The Big Bang Theory

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by SyntaxVorlon, Jan 26, 2004.


Big Bang: Pick one.

  1. Convinced it happened

    0 vote(s)
  2. Not

  3. "I'm a fundamentalist"

    0 vote(s)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SyntaxVorlon

    SyntaxVorlon Guest

    Just wondering how many of you christians, etc, find the BBT convincing.
    In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.--Terry Pratchett
  2. You'll have to be more clear than just saying the Big Bang Theory. There are several different beliefs about how it happened and why - case in point with your quote that you provided (some would say there was nothing, most scientists would say that there was something and that the BB was not even the beginning of anything).

  3. legamus

    legamus Guest

    i don't know anything about the details of the bbt (nor do i really care to). but what if you say God created the universe and he used a big explosion to do it? is that cheating?
  4. SyntaxVorlon

    SyntaxVorlon Guest

    Well there was mostly nothing save for the infinitely dense planck point. And by nothing I don't mean vacuum, I mean the sort of nothing that gives vacuum nightmares, no time no space, dimentionless void sort of nothing.

    The BBT is a fairly straightforward theory, a dimentionless starting point of time, some superrapid inflation and then some other interesting stuff. The something/nothing dillema is a false dichotemy, all matter was stuffed into a mathematical point, it was pretty close to nothing in the first place.
  5. JM

    JM Member

    Mar 30, 2003
    I would have picked, “I follow the literal, plain or normal view.â€Â
  6. Well, gee... that really blows your theory right out of the water - without time events can't happen, and the BB being an event, it couldn't happen. You better think about that again.

    The theory that your statement most closely resembles is the one in which all matter of the universe was collapsed into a highly unstable mass about the size of a point on a pencil. Pretty ridiculous if you ask me - from what I know, I would think that the gravity involved in an object that small and that heavy would have caused it to maintained a maximum implosion. Not to mention that space would have ceased to exit around the object causing it to be surrounded by an endless vaccum...

  7. SyntaxVorlon

    SyntaxVorlon Guest

    Incorrect on both counts, time began within that point, and expanded. And their are theories that explain inflation and hypergravity. One theory is that time just moved nearly infinitely slowly.
    That and it would not be an endless vacuum it would not exist at all. All that existed would be the singularity, there would be no vacuum to exist, as there would be no space beside that point. Screws with your head, doesn't it.
  8. Jack Lewis

    Jack Lewis Guest

    Since any such event is completely unobservable, one for postulate any sort of conditions or responses and even go as far as claiming it happened when a quazar burped. Such is the mythology of the Religion of Evolution.
  9. legamus

    legamus Guest

    correct me if i'm wrong but evolution falls under biology and what is being discussed here is a physics thing. i took anthropology so i learned about evolution a bit but i've never learnt about the bbt so in my mind the two are unrelated.
  10. Wertbag

    Wertbag Guest

    Yes its unobservable, but then so is creation, so is God, so are the miracles of the Bible. BBT seems to make sense, they can plot the expanding galaxies and I've not heard an answer that made more sense. Sure they don't know all of the answers yet, but don't discount it on those grounds. I vote "yes until proven otherwise".
  11. Justice

    Justice Member

    Dec 28, 2002
  12. Vic C.

    Vic C. Member

    Mar 16, 2003
    Central NJ
    Well, that would explain the 'how'. But we still have the 'timeline' to deal with.
  13. Featherbop

    Featherbop Member

    Jun 10, 2003
    I don't believe that the big bang created the universe. At least not without it being done directly by God.

    The big bang could have been what God used to create matter, and then He might have directly created life forms after creating heavens and earth.

    When the Bible speaks about God spoke and it happened. It could be symbolism That "Big bang" is God's voice, but I dought that. Just a thought.

    There are (I think) experiaments that could be constructed to make a small version of big bang, but that proves that If indeed there was a big bang, Someone would have had to produce it.

