Where the atoms came from?

[Simpleton]

What caused it to suddenly create a universe? What caused the singularity to change into the Big Bang?

 

Can anyone explain how ALL the mass-energy was accumulated into the "singularity"?

 

Where did the Energy in singularity come from? Could it be that human cosmologists are only stating an unproven Theory? We know that energy can be transformed into mass, and mass into energy. My ultimate question: (If the "singularity" contained all the energy and mass in the present universe, then you will have to admit that said energy and mass came from somewhere or something) Where did it come from?

 

Any ideas?

 

If You can imagine god, (god luck picking from the available choice's) Then I feel free to imagine this.

It seams that sometime somewhere along the way, all of the matter and energy will end up in black holes. I have to assume (so much like that word (love Benny Hill) but there seams to be a lot of assumptions in this thread) that includes back ground radiation, dark energy and dark mater as well. Now I have to assume again that, space without any medium would have lost it's restriction on speed limits and many other rules and laws. When I then imagine the last two black holes maybe thousand millions of light year's apart (keep in mined that there is no more light) then I visualise a head on collision of the remaining two black holes, incredibly hard and solid, colliding at a speed not governed or limited by any medium. Imagine what would happen.

[IM Egdall]

From what I undertstand, our current understanding gets us all the way back to an incredible 10-43 seconds after the big bang. This is called Planck time. It is at this point that physicists generally believe that space and time began to behave as we see them today . So what about time zero? Nobody knows. From time zero to Planck time, all known science fails us. At time zero, the mathematics breaks down; that is the equations of general relativity give us infinity for answers. The so-called singularity at time zero has infinite density, infintie spacetime curvature (gravity), infinite pressure, infinite temperature.

 

There are all kinds of new theories which propose answers to what this cosmic singularity really is, and in some cases even what caused the big bang. These new theories try to combine quantum mechanics with general relativity. String theory is the most popular of these so-called quantum gravity theories. An overwhelming number of experiments, measurements, and observations support the ephicacy of both general relativty and quantum mechanics; but there is no definitive evidence one way or the other to support any of these new theories. So we must remain skeptical for now.

 

 

[needimprovement]

Physical reality doesn't "break down". In fact, that's just gibberish.

What ever happens, it cannot be explained in a physical sense. You cannot intelligibly speak of a physical cause existing in a singularity.

[Klaynos]

We can't explain it yet, that doesn't mean we can't/won't understand it.

[Mr Skeptic]

What ever happens, it cannot be explained in a physical sense. You cannot intelligibly speak of a physical cause existing in a singularity.

 

Well, look at it this way. Using the Newtonian representation of gravity you can come up with a formula for earth's gravity of F = GMm/r^2. Now if you go to r=0, you get infinite gravity -- a singularity! OMG THERE'S A SINGULARITY AT THE CENTER OF EARTH!!!! Or not. It just means the equation doesn't work in that range. In this example, the error is that the above equation only works so long as you are outside the sphere of mass, and as you go deeper you have to subtract from Earth's mass whatever mass is outside your radius. Thus, using the proper equations, earth's gravity at the center of earth is zero.

 

If your equation gives you a singularity, it almost certainly means your equation is wrong not that there's an infinite point sitting there in reality.

[needimprovement]

Well, look at it this way. Using the Newtonian representation of gravity you can come up with a formula for earth's gravity of F = GMm/r^2. Now if you go to r=0, you get infinite gravity -- a singularity! OMG THERE'S A SINGULARITY AT THE CENTER OF EARTH!!!! Or not. It just means the equation doesn't work in that range. In this example, the error is that the above equation only works so long as you are outside the sphere of mass, and as you go deeper you have to subtract from Earth's mass whatever mass is outside your radius. Thus, using the proper equations, earth's gravity at the center of earth is zero.

 

If your equation gives you a singularity, it almost certainly means your equation is wrong not that there's an infinite point sitting there in reality.

