Ps Hey Crunchy Cat, I'm just teasing you. No offence is intended.
Buy me some beer and I'll help you tease me
.
Cause of the Big Bang
- Thread starter machiaventa
- Start date
Buy me some beer and I'll help you tease me
.:roflmao:
I don't drink beer tho, (I am an alcoholic). Would herbal intoxicants suffice?
A buzz is a buzz is a buzz :m:
Finally this thread is starting to make sense to me .
.The business of others??? Take out a bank loan, get an engineering degree and build a fucking bridge.:bugeye:
This is a non-formal debate forum, and if Crunchy Cat wants to call you a liar, [so, while childish
Ps Hey Crunchy Cat, I'm just teasing you. No offence is intended.
How did you escape your keepers?
If I am wrong, show where I am wrong. If you just rant, people are going to doubt your sanity.
Time wasters aside, back to the original thread with some ideas. For the BB to work, we need something from nothing. The idea of a multiverse is a problem as it just pushes the first cause back one step without solving anything because you then have to explain how that came about. Saying it has always existed is nonsense. So called virtual particles need highly specific conditions as they appear and disappear and it suggests that we are merely making visible what is already there but what we cannot see (ie: they are forming from more fundamental particles or a 4D particle is becoming 3D for a moment. Importantly, they do not stay but vanish so are ultimately of no use to us.)
A problem here is that we have the whole universe appearing in one point (some would say far more, as in the cause of the CMB) instead of just some very basic particles appearing. This is possibly where a multiverse could come in, where there has been an accumulation of material over an unbelievable amount of time and suddenly there is enough for a whole universe.
A problem here is that we have the whole universe appearing in one point (some would say far more, as in the cause of the CMB) instead of just some very basic particles appearing. This is possibly where a multiverse could come in, where there has been an accumulation of material over an unbelievable amount of time and suddenly there is enough for a whole universe.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
No. Why do you say that? Plenty of cosmologists have posited the Big Bang originating from something else - vacuum fluctuations; intesecting branes; a big crunch.
Why is this nonsense? Demontrate using logic that this is nonsense.
Not to disagree with you about the idea that something preceded the Big Bang because I agree with those who suggest that, but that is not Big Bang Theory, it is alternate cosmology
.On your second point, I couldn't agree more. It is far from nonsense to say that the energy of the universe has always existed. It baffles me how that concept doesn't somehow creep into Big Bang Theory because that is where cosmology is going IMHO. It is true that the Theory of General Relativity has a problem with any preconditions where space existed before the Big Bang, but just drop that nagging spacetime thingy and GR will come through it somehow
. After all, the Einstein Field Equations are pretty good at describing the affect of gravity even if spacetime is not curved, at least one would surmise.
Last edited:
Ooooo! Man, That has so put me in my place.:bugeye:
Your powers of retort are underwhelming.
"Nothing" (i.e. an absence of anything / everything) doesn't exist dude.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Not to nitpickNot to disagree with you about the idea that something preceded the Big Bang because I agree with those who suggest that, but that is not Big Bang Theory, it is alternate cosmology
but if you read what I wrote carefully I do not say it is BB theory I say that cosmologists have proposed that the BB could have orginated from 'something else'. That's quite different from saying that the means of generating the BB are integral components of BB theory.
Last edited:
I don't know, CC, in another thread (I'll look, maybe) someone made this convincing case for "first there was nothing. out of nothing came something" The funny thing about it was he was saying "I don't say I believe this but 'What if'..." Blew my mind! I'm still pondering that one... Blew my fucking mind!!! (I always like that
)I don't know, CC, in another thread (I'll look, maybe) someone made this convincing case for "first there was nothing. out of nothing came something" The funny thing about it was he was saying "I don't say I believe this but 'What if'..." Blew my mind! I'm still pondering that one... Blew my fucking mind!!! (I always like that
In this particular case we're talking about 'what is' instead of 'what might be'. There isn't a single instance of "nothing" that anyone can point to.
Thank you for pointing that out. I stand corrected.Not to nitpick
Big bang is clearly wrong because it suggests something from nothing. If it doesn't, its not a big bang, as clearly stated in the Ekpyrotic Theory, Ophilite.
So Kenada is right. This is something the big bang advocates. If it doesn't, it doesn't derive from a bang at all, but rather prior from a frozen state.
Saying that, big bang wasn't even a bang at all.
So Kenada is right. This is something the big bang advocates. If it doesn't, it doesn't derive from a bang at all, but rather prior from a frozen state.
Saying that, big bang wasn't even a bang at all.