Believe in the Big Bang?

[theparadox]

In the scientific community, it is a commonly accepted belief that Energy can neither be created or destroyed; how can anyone believeing this, also believe in the Big Bang Theory?

The most elementary science teaches us that something cannot be created from nothing. So how does the Big Bang Theory hold any weight in the scientific community?

[draqon]

you gotta explain the unexplainable with something...heres an anology...you are cooking an apple pie...you take out the baked apple pie from the heater...and notice a hole on one side of a pie, the hole came from a bubble of carbon dioxide gas u presume, and cover it up with a strawberry to hide the hole...same thing with universe...humans cant describe something, they cover it up with what they assume, so that later they can prove that assumption wrong

[theparadox]

I know this isn't a philosophical board, but philosophically that is absurd. Many people who believe in the Big Bang Theory have closed themselves off to any other solution; when, as scientists, they should be exploring EVERY possibility.

But hey, I guess that's why I'm no scientist.

[draqon]

Imagine...you are living in 1850's and are emerged in the 1850's world...and someone tells you the importance of a computer in an everyday life in future of every human...wouldnt u think that is absurd? to think that computer is so important today...which it is today...because we rely on computers in basically every aspect of our life...especially technology

[theparadox]

I understand what you are saying, but when someone turns an idea into a belief it becomes a lot more dangerous. Look at the state of our world today...look at how many people die everyday simply because of their beliefs.

[draqon]

you got to have beliefs...neither of the extremeties are beneficial to the society. that is having no beliefs, or dying for a belief...A perfect human must be somewhere in between...With a belief, but not to the extreme...

[theparadox]

Yeah exactly. I'm not trying to disregard beliefs altogether, but when you close your mind off to all other possibilities, that is when you are taking it to the extreme.

[draqon]

you are wrong...by believing in something and trying to prove it wrong you are actually trying to open yourself to other possibilities.

[theparadox]

That is pretty single-minded. Because when you close your mind off to all other possibilities but one, you are in essence denying all other possiblities...which is the definition of being close-minded. When any religious person closes themselves off to all other beliefs, they have become an extremist. Yet you say this is wrong?

Oh, and you are taking portions of my statements out of context now. Again, I'm talking about closing your mind off to other beliefs. Please read my statements more carefully.

[Words of Wisdom]

The Big Bang Theory is indeed possible, even with the fact that energy can not be created or destroyed. However do not think that energy can't be created or destroyed in a typical sence. Energy can be transfered or transformed, into matter. (E=mc2) Anyway, the Big Bang is thought to be started by "quantum foam." This is stuff we have no physics for, all laws break down here. Unless you are an advanced astrophysicist, you have a good chance of not understanding it, if I can find a way to explain quantum foam to you, I will post it later

[Nova1021]

In the scientific community, it is a commonly accepted belief that Energy can neither be created or destroyed; how can anyone believeing this, also believe in the Big Bang Theory?

The most elementary science teaches us that something cannot be created from nothing. So how does the Big Bang Theory hold any weight in the scientific community?


Your qualm with the big bang is not technically a problem. If the universe began with the big bang, and the big bang started with lots and lots of energy, then we aren't really creating energy out of nothingness, because there was no universe before it. The energy has always existed, since there is no such thing as "before the big bang". Still, I see how that sort of reasoning could leave you feeiling uneasy... so here's my other justification:

The Big Bang theory holds weight because it does a good job of explaining most of the observations we have made of the universe. The universe is expanding: play it in reverse and it seems that it all had to originate small and dense. The theory isn't perfect though. Cosmologists had to invoke inflation to explain why the background radiation on opposite sides of the sky is almost identical. And we're still trying to figure out what the deal is with the acceleration of expansion.

A theory is not an all encompassing explanation. For example, there are several theories that explain atomic nuclei. The liquid drop model, the fermi gas model, and the shell model. Each of these explain a certain set of observations but not all of them. Each treats the nucleus in a very different way. But each is very good at explaining what it is meant to explain so we keep using them until some better model comes along.