This is a false comparison which ignores contextual consideration. There is not a singularity at the centre of the earth. There is a central point, which is the smallest possible ontological point before you cease to speak about something quantitative. The central point of the earth, is not zero in ontological terms. It is the smallest possible quantity before zero=nothing. To speak of a physical centre is not to speak of a physical nothing. The centre necessarily takes up space. The big-bang event includes space/time/energy, and extends from an infinitely dense point. That point is not physical. You are no-longer speaking about a spatial physical dimension, since no quantitative thing can exist without a quantitative measurable dimension. There is no physical definable quantity in an infinite point. That's why physics breaks down at that point, simply because the object of empirical science fails to exist. Does this mean that singularities are probably false. No, in the context of the big-bang, there is good reason to think this to be the case accept to preserve a universal physics, since the implication is that the universe either came out nothing, or it came out of that which cannot be understood in physical terms; hence a naturalistic bias. This is not acceptable to those who want to understand reality in purely physical terms; and thus they conclude that physical reality cannot have proceeded from an infinitely dense point in actual reality, as that would imply a reality larger than what a physical explanation can provide.

 

We can't explain it yet, that doesn't mean we can't/won't understand it.

You cannot explain, in physical terms, how or why a physical universe extends from an infinitely dense point unless you can prove that the universe does not in fact extend from an infinitely dense point. The evidence appears to suggest otherwise.

[Mr Skeptic]

This is a false comparison which ignores contextual consideration. There is not a singularity at the centre of the earth. There is a central point, which is the smallest possible ontological point before you cease to speak about something quantitative. The central point of the earth, is not zero in ontological terms. It is the smallest possible quantity before zero=nothing. To speak of a physical centre is not to speak of a physical nothing. The centre necessarily takes up space. The big-bang event includes space/time/energy, and extends from an infinitely dense point. That point is not physical. You are no-longer speaking about a spatial physical dimension, since no quantitative thing can exist without a quantitative measurable dimension. There is no physical definable quantity in an infinite point. That's why physics breaks down at that point, simply because the object of empirical science fails to exist.

 

Well you got that right: I misused an equation and got a singularity. Is there a singularity there? Does physics break down? No, I just misused an equation.

 

Does this mean that singularities are probably false. No, in the context of the big-bang, there is good reason to think this to be the case accept to preserve a universal physics, since the implication is that the universe either came out nothing, or it came out of that which cannot be understood in physical terms; hence a naturalistic bias.

 

This is a false dichotomy. Instead of correcting you, I shall let you try again. If you are unable to figure out a correct dichotomy, please tell me and I will give you the answer.

 

This is not acceptable to those who want to understand reality in purely physical terms; and thus they conclude that physical reality cannot have proceeded from an infinitely dense point in actual reality, as that would imply a reality larger than what a physical explanation can provide.

 

 

You cannot explain, in physical terms, how or why a physical universe extends from an infinitely dense point unless you can prove that the universe does not in fact extend from an infinitely dense point. The evidence appears to suggest otherwise.

 

Well good thing that there is no reason to expect that we should explain the universe from an infinitely dense point. In fact, that suggestion doesn't even make sense.

 

In any case, we can describe an infinitely large reality, infinitely large in several senses of the word. So is larger than that?

[Moontanman]

What caused it to suddenly create a universe? What caused the singularity to change into the Big Bang?

 

Can anyone explain how ALL the mass-energy was accumulated into the "singularity"?

 

Where did the Energy in singularity come from? Could it be that human cosmologists are only stating an unproven Theory? We know that energy can be transformed into mass, and mass into energy. My ultimate question: (If the "singularity" contained all the energy and mass in the present universe, then you will have to admit that said energy and mass came from somewhere or something) Where did it come from?

 

Any ideas?

 

You're making a huge assumption based on that assumption agreeing with your religious views, the idea that the big bang came from a singularity is loosing ground in favor of other theories. Hanging your religious hat on a scientific theory is a bad idea because science goes where the evidence points and just because it points to something that agrees with your ideas of creation in a flash can and often is a mistake. It's a big complex universe and some think our theories that show things like singularities will be over turned for better theories that do not require infinite densities.... or infinities in general... Science is not dogma, science changes as the evidence changes.. Religion tends to stay stuck in dogma....

