1. Wat?
    Joined
    16 Aug '05
    Moves
    76863
    19 Jan '11 14:26
    I think most of us are in agreement with the scientific idea of the original point of singularity, although very difficult for us humans to imagine and quantify mentally, and that science has pretty much proven it, with our developed intelligence and proofs of age of elements and movements of the gallactic entities.

    However, we also know an apple falls from a tree, due to gravity. Proven. We know the speed of light. Proven.

    We know energy cannot be created or destroyed. Proven.

    But, and a "BIG" but, is if energy can't be created nor destroyed, how on earth did the big bang happen? There must have been an energy input, from a source that we don't know about? Yes, or no?

    Where did that energy source come from? A God, as a master of the Universe? A source that controls all of our destinies playing a game. A source so wonderful, and powerful, that we cannot imagine being such an infinitely small part of it? Or was it just an accident? An alien source that we cannot be allowed to venture into the realms of, as we are an electron in relative size to it, that we can have no clue as to our input into its being?

    Could that alien idea be a function of what we are?

    We have antibodies, that fight for our fitness. Could our thoughts and actions be a part of a huge body that we a a simple little minute part of, that enable that bigger thing to function in its own bigger world, with it's own friends and society that we know nothing about, and never shall?

    -m. 🙂
  2. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    19 Jan '11 14:41
    Originally posted by mikelom
    I think most of us are in agreement with the scientific idea of the original point of singularity, although very difficult for us humans to imagine and quantify mentally, and that science has pretty much proven it, with our developed intelligence and proofs of age of elements and movements of the gallactic entities.

    However, we also know an apple falls fr ...[text shortened]... d, with it's own friends and society that we know nothing about, and never shall?

    -m. 🙂
    The name "Big bang" is a misnomer - taken from the critics of the theory ironically.

    It is often misinterpreted to mean that there was an explosion.
  3. Wat?
    Joined
    16 Aug '05
    Moves
    76863
    19 Jan '11 14:52
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    The name "Big bang" is a misnomer - taken from the critics of the theory ironically.

    It is often misinterpreted to mean that there was an explosion.
    A misnomer is impossible to be ironic if it is created as a criticism! That doesn't wash.

    You didn't answer my question. Far from it.
  4. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    19 Jan '11 14:571 edit
    Originally posted by mikelom
    A misnomer is impossible to be ironic if it is created as a criticism! That doesn't wash.

    You didn't answer my question. Far from it.
    Ok... thanks for arguing semantics instead of actual content. Oh well. The point is - there was no actual bang and the big bang theory doesn't claim there was.

    Good luck in finding your answer 🙂
  5. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    19 Jan '11 16:59
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    Ok... thanks for arguing semantics instead of actual content. Oh well. The point is - there was no actual bang and the big bang theory doesn't claim there was.

    Good luck in finding your answer 🙂
    Semantics? Really? Do you even think before you type, or is it all just knee-jerk for you: forgotten once let go, the only joy received is the knowledge that someone behind you will suffer through your colorless-but-not-odorless cloud bomb?

    From the very first Google entry, Wikipedia (emphasis added):

    The Big Bang was the event which led to the formation of the universe, according to the prevailing cosmological theory of the universe's early development (known as the Big Bang theory or Big Bang model).
  6. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    19 Jan '11 17:04
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Semantics? Really? Do you even think before you type, or is it all just knee-jerk for you: forgotten once let go, the only joy received is the knowledge that someone behind you will suffer through your colorless-but-not-odorless cloud bomb?

    From the [b]very first
    Google entry, Wikipedia (emphasis added):

    The Big Bang was the event ...[text shortened]... y of the universe's early development (known as the Big Bang theory or Big Bang model).
    [/b]
    Yawn.... your post doesn't even support your claim.

    Your wikipedia entry specifies that it was an EVENT. Event does not equal explosion. What I was saying is that the theory does not claim that it was an explosion - that is not contradicted by your post.

    Yes, I do think before I type. Do you read before you type?
  7. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    19 Jan '11 18:11
    Originally posted by mikelom
    I think most of us are in agreement with the scientific idea of the original point of singularity, although very difficult for us humans to imagine and quantify mentally, and that science has pretty much proven it, with our developed intelligence and proofs of age of elements and movements of the gallactic entities.

    However, we also know an apple falls fr ...[text shortened]... d, with it's own friends and society that we know nothing about, and never shall?

    -m. 🙂
    “...But, and a "BIG" but, is if energy can't be created nor destroyed, how on earth did the big bang happen? There must have been an energy input, from a source that we don't know about? Yes, or no? ...”

    that depends on which scientific theory is the correct one. If the theory that time began at the big bang is correct, the answer is “no” because that energy was never 'created' ! To be created, there would have had been a point in time when there was no energy and then a later a point in time when there was energy. But if time began at the big bang then at no point in time was there no energy.
    If one of the theory’s that says time didn't began at the big bang is correct, the answer, I presume, will be “yes” and the source of that energy would depend on exactly what that particular theory says.

    “....Where did that energy source come from? ….”