Same idea with the big bang. No model can explain everything, so for now, the big bang has to start with the assumption that all matter/energy/space started at an infinitely dense point and expanded outward. There are some scientists who believe the big bang is the correct model of our universe, and they are probably the majority. But there are other scientists that are working on coming up with other models. Some new theories like M-theory (closely related to string theory) think they might be able to explain the mysterious beginnings of our universe. But the drawback is that M-theory is not yet testable, so it remains on the border of science and math/philosophy.

I saw a recent outline of a theory that claims to explain the apparent expansion of the universe, black holes, dark matter and lots of other things, by making a slight modification to the time component of General Relativity. Who knows, maybe this new theory is right? I haven't seen it in any journals yet though... so time will tell.

[phlogistician]

In the scientific community, it is a commonly accepted belief that Energy can neither be created or destroyed; how can anyone believeing this, also believe in the Big Bang Theory?

The most elementary science teaches us that something cannot be created from nothing. So how does the Big Bang Theory hold any weight in the scientific community?

OK, what we call physics is the study of matter. There are no 'laws', but merely descriptions of what we see matter doing. Matter and energy are interchangeable, but had to come from somewhere. But what is energy, if not positive and negative wave fluctuations, summing to zero over a complete number of cycles? A ripple, if you like.

So, the big bang did not create anything, it is merely a ripple in nothing. A ripple that gives us energy, that condensed into matter. It all still sums to zero.

[theparadox]

Yes Words of Wisdom, as a philosophical type I try not to let any possiblity pass my attention; as such I am quite familiar with Quantum Mechanics or Quantum Theory (which many scientists claim is "science-fiction.") I am also familiar with the String Theory, which is related to Quantum Theory.

But now you are walking in a very VERY grey area. There are many that refer to Quantum Theory as the bridge between the Physical and Metaphysical. The further you walk towards Quantum Theory, the further you are walking away from Traditional Science.

And the second question of my first post has still gone unanswered, how do you get something from nothing? If this were possible, it would conflict with basic Universal Laws (as we understand them.)

Nova, you said, "The Big Bang theory holds weight because it does a good job of explaining most of the observations we have made of the universe."
As I'm sure you remember from history class, a long time ago it was a fact that the world was flat. All observations with their current technology led them to believe the world was flat. Do people really think that we are nearing the peak of technology? Einstein once said. "We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us." And with all my heart, I believe that.

So many think we are nearing the "Ultimate Truths"....and yet we haven't even discovered the Questions.

[qwerty mob]

You know, space isn't nothing, and the last i read of M theory it seems quite possible that our spatiotemporal reality is descended from the fragmentation of higher dimensions; that our bubble is just one of many.

[Anomalous]

Hey theparadox, The BB theory was busted when acceleration in expansion of universe was detected, BBT was based on departing objects with respect to each other. But due to existence of acceleration, if U go back in time, the further U go in past the slower U should find the departure speed;

But I dont know if anyone has calculated the expansion speed of the begining by deaccelerating the speed with time.

[Anomalous]

... it seems quite possible that our spatiotemporal reality is descended from the fragmentation of higher dimensions; So now we have to ask how did all that began.


that our bubble is just one of many. So they all formed in yet another BB ?

[qwerty mob]

The Hot Space cosmological model fits the facts, and we know that the BBT is incomplete, but that's how science works... until a better theory comes along which is testable and makes some predictions... Check WMAP's site or google [WMAP cosmology 101].

Hope this helps.

[Nova1021]

Nova, you said, "The Big Bang theory holds weight because it does a good job of explaining most of the observations we have made of the universe."
As I'm sure you remember from history class, a long time ago it was a fact that the world was flat. All observations with their current technology led them to believe the world was flat. Do people really think that we are nearing the peak of technology?


