Big Bang

[mohit14393]

i just have 1 question for all the cosmology lovers, and the followers of the theary that states that the known universe started from an explosion.. THE BIG BANG.. i have read alot and understood what the big bang theory states.. but the science we know right now fails to explain what caused the big bang.. what happend before time started, rather what caused the time to start.. the following article kind of tries to get close but that also is a hypothesis and dosent have any scientific proof..

http://kimberlygracia.clickdeindia.com/2010/07/24/universe-long-before-the-big-bang-and-after-neosecularism-vs-atheism-and-religion/

[jackson33]

mohit; With the remote possibility, you are interested in two issues* brought up in Ms. Garcia's article and not trying to promote it, I'm going to reply. Additionally, having seen these questions far too many times over years of participation in Science Forums, under Cosmology, your not going to receive many objective replies.

 

*The article (Blog), tries to bring "Creationism", into the picture, with (1) A history of Religion of Earths Human Civilization and (2) Skepticism of the Big Bang Theory, currently both active threads on more appropriate sub forums.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/50252-the-evolution-of-religion/page__pid__556265__st__40#entry556265

 

Since this site requires (I think 30 post/10 days) to participate in Religious Conversations and is drifting off topic anyway, you may find some of it worth your time in reading, for now.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/50896-universal-an-galactic-speeds/page__pid__556299#entry556299

 

Which you can join in today (Speculations) and basically answers your original question (explosion). While I am a skeptic of BBT, have little or no interest in discussing Creationism, the science behind BBT, to those involved is based on a collective understanding of the Universe (called Accepted Science Theory), AS TAUGHT, IMO, no less how whatever your view or mine, has been formed.

 

Anyway, welcome to the forum and hope you follow through with your questioning an issue in my opinion deserves to be questioned...

[Mr Skeptic]

There was no explosion in the Big Bang. More of a stretching.

[mohit14393]

thanks alot jackson 33..

[Eric 5]

There was no explosion in the Big Bang. More of a stretching.

 

 

A stretching of what? Can you give more data on what you want to communicate.

[IM Egdall]

i just have 1 question for all the cosmology lovers, and the followers of the theary that states that the known universe started from an explosion.. THE BIG BANG.. i have read alot and understood what the big bang theory states.. but the science we know right now fails to explain what caused the big bang.. what happend before time started, rather what caused the time to start.. the following article kind of tries to get close but that also is a hypothesis and dosent have any scientific proof..

http://kimberlygraci...m-and-religion/

 

 

To me the key is "prediction." A true prediction is one which says that if you do a certain test or observation that has never been done before, you will get a specifc value for a certain measurement. The big bang theory is generally accepted by physicists as the best theory of the creation and evolution of the universe because of all its successful predictions. For example the big bang theory predicted the existence and temperature of the cosmic microwave background many years before its discovery.

 

Yes, the big bang theory tells us nothing about time zero itself, or what "caused" the big bang in the first place. But any new theory which claims to do so must make predictions that can be tested. Without these predictions and the future evidence if their validity, the theory has no supporting evidence. The thing that bothers me about a religious theory trying to explain the "cause" of the big bang is that it doesn't even try to make any predictions that can be used test that theory. So how can we know scientifically if it has any merit? A person can believe his/her religious point of view based on faith, but please don't call it science.

[Serena2003]

Until a more testable 'theory of everything' can be attained, 'nothing' as a causation remains as the answer, despite its dissatisfaction. String Theory suggests that it may have been a clash of two brane slices, but no one knows if these branes really exist. The Big Bang was an explosion with the 'stretch' as the main emphasis of that explosion. How all the matter, radiation and so forth for the early formation of the universe could emerge out of nowhere is beyond me, it seems to be a more scientific way of saying God did it, but this is the theory many scientists like to stick with as the expansion of the universe is enough supportive evidence.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Serena2003

[Anura]

Some things science cant answer. Meaning we just dont know.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Anura

[MR. Science]

Your askinq a question about a theory, so just be mindful of that, and its not the best theory or most senseful theory out there, just the most popular, so just remember that; this is evolution that im talking about, proceed...

 

Anura you are my first candidate for buddyship, thats some profound truth right there my brother, if a scientist cant admit that something is wrong with that scientist.

[Spyman]

The Big Bang theory is the most comprehensive and accurate explanation supported by scientific evidence and observations.

(Based on the best available measurements as of 2010.)

[Klaynos]

Your askinq a question about a theory, so just be mindful of that, and its not the best theory or most senseful theory out there, just the most popular, so just remember that; this is evolution that im talking about, proceed...

 

Anura you are my first candidate for buddyship, thats some profound truth right there my brother, if a scientist cant admit that something is wrong with that scientist.

 

I'd strongly recommend you investigate what is meant in modern physics by "theory" you will soon find that nothing is "just" a theory and the body of evidence required to make something as highly reguarded as a theory is simply staggering.

[IM Egdall]

I'd strongly recommend you investigate what is meant in modern physics by "theory" you will soon find that nothing is "just" a theory and the body of evidence required to make something as highly reguarded as a theory is simply staggering.

 

I wish it were so. Scientists use the word "theory" for something that has a staggering amount of supporting evidence (like quantum theory, general relativity theory, and the theory of evolution). But they also us the same word "theory" for models that have virtually no supporting evidence (like string theory), and everything in between. So unfortunately, the lay public often gets confused. The only thing one can do is read up on these theories with a healthy skepticism, and try to find out how much empirical evidence there is for a given "theory".

[Klaynos]

String theory, is named theory because it is a mathematical theory... or set of mathematical theories... In mathematics theory has a different meaning again.

[D H]

In mathematics theory has a different meaning again.

Specifically, it means "body of knowledge". Knot theory, set theory, chaos theory, Galois theory, game theory, ... string theory.

[Svetoslav Pavlov]

The time began from movement. The movement began from chemical-gravity reaction - BIG ONE

[ajb]

The movement began from chemical-gravity reaction - BIG ONE

 

There was no chemistry in the very early universe. Care to explain what you mean here?

[alpha2cen]

Inflation----->quark gluon plasma

Is this right?

How to make many quarks and gluons?

Only cooling makes it?

Edited January 25, 2011 by alpha2cen

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Hijack discussion on TON 202, etc. moved here