    If the theory that time began at the big bang is correct, the answer is it didn't “come from”! For it to “come from”, there would have been a time before that for it to “come from” else when did it “come from”?
    Of course, if that theory is false, then it did “come from” somewhere at some time.
  8. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    19 Jan '11 19:313 edits
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    “...But, and a "BIG" but, is if energy can't be created nor destroyed, how on earth did the big bang happen? There must have been an energy input, from a source that we don't know about? Yes, or no? ...”

    that depends on which scientific theory is the correct one. If the theory that time began at the big bang is correct, the answer is “no” because m”?
    Of course, if that theory is false, then it did “come from” somewhere at some time.
    This is a fascinating subject. Though I believe in a Creator, I have seen multitudes of opinions about string theory, 11 dimensions, multiple universes, multiple Big Bangs, parallel universes, quantum fluctuations and more.

    I will look at anything anyone suggests on the Internet. I have seen the YouTubes on dark matter, dark energy.

    I really like cosmology and always have. And it seems there are enough concepts out there to keep the scientific mind busy.

    Can I be fascinated about all these new theories and new discoveries without seeing any ipso facto rational to dispose of a Divine Being ?

    The way I see it however we slice down the universe and reduce it to any basic unit we still end up with something which has to have the reason for its existence outside of itself.
  9. weedhopper
    Joined
    25 Jul '07
    Moves
    8063
    19 Jan '11 20:20
    Whether the Big Bang was an explosion, an "event" or a muffled fart--doesn't make any difference. Mike's question is a good one: if energy can't be created, where did the energy to create the BB come from? Answer, no one knows, and it's a leap of faith no matter what answer one tries to put forth.
  10. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    20 Jan '11 19:241 edit
    Originally posted by PinkFloyd
    Whether the Big Bang was an explosion, an "event" or a muffled fart--doesn't make any difference. Mike's question is a good one: if energy can't be created, where did the energy to create the BB come from? Answer, no one knows, and it's a leap of faith no matter what answer one tries to put forth.
    “....Whether the Big Bang was an explosion, an "event" or a muffled fart--doesn't make any difference. Mike's question is a good one: if energy can't be created, where did the energy to CREATE the BB COME FROM ...”(my emphases)

    IF the theory that time began at the big bang is correct (which it might be but I am not saying it is) then that energy didn't “COME FROM” and the BB was not “ CREATE” thus that question wouldn't even make sense IF that was the case. It would be like asking what flame created the first flame of fire to ever exist.
  11. weedhopper
    Joined
    25 Jul '07
    Moves
    8063
    20 Jan '11 20:53
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    “....Whether the Big Bang was an explosion, an "event" or a muffled fart--doesn't make any difference. Mike's question is a good one: if energy can't be created, where did the energy to CREATE the BB COME FROM ...”(my emphases)

    IF the theory that time began at the big bang is correct (which it might be but I am not saying it is) then that energy ...[text shortened]... e case. It would be like asking what flame created the first flame of fire to ever exist.
    Though Stephen Hawking disagrees, he is wrong: it is perfectly acceptable to ask what happened before the Big Bang. Some physicists (not all--there are some open-minded ones) agree that what happened before BB, and that time was not created by said singularity.
  12. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49979
    20 Jan '11 23:41
    This 'something from rant' that creationsists get on to is a little disingenuous.
    Firstly, there are a number of potential explanations for the origins of the universe that cosmologists, astrophysicists, and others working on the cutting edge of science are discussing. A fairly quick search through the web will locate some of these for you.
    Does this mean these are the actual answers? Of course not, scientific explanations take time to gestate - and we've only been working on this one for a few hundred years.
    I'd recommend Paul Davies book The Goldilocks Enigma to people with a genuine interest in this area. He discusses a number of possibilities for the universe and ends with an intriguing development of information theory and the possibility that the laws of nature and the fundamental forces have themselves evolved over time.
    But anyway, getting back to the main issue. At our current stage of understanding the origins of the universe we must at some point make a leap of faith regarding an explanation.
    Why is the suggestion that the universe came from nothing any more laughable than that of some fairy godmother in the sky cobbling it all together in a week?
  13. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91601
    21 Jan '11 00:00
    Originally posted by mikelom
    I think most of us are in agreement with the scientific idea of the original point of singularity, although very difficult for us humans to imagine and quantify mentally, and that science has pretty much proven it, with our developed intelligence and proofs of age of elements and movements of the gallactic entities.

    However, we also know an apple falls fr ...[text shortened]... d, with it's own friends and society that we know nothing about, and never shall?

    -m. 🙂
    The One turns into the Two to create the world and then returns to the One again, and we go "what the fark?"
  14. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    21 Jan '11 07:08
    Originally posted by mikelom
    We know energy cannot be created or destroyed. Proven.
    No, I am not sure that it is proven.

    But, and a "BIG" but, is if energy can't be created nor destroyed, how on earth did the big bang happen? There must have been an energy input, from a source that we don't know about? Yes, or no?
    As mentioned already by others, if the big bang was the start of time then no, there need not have been an energy input, and there wasn't a 'before'. We don't know what the rules are governing universe initial points, or universes as a whole. You cannot apply known scientific laws that apply within a universe to the universe as an entity.
    If the big bang was not the start of time then it is likely there was no creation of energy, merely change of state and there is a history to the universe prior to the big bang.
  15. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51448
    21 Jan '11 12:16
    I always find the arguments regarding the 'first cause' from creationists a little bizarre.

    The Universe had a beginning, so therefore God created the Universe.

    Okay. Where or how was God created?

    God has existed forever!!!

    If they can believe that something can exist forever (in this case God{whatever that may mean}), why is it such a stretch of the imagination to believe that the Universe may have existed forever, in some state or another?

    Why God, but not the Universe?
Back to Top