Maybe I was unclear. My argument was that our explanations are flawed, but are the best that we currently have. Take your example of the flat earth: It was a good model for the earth at the time. Look around and it certainly seems flat! But then you make more careful observations: watch a ship sail out to sea and it appears to sink below the horizon. Observe a lunar eclipse and notice that the shadow on the moon is round.

So, you make a theory based on what you know. Then, when new observations begin to contradict the theory, you come up with a better one, or modify the old one to fit. Right now many observations confirm the big bang (CMB, redshifted galaxies). But we have some observations that are harder to explain: Uniformity of the CMB, apparent acceleration of expansion.

You made the jump that, just because I said that the big bang explains things pretty well, science believes that it is the Final Answer. I meant nothing of the sort. I meant exactly what I said: the big bang does a good job of explaining some observations. Nobody in their right mind, with the amazing advances being made in science these days, believes that we are reaching a complete understanding of anything. We are simply finding better and better explanations.



Einstein once said. "We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us." And with all my heart, I believe that.


I agree completely. Sorry for the confusion.

[Nova1021]

Yes Words of Wisdom, as a philosophical type I try not to let any possiblity pass my attention; as such I am quite familiar with Quantum Mechanics or Quantum Theory (which many scientists claim is "science-fiction.") I am also familiar with the String Theory, which is related to Quantum Theory.


Quantum theory is hardly science fiction. It's just very strange. It has been rigorously tested and is used everywhere. The computer you're using right now relies on technology based on quantum theory. Many people are uncomfortable with it, but that has nothing to do with its validity as a theory.

Now string theory, that's more like science fiction at the moment, since it can't be tested.

[spidergoat]

Simple, what existed before the Big Bang was not nothing, but something, just very small and compact.

[fadingCaptain]

I'd say the BB is probable at this point. Though we probably grossly misunderstand it.

Maybe if we could dive into a black hole and approach a singularity we could gain a better understanding.

[Pete]

"Believing" in the Big Bang doesn't require believing that energy came from nowhere any more than believing in a round Earth requires believing that the Earth appeared from nowhere.

In a nutshell:
According to the Big Bang model, billions of years ago the Universe was very very hot and very very dense, and it proceeded from there to its current state.

That's it. The fundamental origin of the very very hot very very dense state is actually outside the realm of the big bang model. Ideas on how the Universe developed into this state vary widely, and many (most?) people knowledgeable in the area do not hold firm beliefs about it.

Do you see? Believing in the Big Bang doesn't require believing anything about the origins of the Big Bang.

Of course, many people do hold firm beliefs about fundamental origins... some religious, some physical. But none of those beliefs are firmly entrenched in the big bang model itself.

[Pete]

That's my understanding, anyway. I consider myself an educated amateur, but in mind that I'm no expert. My actual knowledge is quite shallow.

[draqon]

I'd say the BB is probable at this point. Though we probably grossly misunderstand it.

Maybe if we could dive into a black hole and approach a singularity we could gain a better understanding.

Yeah well "dive" into a blackhole and approach singularity until all our atoms will be crashed to the infinity density. :D

[blobrana]

Hum,
professor Penrose has a new spin on the big bang theory.

He proposes that the universe will expand and become quite empty. Individual particles will become isolated in their own observable universe (and everything may even break down onto individual photons) thus Time becomes meaningless.
So even though the universe expands forever; forever for a photon is no time at all...
He proposes that when the universe reaches this state a new big bang can occur.

[draqon]

Yeah...well then tell me something if this professor tells us that everything will expand till it gets all spread out so no interactions occur (which in itself is impossible)... then how will the big bang happen? Dont all this stuff has to go back to the infinity density it once been?...Otherwise from what would the big bang occur?

[blobrana]

Hum,
A brane take on this, would be that the two 5D branes that created the previous bigbang would peel apart.
The universe would `reset` itself; space and time would cease to exist for all intents and purposes.