 

 

Are you a Catholic priest? Or is one talking through you? I know several Catholics and none of them are as "religious" as you....

[needimprovement]

Are you a Catholic priest? Or is one talking through you? I know several Catholics and none of them are as "religious" as you....

I'm not a priest. I am a simple believer in God. Seems that you don't like my posts. Don't worry I'm going to absent myself from SFN for a bit.

[needimprovement]

Well you got that right: I misused an equation and got a singularity. Is there a singularity there? Does physics break down? No, I just misused an equation.

No. You made false comparison between the big bang and the centre of the earth.The centre of the earth does not involve the problem of all time, space, and energy extending from an infinitely dense point. It merely involves a central point which ontologically takes up space.

 

This is a false dichotomy. Instead of correcting you, I shall let you try again. If you are unable to figure out a correct dichotomy, please tell me and I will give you the answer.

This is an assertion pretending to be informed. Instead of answering it, I will treat it for what it is.

 

Well good thing that there is no reason to expect that we should explain the universe from an infinitely dense point. In fact, that suggestion doesn't even make sense.

I wouldn't expect science to explain it.

 

In any case, we can describe an infinitely large reality, infinitely large in several senses of the word. So is larger than that?

We cannot make sense of it physically. The singularity lies beyond empirical explanation.

[Mr Skeptic]

No. You made false comparison between the big bang and the centre of the earth.The centre of the earth does not involve the problem of all time, space, and energy extending from an infinitely dense point. It merely involves a central point which ontologically takes up space.

 

Feel free to show how it is a false comparison. You'd have to show that there was in fact a singularity, not just that the equation gives a singularity (since as I demonstrated, just because a theory gives a singularity doesn't mean there is a singularity)

 

Does this mean that singularities are probably false. No, in the context of the big-bang, there is good reason to think this to be the case accept to preserve a universal physics, since the implication is that the universe either came out nothing, or it came out of that which cannot be understood in physical terms; hence a naturalistic bias.

 

This is a false dichotomy. Instead of correcting you, I shall let you try again. If you are unable to figure out a correct dichotomy, please tell me and I will give you the answer.

 

This is an assertion pretending to be informed. Instead of answering it, I will treat it for what it is.

 

Oh, look at that! You can make snarky remarks and pretend that you're being clever for it.

 

Very well then, I'll give you the answers. The two correct dichotomies that could be made from that sentence are:

The implication is that the universe either came out nothing, or it came out something.

the implication is that the universe either came out of that which cannot be understood in physical terms, or it came out of that which can be understood in physical terms.

 

See, when you make a correct dichotomy there is no option but the two mentioned. I disprove your false dichotomy by the possibility that the universe came from something which we do understand in physical terms, such as branes. The existence of a possibility that does not fit with the dichotomy proves it is a false dichotomy, regardless of how remote you may want to think the possibility is. So now I showed both that I was correctly informed (I disproved your false dichotomy), and that as well as not understanding the basics of logic you feel overly confident in your own answers (which is in fact very common, see the study Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments).

 

I wouldn't expect science to explain it.

 

If there is an explanation it is science if there is no explanation there is no science. What you want though is no real explanation, but instead a pseudoexplanation that "makes sense" but provides zero predictive value.

 

We cannot make sense of it physically. The singularity lies beyond empirical explanation.

 

What singularity?

 

Anyhow, we can have an infinite universe without any singularity, which is what I was talking about.

[Klaynos]

The singularity implies our theory is not complete. Not that there is a physically real infinity small volume.

 

Have a look on Wikipedia about singularities in maths and physics.

[Moontanman]

I'm not a priest. I am a simple believer in God. Seems that you don't like my posts. Don't worry I'm going to absent myself from SFN for a bit.

