinited divided by anything is equal to infinite. There is no solution. No way to define God. No way to demonstrate God, no way to know God. At least with logic and reason.

 

It's easy to deal with concepts like God or infinite or big bang. I believe that the response is our capability to understand the world around and our size, of course.

 

Well. Since that words are apparently made by my group of electrons, maybe they are only a compound of chemical reactions without necessary, real, meaning. No more meaning that a lighting has to say by itself of the Nature.

 

Maybe, and I pray for it, they have some sense in the structure of the reality.

 

Not even me or you can be able to know it.

 

And if it is, then the Big Bang surely happened, because the scale of the Universe is changing and anyone can see it. And we don't know if some God exists, but we can believe it or ignore it. Reason says also that every effect has a cause. Then there must be a first cause. I don't know the English word, in Spanish is called "aseidad", without cause. Since we use reason to think, we aren't able to determine its limits.

 

If anyone arrived at this line. Congratulations by your patience. I expect my English was good enough to make it readable.

[twitch 0]

The big bang and life it's self is perplexing, I tpyically opt not to think of it, it hurts my head, no I'm not stupid, I actually see myself as pretty smart, I'm in all honors classes, and do well in school.  But think of this, something had to have created the universe and life, the big bang you may say, but what created the big bang, god?  Well what created god?  Everything must fall into exsistance somehow...

How is it in any possibility that we exsist, it is impossible for anything to be exsist, yet impossible for anything not to exsist.  Since EVERYTHING must be created somehow and nothing can just create it's self then there is no way anything could have ever been made, but the fact we can all think, see, and live proves it is impossible for there to be nothing.

 

It's something that will, and never will be answered, why is there life, why is there the universe, it's the age old question, and no matter what anyone who is highly or even slightly religious says, god would have had to have been created by something, and that something by something, and so on, it's really not possible at all to form a hypothesis, and in my opinion anyone who does is entirely wrong, I cannot form a hypothesis, nor can you or anyone else.

1064326170[/snapback]

That's a problem a lot of people fall into. Creation. Personally, I do not believe in a solid state creation as most people see it. I think that everything is just there. Does there need to be a creator for something to exist?

[YudzzY 0]

but what actually caused the big bang to happen? do you guys think that one day maybe we will get the answer? and do you think that the calamities nowadays, like the tsunami and cyclones in usa and everywhere, a general imbalance in the world is related to this big bang, like the effect is taking another side?

[scherzi 0]

The energy of the cyclones and hurricanes, and the dispersion of the energy casued by the deaths is irrelevant if compared with the Big Bang. It can be said that is equal to zero. If the whole earth explodes, the total energy should be still equal to zero if compared with the big bang.I'd say almost zero, but that "altmost" should be something like one billion part of a sand particle in the whole galaxy for example. Maybe ten billion or maybe more.I read about the "equator" of the Universe expansion in a previous message. That equator is the total mass of the Universe.If the Universe had a mass enough to stop the expansion totally, it would cause the opposite effect, a Big Crunch; and if the initial conditions of the Universe were the same that the Big Bang, perhaps the Universe could explode again.By the other way, the big bang doesn't has to have a cause. The Universe is not subjugated to human mind and its rules.

[Logan Deathbringer 0]

The Big Bang doesn't need a specific cause.

What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation.

From: This link

Strictly speaking, you could say the creation of our universe is a total accident - in a beautiful way. As for the cyclones, hurricanes and tsunamis - these could all be explained with modern science. Cyclones and hurricanes are formed by low pressure systems in the atmosphere and tsunamis are caused by earthquakes offshore in the ocean. If there are any side effects of the Big Bang theory, that would indeed be the 'Big Crunch' as mentioned by scherzi. The energy generated by hurricanes and typhoons is nowhere close to the Big Bang *even if it did happen*

[ArmTheMob 0]

Well I am a Christian.  You might think I would say no, but you would be surprised.  In my eyes, I think that "God" could have created the universe so that it looks like there was a big bang.

 

I've heard the same theory before but that's nonsense. It completely goes against the bible and you are twisting it completely out of context. You can't have it both ways. Either you believe in god and the way the bible says the universe was created or you don't believe in god and don't buy the bibles explanation on how the universe was created. The bible is the only supposed proof of god so to deny its truth denies the existence of god.

 

I've heard another explanation. According to Steven Hawkings calculations, when suns explode they create black holes because of the immense gravity the sun has. The whole universe will slowly turn into a bunch of black holes eating up everything. Slowly they will all combine into one huge black hole. The black hole will slowly pull everything into it. It will have so much gravity nothing will be out of reach. Then the theories start again. Some people think this is the cycle of the universe. After the whole universe gets pulled in the black hole will explode or implode creating the big bang and everything will start over again.