The highly ordered state would be ripe for another membrane collision (or `quantum fluctuation` in old speak) , with the creation of a new spacetime. A bonus would be that the new universe would have all the space time metrics as highly tuned as our universe.

@draqon
i guess that it will be main stream news in a few months time...

[RoyLennigan]

Yes Words of Wisdom, as a philosophical type I try not to let any possiblity pass my attention; as such I am quite familiar with Quantum Mechanics or Quantum Theory (which many scientists claim is "science-fiction.") I am also familiar with the String Theory, which is related to Quantum Theory.

But now you are walking in a very VERY grey area. There are many that refer to Quantum Theory as the bridge between the Physical and Metaphysical. The further you walk towards Quantum Theory, the further you are walking away from Traditional Science.
rather than thinking of it bridging the physical and metaphysical, think of it as showing that there is no distinction between the two and that the metaphysical is not quite what we imagine it is. also, there really is no defined thing as traditional science. science is a set of theories which are constantly being updated and revised as new evidence comes to our attention.


And the second question of my first post has still gone unanswered, how do you get something from nothing? If this were possible, it would conflict with basic Universal Laws (as we understand them.)
actually, it has been answered, a few times. the big bang theory doesn't necessarily say that the universe bursted suddenly from nothing. it theorizes that everything that makes up our universe exploded from a very densely compacted amount of energy. where that energy came from or what form it was in, we do not know.


Nova, you said, "The Big Bang theory holds weight because it does a good job of explaining most of the observations we have made of the universe."
As I'm sure you remember from history class, a long time ago it was a fact that the world was flat. All observations with their current technology led them to believe the world was flat. Do people really think that we are nearing the peak of technology? Einstein once said. "We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us." And with all my heart, I believe that.

So many think we are nearing the "Ultimate Truths"....and yet we haven't even discovered the Questions.
we observe that objects fall to the earth, and that electrons orbit around nuclei, and that effect always follows cause, but we do not fully understand why these things happen, perhaps that is what einstein was hinting at. in truth, there are no questions or answers, only what is observed.

science tends to have a bias towards what is consistently observable.

[Anomalous]

.....
He proposes that when the universe reaches this state a new big bang can occur. :eek:

[blobrana]

Hum,
the idea is not new .
but what Penrose has done, is to show <i>how</i> the universe can reset itself.

The problem before, i suppose, was that no one could `<i>unmake</i>` time or space.
i myself would have said a couple of months ago that that it was possible to create a universe with just space; and would have treated matter, time and space as separate `things`... (well, not really, because i follow string theory)... But it seems quite clear that space/time/matter are just aspects of the same thing.
When you remove matter, (<i>by say converting it to radiation</i>) , or its ability to interact with other bits of matter, then space and time become <i>meaningless</i>.

And Voila, we have the conditions that can make another bigbang...


<b>Note:</b>
^{We don't need `infinity densities` (insert laugh) , or blackhole, or other weirdness; all that is required is emptiness and quantum fluctuations to borrow enough energy to create a new space-time/big bang...}

[Anomalous]

Hi blobRana, I have forgot our past. Your heart is pounding, hopefully U r a woman so lets start a new relationship.


Hum,
the idea is not new .
but what Penrose has done, is to show <i>how</i> the universe can reset itself. He has put forth, he didnt show us anything yet.


The problem before, i suppose, was that no one could `<i>unmake</i>` time or space.
i myself would have said a couple of months ago that that it was possible to create a universe with just space; You were right, is your professor charming ?


and would have treated matter, time and space as separate `things`... (well, not really, because i follow string theory)... But it seems quite clear that space/time/matter are just aspects of the same thing. Thats why it should exist even when matter is removed, all of it. What keeps the distances maintained do U think ? Why sizes remain uniform ? there is something between the particles. Then theres inertia too, that has something to do with space and position in it.