 

 

It's not personal needimprovment, it has nothing to do with me disliking you or your posts, it has to do with not liking how you makes baseless assertions then proceed to back them up with more baseless assertions then even more baseless assertions often followed by insulting attempts at humor. Proved some evidence to back your self up other than more baseless claims and we'll get along fine...

[needimprovement]

Feel free to show how it is a false comparison. You'd have to show that there was in fact a singularity, not just that the equation gives a singularity (since as I demonstrated, just because a theory gives a singularity doesn't mean there is a singularity)

Perhaps i am wrong but the evidence suggests otherwise. You asking for a logical proof. I am merely going by what the scientists are saying, what the empirical evidence suggests. The universe has a beginning, time space and energy has a beginning, and that beginning involves our universe extending from an infinitely dense point which scientists describe as a singularity. An infinitely dense point is not physical

 

See, when you make a correct dichotomy there is no option but the two mentioned. I disprove your false dichotomy by the possibility that the universe came from something which we do understand in physical terms, such as branes.

You claim that it is a logically coherent possibility. But it isn't. There is no branes in an infinity dense point. Just because a "scientists" makes a hypothetical inference, this does not mean that the hypothesis is rational.

 

If there is an explanation it is science if there is no explanation there is no science. What you want though is no real explanation, but instead a pseudoexplanation that "makes sense" but provides zero predictive value.

First of all I never said that I can prove that a singularity exists. I meant only to say that the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that the universe has a beginning that is grounded in an infinitely dense point. The paragraph you have written is only meaningful to somebody who seeks to understand the entirety of existence in terms of physical states.

 

Your argument is basically the following; "if a theory doesn't point to a physical explanation, then it is false". That is ridiculous as much as it is also a pseudo explanation.

 

Anyhow, we can have an infinite universe without any singularity, which is what I was talking about.

An infinite universe is meaningless, unless you mean only that the universe is potentially infinite, in which case it is never actually infinite.

[Moontanman]

As has been said before needimprovemnt, the idea of a singularity is loosing ground to other theories that do not require it. It's why hanging your religious ideas of science is often a mistake, First it was the idea of a flat earth, then Catholic church hung it's hat on the geocentric universe with crystal spheres, each time the Church had to back away when reality was shown to be drastically different and people were jailed, tortured and even killed as the Church tried to suppress the correct information in favor of the view the church supported. Trying to say science supports a particular religious view is always a mistake....

 

The Church has gotten to where it's at by suppressing, often violently, other religions, not because of some basic truth....

Edited August 29, 2010 by Moontanman

[needimprovement]

As has been said before needimprovemnt, the idea of a singularity is loosing ground to other theories that do not require it.

You are talking about hypothesis here, not contending theories. The Multiverse theory, i would argue that it isn't even a valid hypothesis, since i am not unaware that scientists have found a means by which they can validate the existence of other universes outside of our own space time (if that even makes logical sense). "Many of these so called theories lack empirical testability, and without hard physical evidence are unfalsifiable; outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove". The current understanding of the big-bang is in my view the only reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

 

It's why hanging your religious ideas of science is often a mistake,

I think that you are taking my argument out of context in-order to feed your ego. I think i have already made it clear that i am not saying that my argument isn't vulnerable to disprove, but rather i was merely stating that if it is objectively true that all time-space-energy has a beginning insofar as it extends from an infinitely dense point (which is supported by the current evidence), then it necessarily follows that something non-physical is at the root of that singularity.

 

I certainly am not interested in suggesting that people should believe purely on big bang cosmology alone. However, i certainly think (at least for the time being) that it points in the direction of a creator, and that should not be ignored. I think that scientists and people in general should be willing to admit what the theory implies regardless of whether or not they choose to believe in God on that basis. I think that's only fare given that many atheists who happen to be scientist happily spend enough time saying how evolution points to a meaningless purposeless universe. (Richard Dawkings is one person who is not shy about expressing the metaphysical implications of a scientific theory).