 

Makes sense huh?

[scherzi 0]

The Big Bang doesn't need a specific cause.

From: This link

 

Strictly speaking, you could say the creation of our universe is a total accident - in a beautiful way.  As for the cyclones, hurricanes and tsunamis - these could all be explained with modern science.  Cyclones and hurricanes are formed by low pressure systems in the atmosphere and tsunamis are caused by earthquakes offshore in the ocean.  If there are any side effects of the Big Bang theory, that would indeed be the 'Big Crunch' as mentioned by scherzi.  The energy generated by hurricanes and typhoons is nowhere close to the Big Bang *even if it did happen*

1064327598[/snapback]

When the Church tried to explain that the Earth was the center of the universe, they used to say that even though all the Universe spinned around the Earth, God did that turn in some way that it seemed that the Earth was not the center of the Universe (because ancient astronomers could observe how the movement of the celestial objects refuted the Church's postulated). Besides, they said that the angels were the cause of that movement.

 

So it's the same to say that the big bang is caused by God but God wants us to watch that is a natural phenomenon. Even if it could be true it isn't at all a good conclusion since you haven't even a proof or trace of God itself.

 

Let's say that it's begining to rain. A raindrop falls onto your hand. Did you said that was God who throw it from sky but it seems done by water condensation?

 

Then in order to know the properties of the rain phenomenon, we couldn't explain them without knowing before the characteristic features of God and measure him.

 

If God produced the big bang, what about radiations? Why does gravity stop the expansion? That expansion shouldn't have produced any residual energy, since the causing energy came from God.

 

I think God and religions in general are good for humankind. Accepting the relevance of the religious fact, we must consider that if you were born alone in the deepest forest, you woul'd able to observe the Nature but surely you won't believe in God, but in an anthropomorphic nature trying to compare the reality with your own mental reality and the way you experience the life.

 

I could go on with tons of definitions and ideas to reach the same conclusion. I think this ones are enough.

 

I am not saying that God is a fake. Only that we cannot observe the Nature thinking in God to explain it. There is no way out.

[scherzi 0]

The previous message was in response of "God did the big bang", not to the message quoted.

[ArmTheMob 0]

The subject is subject to change.

[Cassandra1405241487 0]

By the other way, the big bang doesn't has to have a cause. The Universe is not subjugated to human mind and its rules.

You seem to be saying that the big bang doesn't need a cause because causality is just a demand of human logic, to which the big bang is not subject. Well, in that case, nothing which has happened since - except perhaps human acts - needs a cause either. On that basis, there's no reason to make a distinction between the big bang and anything else.

[Cassandra1405241487 0]

Quantum physics brought an end to the classical era of physics (you seem to be describing) where everything was thought to have a (physical) cause.

 

The problem is that I don't believe that the philosophy behind quantum physics is completely honest. Even more than the degree to which it's based on measurement, physics is based on the idea of rigidly recurring patterns. These patterns are assumed to be significant because they are assumed to be required: B will always follow A because B is caused by A, as its sufficient cause. If the idea of causality breaks down anywhere, causality has lost its human significance: if it doesn't have to exist everywhere, how do we know where it does exist? As Hume pointed out, we can't see it. We assume that just as causality gives significance to the pattern, the pattern is evidence for causality.

 

Now some of the quantumists are telling us that causality exists only above a certain scale. Things sometimes have necessary causes. Once the reciprocal link between pattern and causality has broken down somewhere, and we can no longer assume that everything has a cause, how can we assume that there are any laws at all? Perhaps everything which we have seen and measured up to now is like the run of a thousand heads which will happen if we toss a coin long enough. In that case, all of science is pointless.

 

Yet the quantumists continue to tell us that on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays (or when things are big enough) everthing has a cause, and on the other days of the week (or below a certain scale), pure randomness is permitted. And we have to take their word for it because most of them can see the solutions to differential equations faster than most of us.

 

Hmm....

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

ArmTheMob, I can just tell you that there are more proof of the big bang theory than God, others may argue, but the point here I'm telling you, is that no matter how the universe is actually created, there was a bang or several bangs anyways. It has been proven that there are "pure" hydrogen solar systems found on the edge of the solar system (the oldest stars ever), in order to get that, it must of came from a gigantic ball of hydrogen that blew itself up. Which, in the Big Bang Theory, stated that the most primitive element, which is hydrogen, exploded cause a big bang and the smaller pieces of the elements fused together and created the first solar systems, galaxy and etc. That's why our solar system has pieces of hydrogen to fuel our sun.xboxrulz