11th Mar 2010

The "Big Bang" has been shown to be nonsense, how do you think the Universe "started" if it had a start?

  • I agree that Big Bang theory is nonsense to some extent... The theory states that space and time started after the Big Bang. At the same time, it also says that there existed a primeval atom before the Big Bang. If the Big Bang started space, where did the primeval atom exist? Anything (including energy) needs space to exist...

    Now, coming to time. Big Bang started time, as proposed. What I believe is that time is the medium ofoccurrencee of events. In other words, nothing could happen in no time. (You might agree with me...). If nothing happens in no time, how did the Primeval atom grew hot and dense before exploding into the big bang?(This too, is proposed by the theory) Moreover, there are other drawbacks. The theory couldn't explain from where did the primeval atom come, etc.

    Coming to what I think, I think space and time is infinite (and with 0 mass), and existed since infinity. Universe is just a point (with mass) relative to this infinite stretch of space time. Primeval atom did exist, and the big bang did happen, but it happened in the presence of space and time. The universe expanded into this space, through time medium. About from where did this space and time come from, I could explain, because I ain't an atheist.

    EDIT:
    Well, you are an atheist, and I'm not, that doesn't matter much... I don't quite think that the universe is infinite... I think that an universe is merely a concentration of mass, in the infinite stretch of space time. I strongly oppose the steady state theory, which states that the universe is of infinite mass. As I made clear above, I do not oppose the Big Bang theory completely, just the space and time part of it...

    Darmok, I do not like the idea of singularity... Whoever made that, tortured mathematics. How can singularity (a zero dimensional point) morph into 4 dimensional existance? I give 1 point, and ask you to make a line off it. You get infinite supply of energy and anything else. How would you do it?

    HTH


  • So what would be the point of popularizing this discourse? If plasma physics has a valid counter proposition then it should be presented and argued among peers. Publishing such a sensational title only serves to hide that the Plasma Physics approach is merely nit picking at the periphery of Big Bang. It does science a disservice to argue that your theory has been victimized by science because of an alleged theological bias. The absence of adequate proof cannot be blamed on others, it has to be borned by the person making the argument.


  • The Big Bang isn't nonsense. It's the only theory that matches the observable evidence.


  • Fact - the universe is expanding. Theory - if you could wind time backwards the universe would shrink. Carry on winding time backwards and the universe will condense to a point called a singularity. As a singularity is infinitely small and infinitely dense, mathematical models breakdown (you can multiply, divide, subtract and add infinities). The model does not predict what happens before that as it's a nonsense statement. This is because outside of the universe there is nothing. People can't imagine nothing! So, This theory fits the observable facts. The theory also predicts something, that the flash from the 'big bang' should still be there, echoing around the universe. But, as the universe is expanding this 'flash' should be stretched out into the microwave frequency range. Guess what, this background microwave radiation is there, exactly where the theory predicts it should be. It comes from all directions in space and the same level, so it's not from stars or exploding galaxies, etc. This is an echo of the big bang. This theory does what all theories should do, it explains observable facts and makes accurate predictions. Plus there is no better theory at the moment (imaginary deities do not count as a theory, including God, Thor and the flying spaghetti monster). Finally, a Swiss Patent Clerk came up with a little theory that predicted the universe was expanding. He didn't believe it, fudged the calculations to make the universe static. The observations showed that it was expanding, he retracted his fudge saying it was 'the greatest blunder of my life'. Independent confirmation of an expanding universe, and the mans name? Yes you know it...Albert Einstein. The big bang is the best theory we have...based on observable fact.


  • God of course!!!!!

    What else could have possibly done any of this??? i mean "the big bang of some tiny cell just bursted into a whole universe" yeah right, where do you think that cell came from??? HELLO JESUS!!!!!!!!! duhhh. i mean, that would mean we came from some tiny threw up cell that came from nowhere. i am a lot smarter then that!!!
    God created u and me and the earth the moon the food and the whole UNIVERSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and every single thing in it!!!!!


  • Don't get your answers from Creationist websites. Go for Scientific journals or sources.


  • where is your source that indicates its nonsense, please provide a link, i have a tendency to look at the evidence and evaluate, you made a bald statement with no backup.

    MJT, its an expression, lol


  • If you are going to attack the Big Bang theory, you'll first have to explain how the COBE (COsmic Background Explorer) found residual microwave radiation with a spectrum that matched PRECISELY with what the Big Bang theorists had predicted in advance.

    And please, no conspiracy theories like "they programmed the satellite to give them the answer they wanted".

    Religion masquerading as science? What a joke. Have you ever been to a religious institution? It's a far cry from anything scientific.


  • You are VERY incorrect in what you say. What you say has NO basic in scientific fact, or provable scientific theory.


  • There's a reason that understanding the Big Bang isn't in junior high school syllabuses. To know it happened can be learned. To understand what it means requires a career of theoretical and mechanical physics.

    For a start, though, the Big Bang was not literally an explosion. And cosmologists do regularly say "We don't KNOW how the matter came into existence in the first place", although it can be explained theoretically.

    Everything can be known according to the laws of physics, assuming our understanding of them is correct, back to a certain time. That time is a tenth of a thousandth of a millionth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the beginning of the expansion that we call the Big Bang.

    Before that, the laws of physics as we understand them don't apply. That's the bit about which physicists and cosmologists say "We don't know". They have theories, which they test every time a new understanding or discovery comes about regarding the laws of physics, but that's all.

    So, what they don't know is about an extremely short time. By all means, tell them you're not happy that they haven't solved the ultimate mystery. But how about credit where credit's due? Congratulate them also for what they've managed to deduce about the 14-or-so billion years since that unimaginable fraction of a second after the beginning.