 

First it was the idea of a flat earth, then Catholic church hung it's hat on the geocentric universe with crystal spheres, each time the Church had to back away when reality was shown to be drastically different and people were jailed, tortured and even killed as the Church tried to suppress the correct information in favor of the view the church supported. Trying to say science supports a particular religious view is always a mistake....

I think this is a distorted view of actual events based on a popular prejudice. Many historians are beginning to see this. Again; the so called Galileo theory at the time was not scientifically validated in a strict empirical sense. See here...http://www.iep.utm.edu/sci-rel/#SH3a

 

The link explains my point.

 

Also, what you are basically saying is that we cannot rely on science to tell us physical truths about reality; that even well supported theories are nothing more than tautologies in that we cannot show them to be consistent with the way things truly are. They are just models of reality which constantly changes. I disagree. I think its entirely reasonable to make logical inferences from a well established scientific theory so long as you are prepared to accept that a particular theory might develop or change.

 

 

The Church has gotten to where it's at by suppressing, often violently, other religions, not because of some basic truth....

Again, while i do not deny that Church leaders had their faults and ignorance's, this is a simplistic distortion of actual events; similar to claims that the church did not reject the slavery of black people or the atrocities that were committed against the Jews under Nazi Germany. A very strict and close examination of these events free of conspiracy theories and assertions, often reveals that there is a long history of anti-Catholics who have labored in distorting the facts.

[Moontanman]

You are talking about hypothesis here, not contending theories. The Multiverse theory, i would argue that it isn't even a valid hypothesis, since i am not unaware that scientists have found a means by which they can validate the existence of other universes outside of our own space time (if that even makes logical sense). "Many of these so called theories lack empirical testability, and without hard physical evidence are unfalsifiable; outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove". The current understanding of the big-bang is in my view the only reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

 

The key here are the words "in my view" your view is so heavily influenced by religion it has become nothing but a religious view.... you are a excellent example of being blinded by the light, you are so blind you can't see anything other than the light. Theories change, the idea of the big bang has been a problem for many scientist from day one, it asserts a singularity, a sign to some that a theory has problems. many people are working ways to avoid that singularity. You attraction to it is because it conforms to the religious idea of creation, this feeling of it having to be right due to creation is just a religious bias, nothing more....

 

 

I think that you are taking my argument out of context in-order to feed your ego. I think i have already made it clear that i am not saying that my argument isn't vulnerable to disprove, but rather i was merely stating that if it is objectively true that all time-space-energy has a beginning insofar as it extends from an infinitely dense point (which is supported by the current evidence), then it necessarily follows that something non-physical is at the root of that singularity.

 

 

My ego? You are arguing that the big bang has to be right, what do you base that on other than your own desperate need for confirmation of your own religious views....

 

 

I certainly am not interested in suggesting that people should believe purely on big bang cosmology alone. However, i certainly think (at least for the time being) that it points in the direction of a creator, and that should not be ignored. I think that scientists and people in general should be willing to admit what the theory implies regardless of whether or not they choose to believe in God on that basis. I think that's only fare given that many atheists who happen to be scientist happily spend enough time saying how evolution points to a meaningless purposeless universe. (Richard Dawkings is one person who is not shy about expressing the metaphysical implications of a scientific theory).

 

 

Why because it helps you proselytize? Why should anyone be willing to admit anything to support religion other than the people who believe? Why should anyone stick their neck out for religion when religion is so reluctant to support anything that does not support it...

 

I think this is a distorted view of actual events based on a popular prejudice. Many historians are beginning to see this. Again; the so called Galileo theory at the time was not scientifically validated in a strict empirical sense. See here...http://www.iep.utm.edu/sci-rel/#SH3a

 

Finally a link to support your point.... of course it is a link to a site that grossly distorts and down plays the role of the church in suppressing new idea and tries to show that a geocentric universe is just as good as the sun being at the center of the solar system and tries to smooth over the the conflict between the two systems. One made real sense the other was a complex bunch of excuses arbitrarily put together to try and keep the idea of a stationary Earth in place..... fail....