    How does matter get created from an explosion from which there was nothing?

    If matter is eternal, how would it get there?

    The big bang(without God's doing it) makes no sense to a rational person. It is basically seems to say that through a random, meaning less explosion, matter was created, planets, the universe, solar systems, etc, were formed by a complete random chance. Then, life started to form on this planet, and by natuaral processes, life became bigger, more devoled, advanced. Now we are advanced enough with our super evoled brains to guess where we came from.

    Life, and the universe is pointless, created from a random explosion? yeah, right.

    The big bang/evolution to me, is the modernist fairy tale.

    Anyway..... I vote: Big pile of crappage.
  14. Wertbag

    Wertbag Guest

    The BB theory doesn't say there was nothing, it says all matter existed and was pulled together through gravity until it reached a critical mass and exploded back out. If its true there it could have happened numerous times. One variation on the theory is that its a series of small bangs, a galaxy compressed and exploded rather than a whole universe. Maybe a black hole is simply matter being compacted until it reaches critical mass?
    It is likely to be a long time before we have the answers, but we will eventually (once space flight is easier, once scanners reach further, once mankind colonises other worlds).
    If all matter always existed as is believed, then it wasn't created at all. If big bangs or small bangs are natural occurances then it doesn't require a being to take part at all.
  15. SyntaxVorlon

    SyntaxVorlon Guest

    Eternity just doesn't mean what it used to, at the moment it's only about 13.2 billion years, a substantially different sum than infinity.
  16. Jack Lewis

    Jack Lewis Guest

    The BBT is part of the Religion of Evolution. It adherents like to consider it science, but it really isn't -- it's religion
  17. victorhadin

    victorhadin Guest

    Well the cumulated red shift evidence and the detectable microwave 'echo' certainly gives a lot of fairly definitive evidence that a vast central event threw everything out, explosion-style, from the centre of the known universe.

    What caused the 'bang' I don't know. I am no string theorist and don't dabble in quantum physics, and could quite happily live without knowing, to be honest.

    Some interpretations of string theory can, as I hear it, predict many of the factors for it and the physical constants we live with. The problem is that, though testable, string theory is not testable by any means we currently possess, and so remains a mathematical model for now, albeit a very good one.

    To summarise: There was evidently a big bang, and the evidence for that is fairly massive. As for what caused it... *shrug*. :-?
  18. Let's set the record straight:

    1) We observe the universe moving from a singular point
    2) We do not know why it is doing so although some theorize an explosion
    3) An explosion requires space, if you state that space does not exist then an explosion is confined to the area in which space does exist.
    4) Complete emptiness within a space is a vaccum.

    Furthermore, TBB is only a copout in my mind since it doesn't explain how the universe got here or why but only puts forth the assertion that the universe is continually expanding and contracting to the extremes until gravity (which we don't really understand truth be told) blasts it the other way. Well whoop-dee-doo... that's just saying the universe has always been here. I don't buy it.

    Did the universe explode into being? I don't know and nobody else does either that I'm aware of. Has the universe continually been here without a cause - that's bunk.

  19. reznwerks

    reznwerks Guest

    big bang

    "Did the universe explode into being? I don't know and nobody else does either that I'm aware of. Has the universe continually been here without a cause - that's bunk. " BL
    You are unwilling to believe that the universe of which you are a part has been here forever without a cause but you are willing to believe that a God has been here forever without any evidence of his existance. HMMM?
  20. Who says I don't have evidence of God? And if I believe in an absolute God who created everthing, then I must acknowledge that He created time - if He created time then before time was created then there was no linear cause-effect process and so any absolute God who created everything must have no beginning. Otherwise He was created also and is not the absolute Creator.

    Don't be so haughty to think that I have a double-standard on this issue. My question now to you is what your response is to the proposition that the universe has been eternally expanding and contracting without a first cause (a violation of its own laws [new energy cannot be created]).

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page