  • The existence of super clusters does not generally undermine
    a big bang theory. It's a hick up in the theory. Not more. And
    the big bang theory is far from solid on the detail scope. How
    could it with our limited knowledge of the universe. Until recently
    we believed Quasars are stellar objects and black holes were
    extremely unlikely exceptions to the rule. The big bang theory
    will evolve a lot over time. But I doubt it will change directions.


  • Re-written to answer the original question, of what I think happened.
    I do not believe that the universe is infinite, but space is.
    I do believe that space has no mass, but the universe has, and occupies part of space.

    Basic observation shows that our planet was molten and so was everything else that is in space, and objects are travelling at great speeds.

    Comparisons on earth, include molten lava being spewed from a volcano and red hot shrapnel being thrown from a bomb. (both explosions).

    Forget all the scientific jargon for one second and tell me another way, other than a massive explosion that could have liquefied all this matter.

    Now to my own belief.
    I do believe that this universe is on a kind of loop, that keeps repeating itself, but with many billions of years between each cycle.
    I believe the mother of all black holes contained all this matter crushed to, whatever size it was, I can't speculate on how small.
    The pressure and reaction of all this matter caused the "Big Bang" and the matter was flung all over space.

    However I believe that when it all settles down and all the stars have burned out their energy and all the planets have stopped moving, the black holes will swallow it all back up again including each other, making the mother of black holes again, which will go bang, and it all starts again.


  • Who once said "The bigger the lie the more people believe it" ? The Big Bang is perhaps the finest example of this.


  • The Big Bang theory of Creation is a theory that alludes to the Creation of the Universe as a central source of energy radially dissipating .However no exact definition is given as what is Energy. in the theory.Hence describing the Unexplainable in terms of another unexplainable term. Report Abuse


  • your references are from more than 15 years ago - that's stone age stuff, in physical cosmology. you have some catching up to do... read about the COBE and WMAP satellites, which accurately measured properties of the CMB. the upshot is that the big bang is not nonsense, there is solid experimental support for the interpretation of the CMB as being emitted from a hot plasma that pervaded the universe at that time, and particle physics models may reasonably be extrapolated to earlier times, although not to the very beginning (if there was such a thing).


  • Of course it may be proved false - that's the whole basis of scientific method. Report Abuse


  • It is basically immaterial to know how the Earth Got here. What is important is that, I am here. And why others got here is the dilemma that needs to be solved. But its interesting to know that, You are there. Report Abuse


  • Please publish your evidence for saying the Big Bang has been shown to be nonsense. To those of us working in the field, it is certainly not nonsense, but rather, is the best explanation we have for the Universe being the way it is. It is a pity such wild statements as yours are not subject to peer review. When I, or one of my colleagues publishes a paper, it is subject to the closest scrutiny by others in our profession in order to verify our results and to weed out any flaws. It is called the scientific process, and is essential for progress. You, however, are free to make any kind of statement you choose without showing any evidence whatsoever. I have no doubt the Big Bang scenario will be modified over the years, who knows, maybe even by some of my own research, but the basic premise is sound according to all observations. Science is evidence based. Statements like yours are not. Indeed, the sources you quote, although they don't acknowledge the fact, are reliant upon the maths engendered by a Universe consistent with some form of the Big Bang. Accept it. The Steady State Universe is dead!


  • The universe had a beginning so it must be finite and must have an end.
    Nothing could have existed before time zero but for the beginning of the universe there must have been a potential and the potential had to be finite or it could not have produced a beginning.
    At time zero the finite potential produced a single quantum space-time pulse of minimum size and duration,the pulse continued cubing it's essence with every pulse.
    The entity expanded,accelerating to the speed of light in one-thirty billionths of a second,the acceleration stopped.
    At this time there was a 2 cm diameter sphere,expanding at the speed of light,which contained all the ingredients necessary to evolve into the universe we see today.


  • The BBT may not be totally correct but it is the best theory we have at the moment based on our limited (very) understanding of the universe. As time moves on and we become more advance we may discover the truth....
    The main thing we need to think is that it was not god.
    God is pure fiction.


  • The link you provide is to an opinionated book that, by appearances, seems to be non-scientific in nature.

    As said by others the big-bang theory is best fit for our current knowledge.

    A recent article in New Scientist suggests that time is not a necessary requirement for quantum processes and unified field theory. If time is an illusion then you might claim the universe had no start, even if there is/was/will be a big bang!


  • Huh? Don't believe everything you read.


  • There was a black hole which resulted in a big explosion & it is called as big bang theory


  • Bit of a lay person me but I never thought of the Big Bang as THE beginning of the universe.
    As for THAT start, i sort of come to the conclusion there was an entity and it's environment that imploded through its own internal struggle and all that exist is nothing but a shard of that what once was.
    We will never know for sure. And should we ever find out it will probably be the day reality seems no longer real ...


  • Poisoning the well, are we?

    The big bang theory doesn't address the formation of the universe, it merely acts as a model to explain its current state. Matter and energy most likely existed prior to the big bang in the form of a singularity. In all likelihood, the universe has always existed in some form or another. The big bang only addresses how the universe came to be in its current form, it says nothing of where matter and energy came from. It is also a model that happens to do a fine job of explaining our observations of the universe, and fits quite nicely into what we know about it.

    Instead of just linking us to a book, why don't you provide us with a list of points that back your statement?

    Edit: I think you're confusing the size of the universe in its entirety with the size of the observable universe.







    • #If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.#
    Your name:
    E-mail:
    Telphone:

    Your comments:


    If you have any other info about The "Big Bang" has been shown to be nonsense, how do you think the Universe "started" if it had a start? , Please add it free.

    Posted by cfz under enart.88083.com |

    Procom Reports Third-Quarter and Nine-Month Results
    Nortel Unveils Vision, Strategy for Israeli High-Performance Net