When you remove matter, (<i>by say converting it to radiation</i>) , or its ability to interact with other bits of matter, then space and time become <i>meaningless</i>. So U mean radition has no measurable osicillitations, r u taking us for a ride or have U been brainwashed, U believe in documents too easily, U r so gullable.


And Voila, we have the conditions that can make another bigbang... Ya, the BB thats also supposed to create space.

[blobrana]

So U mean radition has no measurable osicillitations, r u taking us for a ride or have U been brainwashed, U believe in documents too easily, U r so gullable.


Hum,
You mustn't be so assuming.
in the cyberspace desert one is meant to show hospitality.
One isn't supposed to shooting the messenger.

Penrose isn't saying that time really stops or that it reverses, or that space ceases to be.
From what i gather he proposes that for a photon isolation and moving at light speed effectively makes time meaningless.
So, yes the photon will move, but if there isn't anything to gauge it by it becomes irrelevant.

[devils_reject]

Its reasonable to believe that the big bang illustrates that most if not all energy came from matter(E=mc2). The universe is very big and has hundreds of microcosms, our microcosm may have started by the liberation of energy or photons. However energy can also be transformed to matter. It likely that as certain universes collapse certain ones are formed and there is no reason for half universe as plank's view on atomic energy level denotes. Like massive stars, they get so big they increase their gravitational pull(create a solar system of sort around them), collapse(liberate energy), and matter(many planets and energy) are formed from remnants of their demise. General relativity theory states that energy is relative and thus matter as well, thus is possible that our universe started by the collapse of even a massive star.

[Anomalous]

blobrana

Do U think there are BBs going on right now zillion light years away ?

[blobrana]

Hum,
Speaking as a layperson i would say no.

Speaking as quantum physicist i would say that the current understanding of the nature of space-time does not exclude the possibility that another big bang is happening now far away in some distant corner of our universe, or right here under your nose. Every point in our space-time could be spawning off a separate universe.

Of course we would not be aware of it happening as that new universe is creating a new space-time and would be totally separate from our universe. It's not like the new universes will crowd out our universe, so i wouldn't worry about it.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

the three mighty pillars that hold the bang theory,


heh.

peace.

[qwerty mob]

the three mighty pillars that hold the bang theory

WMAP site, Cosmology 101 (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html)

[coffee_demon]

In my Astronomy Profs Rasin Bread model of the Universe, The Big bang wasn't an explosion like the Name"Big Bang" implies, but a sudden expansion of space time where the bread dough that was made suddenlly starts to grow and expand. This is known as T = 0 which I guess means the very begining of time as we know it today. And before the dough started cooking the laws of physics as we know them did not explain anything.
My prof also ranted alot about anti-matter and regular matter existing in almost equal fractions until the great expansion of bread/big bang started. I duno, i'm not exactly passing Astronomy with great marks and I probably should ask more questions in class.

[qwerty mob]

There is reason to hypothesize that what we think of as dark matter and dark energy are the result of primordial matter and antimatter reacting to annihilate one another early in the formation of the cosmos, which wasn't (as others point out) a "big explosion" in the "reactive combustion" sense, but was more likely the result of higher dimensions "breaking down" outside our "spatio-temporal bubble."

The Big Bang Theory is a misnomer, and the theory is incomplete, but it is still taught because (like the Bohr atomic model or Maxwell's transverse EM waves) it works for now, until a better testable theory comes along.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

haha yes, its the best we've got now so lets all put our eggs in that basket.