 

 

The link explains my point.

 

No it asserts your point by grossly distorting the reality of the message.... Typical for religion

 

 

Also, what you are basically saying is that we cannot rely on science to tell us physical truths about reality; that even well supported theories are nothing more than tautologies in that we cannot show them to be consistent with the way things truly are. They are just models of reality which constantly changes. I disagree. I think its entirely reasonable to make logical inferences from a well established scientific theory so long as you are prepared to accept that a particular theory might develop or change.

 

No, i am saying exactly what you said in your last sentence, you are trying to distort what i said to support your idea of religious truth being better than science. Establishing a religious perception by using science is a mistake, trying to assert a religious reality is dangerous because for religion to change it's mind people often have to die, all it takes for science to change is better evidence....

 

 

 

Again, while i do not deny that Church leaders had their faults and ignorance's, this is a simplistic distortion of actual events; similar to claims that the church did not reject the slavery of black people or the atrocities that were committed against the Jews under Nazi Germany. A very strict and close examination of these events free of conspiracy theories and assertions, often reveals that there is a long history of anti-Catholics who have labored in distorting the facts.

 

 

Yeah, the anti Catholics laboring to distort the facts, got any evidence of this? I didn't mention anything about Nazis or slavery did I? I was thinking more about the violent suppression of non Christian religions across Europe and the complete destruction of the cultures of central and South America even down to destroying all written records and histories of those cultures. yes those terrible anti catholics got what they deserved I am sure.... This has occurred where ever Catholics have encountered other cultures.... especially primitive cultures...

[jcarlson]

Frankly, even with all the false dichotomies being thrown about, I don't see where a god necessarily comes into play here.

 

If the universe has no true 'beginning' and the big bang expansion is the result of physical phenomena, well, obviously there's no need to invent a god to explain it.

 

But even if the universe had a 'beginning' in the sense that it appeared from nothing, why suppose god? You are assuming the spontaneous creation of matter and energy from nothing is an effect which requires a cause, needimprovement, and I don't see why. If this is what happened there is no other known instance of it ever happening. While we see things being "created" from existing matter and energy in everyday life which certainly are "caused", this is not evidence that the universe being "created" from nothing requires a "cause" because they are really two different definitions of "create" (one implying changing existing matter and energy from one form to another, and the other implying matter and energy appearing from nothing), and thus we have nothing to inductively reason from, and therefore no reason to assume a cause is necessary. Just because something is counter-intuitive doesn't mean it's wrong, and therefore doesn't mean you get to invent an arbitrary omnipotent super-being to mend it.

[needimprovement]

Well, I think it could be zero. I don't really understand the maths, but basically it is that gravity cancels out the positive energy. Seems a bit strange to me, but I can't really say one way or the other.

Zero-energy_Universe

Just hitting the link.

What's a "tensor perspective"? Is it the same as “vector perspective”? (i.e. having direction)

 

Thanks.

[Mr Skeptic]

I can say little about tensors, other than that they're the reason I don't understand general relativity.

[needimprovement]

The key here are the words "in my view" your view is so heavily influenced by religion it has become nothing but a religious view....

Your view is heavily influence by false and distorted knowledge.

 

You confuse hypothesis for theories and you make claims about history that is mostly exaggerations and distortion about what really happened. I feel sorry about anybody who is folly enough to take you seriously.

 

you are a excellent example of being blinded by the light, you are so blind you can't see anything other than the light.

You are an excellent example of somebody who has been blinded by meta-naturalism posing as scientific knowledge.

 

Theories change, the idea of the big bang has been a problem for many scientist from day one, it asserts a singularity, a sign to some that a theory has problems.

A singularity is a problem only if you hold to a particular philosophical world view; mainly naturalism.

 

I have no problem if people can find a legitimate way of removing the singularity. But most people are attempting this purely on the basis that the alternative is unacceptable to philosophical naturalism. Its no surprise to me that most of these so called theories (hypothesis) cannot even be validated empirically. They assert something outside of the universe; out of reach of being falsified.

