Cause of the Big Bang

I know this for sure

I am made of the same things the Sun is and I reside in the universe,all else in purley conjecture.The smartest man is one who admits he really knows nothing for sure.

Machiaventa:confused:
 
OilIsMastery said:
This should be in the Religion forum. The Cause of the Big Bang is called God.
Click to expand...
But what if our universe is a 'bubble' inside another universe? What if the larger universe is the one created by God as the first cause but ours is equivalent to a bubble of gas expanding in boiling water?

In that case, the creation of all we can see is not immediately caused by God any more than the supernova which ended up forming our solar system, which we do readily investigate without religious people whining, created the Earth.

So how are we to know if you're investigating 'the first cause' or not? We could be ignoring vital parts of 'God's work' simply because of our ignorance and 'fear' about treating on God's work. John Paul II once said to Hawking he was happy to people to investigate up to the Big Bang but not at the BB since that was the moment of God's creation of everything. But how are we to know? Without investigation, we cannot know.

Before we understood about the fact the Earth hasn't been here for as long as much of the universe (since the universe is AT LEAST 13 billion years old), people thought that investigating the Earth's formation was investigating the moment of Genesis. But now we know better and noone complains about physicists working out how the Sun formed.

Now we're just going from how our solar system formed to how our space-time formed. But given we now have concepts of how there might have been something before and our BB wasn't the moment of 'Genesis' we should check.
 
OilIsMastery said:
There can only be one First Cause and by definition there is no cause before the first cause.
Click to expand...
You didn't even read what I said, did you?

My point is that what caused our BB might not have been the First Cause. There might have been something before. It might have been one of many 'Secondary Causes'. But we won't know unless we investigate it.
 
Alpha,

I tend to agree. While M-Theory is still in the realm of philosophy, I think it's a far more attractive idea that the BB was just a piece of the puzzle, as opposed to the entire puzzle.

But at some point, don't you have to have something from nothing? That is to say, if the BB isn't the first of its kind, or even the only one in existence, and there is some other force at work, don't you at some point have to find that something, ultimately, came from nothing?
 
A multiverse has been proposed as the cause of the big bang, so it allows for overall energy conservation (ie: they lose energy, we gain). However, this just puts the overall origin back one stage. More important about such an idea is why it happened? Why would a multiverse which is overall stable produce yet another universe?
 
Why do people continue to call it a big bang theory - it's pure conjecture!!!!
They still haven't worked out what gravity is........oh it's a force!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Big Bang = Creationist conjecture - John Paul II even gave hawking a medal.
....Which isn't fair, i want a medal
...no i want an apple
...no i want the moon on a stick!
 
kaneda said:
The big bang idea is science's equivalent of creationism. Believers invent ever more impossible things to keep the idea going.

eg:

Dogma: Dark energy is making the universe expand.
Critic: How do you know dark energy exists?
Dogma: The universe is expanding, isn't it? That's proof.
Click to expand...

If you think scientists just make stuff up because it sounds good, you don't know much about science.

kaduseus said:
Why do people continue to call it a big bang theory - it's pure conjecture!!!!
Click to expand...

You might want to research the scientific meaning of the word "theory". Get back to me once you've done that. A brief google search should do the trick.
 
James R said:
If you think scientists just make stuff up because it sounds good, you don't know much about science.
Click to expand...
Watch out, Kaneda will have a go at you for telling you something he should already know.

For instance, that dark energy is not responsible for the universe expanding, but for the expansion accelerating. Dark energy was put into GR by Einstein to keep the universe static, since he said GR otherwise implied the universe was expanding or contracting. Hubble then showed it was expanding. No need for dark energy. Now we find the expansion is accelerating, which does need dark energy.

So it's been put in and taken out as experiments have been refined from "We don't know, we think it's static" to "Expanding" to "Expanding and accelerating".

Yet again, Kaneda shows he doesn't put half as much research into his 'debunking' as he'd like people to think.
 
James R said:
If you think scientists just make stuff up because it sounds good, you don't know much about science.
Click to expand...


How about giving me some evidence of dark energy which makes up 3/4 of the universe and explaining where it comes from in increasing quantities and how it suddenly appeared several billion years ago?

You're like OmegaNumeric. You think because someone disagrees with dogma, they must be ignorant.
 
AlphaNumeric said:
Watch out, Kaneda will have a go at you for telling you something he should already know.

For instance, that dark energy is not responsible for the universe expanding, but for the expansion accelerating.
Click to expand...

Once again I have to point out basic science to you. Several billion years ago, dark energy took over from the big bang as the cause of expansion of the universe.

OmegaNumeric = :shrug:

No hope.
 
kaneda said:
How about giving me some evidence of dark energy which makes up 3/4 of the universe and explaining where it comes from in increasing quantities and how it suddenly appeared several billion years ago?
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware, it didn't suddenly appear.

As for evidence, I suggest you check out the many astronomy sites on the internet that will introduce the concept for you and explain why it is necessary.

You're like OmegaNumeric. You think because someone disagrees with dogma, they must be ignorant.
Click to expand...

I judge you on what you write.
 
Hi Kenada, good to see your back!!!!! HOW was your trips?

......................

Now, i have been on the fence concerning two possible theories. One which i devised, and another which agrees well quantum mechanically.

1) There is a proposal that just like how virtual particles ''pop'' out of the nothingness of the quantum aether, the universe has been proposed with a same mechanism.

** Nothingness, in the sense virtual negative energy is not considered i physics as being a real entity, but does has real physical effects on real entities... (Something i still find difficult to grasp :) )

and..

2) I propose a super-time curve, or a CTC, a Closed Timelike-Curve, which would superlink the beginning and end together, so theiris no longer a difference between the two points of big bang and big rip/or/big crunch, so that the beginning is the shadow of the end as being also the beginning itself. This would give the beginning, a beginning so to say.

Just thought i'd say what i thought about big bang. I don't think the theory is wrong, but our concepts about how to look at it, not that mine are necesserily right. Of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top