isnt this unscientific by nature?, i dont understand this how can the supposed most intelligent community in the world, "scientific",
place its whole system on a hypothetical theory, just because its the best "idea" someone has had, then you run bias tests to support the claim, "yes they are bias, because other decent logical theorys, are debunked, just because its different, and then all other explanations are "illogical" just because they dont coodinate totaly with the previous theorys,

im open to the big bang as an explanation, but am also open tot other theorys, so why are people limiting there full range of knowledge, only exploring 1 explanation, when time could be spend testing other theorys while still testing along with this current theory "big bang"


remember how it has happened countless times in the past?, wat people think is correct laters turns out to be false?, we evolve step by step, everytime we get a bit smarter, we thinkw e know it all, "our generation is the best generation". we shouldent get ahead of ourselves, thinking we know the beggining of creation/existance, isnt that just egotistical, yes examine, explore, study, test etc but never assume you "know" the truth about what you didnt witness and cannot actually prove, that itself is unscientific, to allow 1 theory to run your sicuety and to be placed as central structure, you have to allow other theorys to be tested and explored just as much, dosent science say basically, "dont assume", "only believe as fact when hard evedence is found" "need a body to examine" ,


maybe some peple just dont comprehend what im saying i have tried to explain this time and time again, but i will continue to study and examine the universe as much as i can as 1 man, i wont need the support of the scientific community, i will stll try to test non bias theorys as much as i can,

and i understand people can easily be overwhelmed by cultist mindstate without realising, and i understand people wont admit to this and its not open to discussion, because im bieng illogical to your ego,


maybe there is a deep rooted fear of death within the modern communit, liek an unspoken thing that plays part in this unconscious cultive mind state, the belief that science is now the new god, and maybe can be the key to imortality sothey become more subjective to opinions froms cientists, but not from regular people.


interesting thought huh. but ofcourse it will be debunked and dissmissed, and im happy with that :).

contentment, many seek but do not fined, i guess im blessed,

that actually is based upon a vivid dream i had,



i was in the not so didstant future, i could tel;l because of the clothes and buildings/scenery. and i discovered that AI and nano tech that replicates itself with freedom of thought and consciousness found they key to immortality, and it was something about the atmosphear that we breath, i am not quite sure the drem didnt go to indepth witht he science, but it was to do with oxygen, and converting our whole system into fueling off some alternate source, and the nano machines came inside of us and converted and regrew all new organs that intake some other healthyer fuel, wich didn age us.


freaky dream,


peace,

peace.

[qwerty mob]

haha yes, its the best we've got now [...]

isnt this unscientific by nature? [...].

If you've got a better theory to explain the observed facts of universal isotropy, background radiation distribution, the change in rate of spatio-temporal expansion, and other objective details then post it.

If your "theory" is not characterizable, falsifiable and objective then it's not a theory.

That's the way science works.

Like it or not.

...

"haha yes"

:rolleyes:

http://www.chinesefood-recipes.com/images1/Basket%20of%20Chicken%20Eggs.jpg

[EmptyForceOfChi]

If you've got a better theory to explain the observed facts of universal isotropy, background radiation distribution, the change in rate of spatio-temporal expansion, and other objective details then post it.

If your "theory" is not characterizable, falsifiable and objective then it's not a theory.

That's the way science works.

Like it or not.

...

"haha yes"

:rolleyes:

http://www.chinesefood-recipes.com/images1/Basket%20of%20Chicken%20Eggs.jpg





amusing,

anyway, actually now that you mention it, i do have a better explanation than the big bang for the creation of existance, i actually have tons, and i express them throughout the philosohy forums quite alot throughout posts and threads,

this is the simple root of the flaw in the big bang bieng the creation of existance itself,

there cannot be nothing into something according to physics laws 101. there must have been something that started the bang, and to state that alternate energy build ups created the bang, is impossible according to physical law, because that energy must have resided somewhere (the universe) because you cant have energy in any shape or form existing according the the law of the bang theory, because time/existance itself was born from the bang, there must have been time and existance "existing" previously for the bang or energy build up tot ake place, it is absurd.



if the bang is represented as an explosion we can copy on earth in much smaller scale, say with explosives, how can you by the law of physics (wich i believe in) create an explosion without a fuel and different components to set it off causing an exploding reaction, how is it possible for something to explode without something to make it explode.

there must have always been an eternal energy force, or energy that keeps changing its state that has always existed in some form, that is my philosophy. that is the base of my theorys and philosophys concerning the universal creation of this dimention we percieve our senses on,


peace.