 

many people are working ways to avoid that singularity. You attraction to it is because it conforms to the religious idea of creation, this feeling of it having to be right due to creation is just a religious bias, nothing more....

Its irrelevant why I am attracted to it. I could be attracted to the idea that 2+2 = 4, but this does not in anyway remove the legitimacy of the fact that 2+2 does equal 4. The scientific evidence points to a singularity. If the singularity was nothing more than an assertion you wouldn't have people working so hard to remove it. I am merely pointing out that a singularity necessarily involves a non-physical element. Now if you know of a valid "theory" that disproves the singularity, well that's just fine.

 

My ego? You are arguing that the big bang has to be right, what do you base that on other than your own desperate need for confirmation of your own religious views....

Again you are distorting what I have been saying. It seems to me that you don't really know what you are talking about. I don't know much either, but at least I can determine the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

 

Why because it helps you proselytize? Why should anyone be willing to admit anything to support religion other than the people who believe? Why should anyone stick their neck out for religion when religion is so reluctant to support anything that does not support it...

If scientists are willing to point to the scientific evidence which they believe supports their atheism, then the theist has a legitimate right to point to scientific evidence which they believe supports theism. And if the scientific atheist is honest, they will accept that the real evidence at this point in time points to a singularity; an absolute beginning of what we understand to be physical. Now they can argue that perhaps one day some theory will come along which will remove the singularity. That's fine, so long as they are willing to accept that the singularity could be here to stay for good, and that the metaphysical consequences of this being the case is supernatural in proportion.

 

Finally a link to support your point.... of course it is a link to a site that grossly distorts and down plays the role of the church in suppressing new idea and tries to show that a geocentric universe is just as good as the sun being at the center of the solar system and tries to smooth over the the conflict between the two systems. One made real sense the other was a complex bunch of excuses arbitrarily put together to try and keep the idea of a stationary Earth in place..... fail....

This is just your assertion distorting information that my link provided. You can ignore it if you like, but this just shows how venomously opposed you are to the idea that you could be wrong. Pride is a killer of intelligence

[Mr Skeptic]

The scientific evidence points to a singularity.

 

What scientific evidence points to a singularity?

[Moontanman]

Needimprovment, you are like a bank robber using other bank robbers as a source of information to show that robbing banks is a good thing... You accuse me of the very things you are doing, you never defend your ideas with anything other than religion and belief. You choose to ignore any data offered that shows your religious in a bad way and you do your best to gloss over any accounts of anything you cannot ignore. Specific points I have made you have failed to address

 

 

Your religion is no better than anyone else's.

 

You belittle and denigrate any other religion and anyone who believes it by belittling and denigrating their ability to believe.

 

You ignore the horrific things the church has done to other cultures by claiming those accounts were reported by anti catholics, how sad, you back up lies with even more lies.

 

You have no idea how science works yet you make claims about certain theories that you think might support your religion. You then do your best to belittle any other science that disagrees with your pet theory.

 

After loosing the battle you then turn and attack the person you are arguing with because you cannot win via better evidence for your argument.

 

Very sad but typical of the ultra religious mind set.

[caharris]

Didn't Hawking study black holes because he thought the singularity (mathematically) matched that of the big bang? And didn't Hawking and Penrose (the guys who mathematically "made" the singularity) reject the idea later?

[Airbrush]

Didn't Hawking study black holes because he thought the singularity (mathematically) matched that of the big bang? And didn't Hawking and Penrose (the guys who mathematically "made" the singularity) reject the idea later?

 

Why must the universe begin with a singularity? Maybe there was no singularity if the Big Bang started from a rather huge region, if caused by a collision of higher dimensions. Singularity is just a delusion, like thinking the Earth was flat because it appeared to be flat, or that the Milky Way was the entire universe, with smudgy things called nebulae, because it appeared that way. The big bang was a general expansion starting from a region of undeterminable size, but not a singularity.