[qwerty mob]

The BBT says no such thing about "something from nothing"... and I've made it clear that the latest thinking is that conditions before t0 are that our spatio-temporal "bubble" is hypothesized to be a "breakdown" of higher dimensions, and that the "scrap" matter and antimatter annihilated each other (thus explaining the "missing mass" flaw of conventional BBT).

There has yet to be divised a working experiment to quantify DM/DE so I find your "eternal this and that" to be wholly unscientific by the SAME standard, and not even coherent philosophically. Probably because you don't understand what it is you are denouncing, as evidenced by your distorted "folk beliefs" of what the BBT actually states, and refusal to better articulate your "eternal forces" mumbo jumbo in "concrete" objective terms.

I suggest you revisit WMAP's articles about the tests of the BBT and Cosmology 101; the ones which I supplied after your last post on this topic.

...

Then try again.

[RoyLennigan]

emptyforce, i believe that 'flaw' in the big bang theory has been refuted several times (i am not sure about in this thread, but maybe another). the theory of the big bang does not say that the universe came from nothing. it says that it expanded from a very compact and dense point of energy. we just don't know what that energy was, but we know that there was energy there before the big bang, otherwise it wouldn't have happened. simply put, the flaw you have figured out is really a misconception of the actual theory. i don't think anybody disagrees with this.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

yes my theorys are unscientific, simply because they dont go with your scientific theorys, and they challenge everything you believe in,


i understand this is futile trying to explain to you, and i accept you wont change your belief system,

the big bang theory, (as you stated it to be) well that dosent tackle the creation of existance atall, but i do know this, does it not say in the big bang theory that the bang created time and space, yes or no?

the bang could not create time or space, and the big bang theory seems to change so much its hard to keep up with it all, dot he scientists just add new bits as they please to compensate for what they cannot explain witht he old modual theory?.

yes yes i know me trying to further explain this is pointless in your point of view,

can i ask you one question?, are you opent o any other explanation other than a big bang type theory? if say a theory was put forward and it was completely opposite tot he big bang theory and challenged its laws. if there were good points to the theory and you couldent dissprove it, would you consider it bieng true?.



yes or no?


peace.

[(Q)]

amusing,
this is the simple root of the flaw in the big bang bieng the creation of existance itself,

there cannot be nothing into something according to physics laws 101.

If the laws of physics were a result of the BB, we cannot use them to describe what happened prior to it.


there must have been something that started the bang, and to state that alternate energy build ups created the bang, is impossible according to physical law, because that energy must have resided somewhere (the universe) because you cant have energy in any shape or form existing according the the law of the bang theory, because time/existance itself was born from the bang, there must have been time and existance "existing" previously for the bang or energy build up tot ake place, it is absurd.

Not necessarily. Again, your applying current laws to events prior to the BB.

The result of the BB was energy/matter. Perhaps it existed in a completely different form, not that of energy/matter, and of course, we can only speculate on what that might be.

It would be like trying to theorize ice or steam when only knowing water.


if the bang is represented as an explosion we can copy on earth in much smaller scale, say with explosives, how can you by the law of physics (wich i believe in) create an explosion without a fuel and different components to set it off causing an exploding reaction, how is it possible for something to explode without something to make it explode.

The BB was never an explosion as you describe.


there must have always been an eternal energy force, or energy that keeps changing its state that has always existed in some form, that is my philosophy. that is the base of my theorys and philosophys concerning the universal creation of this dimention we percieve our senses on,


peace.

I think you're on the right track, sorta.

[qwerty mob]

Put forth a BETTER THEORY; one that is falsifiable and objective.

Does that answer your question?

...

Yes or No.