what was the cause of the Big Bang?

[Geordie Ross]

Misty, didn't we discuss the definition of a scientific theory?

[Misty]

Misty, didn't we discuss the definition of a scientific theory?

Refresh my memory, please.

[Geordie Ross]

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. - something along those lines.

[Misty]

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. - something along those lines.

I remember, you said scientific theory is different than what the common meaning of theory is. Scientific study is still their point of view and may not be the best in what scientific study is or could be.

Here is a study list of the theory of the BB: 1) age of the universe about 13,780 + 0.037 billion years old 2)hot/dense/expanding rapidly 3) cooled - allowing energy to become subatomic particles - protons,neutrons,electrons 4) thousands of years pass before first electrically neutral atoms 5) first element produced was hydrogen with traces of helium and lithium 6) Giant clouds of these primordial elements going through gravity to form stars and galaxies - heavier elements were synthesized either within stars of during supernovae.

There are so many gaps, assumptions, and elements already available before the BB - for which there are no explanations how they came to be - to me makes the theory nonsense. Scientists are no different than some of the religious - accessing materials that only reinforce their own ideas.

[Geordie Ross]

All conclusions are based on observations, evidence, data, and mathematics. They all support the theory. Just because there are gaps in the chronology I.E the universe dark age where little is known, they are 'how' questions, not 'if' questions.

Trust me, many many brilliant scientists are trying to gain Nobel prizes, billions of dollars in government grants, huge cash incentives and world fame by trying their hardest to disprove the theory.

[Whitedragon]

It is easy to say God caused the “Big Bang,” it is however not so easy to say what that three letter little word, “God,” is or to say for that matter what that “Big Bang is.” A lot of people assume they know what the Big Bang is, and if there is a deep mystery about the Big Bang, why assume to know God better? Because a supposed angel spat in a prophet’s ear? If there is a God, we can be sure we don’t know squat about him. It is funny how complex mathematical ideas are expressed so cryptically, but the concept of God is reduced to a word with three letters.

I also don’t understand why “nothing” or “nothingness” is such an issue. According to science nothing is apparently dark matter and has more energy and weighs more than anything else. Apparently it takes a lot out of nothing to be nothing. First we had the atom bomb, maybe next we’ll have the nothing bomb and create another Big Bang.

[Xris]

Xris, wrote:


(Nested quote removed.)


I am not a scientist, therefore I cannot explain how the universe began in scientific terms. You think that because the proposition of your god is "logically sound," that it must be real?

You have defined your beliefs. You believe the universe had a beginning. You must have a reason to claim that. My god is beyond question it can not be denied.

-- Updated Sat Aug 03, 2013 12:03 pm to add the following --

All conclusions are based on observations, evidence, data, and mathematics. They all support the theory. Just because there are gaps in the chronology I.E the universe dark age where little is known, they are 'how' questions, not 'if' questions.

Trust me, many many brilliant scientists are trying to gain Nobel prizes, billions of dollars in government grants, huge cash incentives and world fame by trying their hardest to disprove the theory.

The big bang is a concept. Those who believe it to be true claim a theory.Could you name a few who have gained grants in an attempt to disprove it?

There are no certainties in life or science. The theory of relativity depends on a concept of light.If that concept is false science will be embarrassed beyond measure.

[Geordie Ross]

I bet Einstein was very embarrassed when they split the atom and discovered time dilation. Oh how wrong he was....

How do you expect me to know who wins government research grants? Thousands of universities, research groups, academies and councils are all competing.

[Xris]

I bet Einstein was very embarrassed when they split the atom and discovered time dilation. Oh how wrong he was....

How do you expect me to know who wins government research grants? Thousands of universities, research groups, academies and councils are all competing.

He predicted what would happen.He did not split the atom.

You claimed many were given money to disprove the BB.Name just one, please.

[Okisites]

However, these are just gases are they not guys? Unless a combination of them all created existence as we know it? That is just doesn't seem plausible to me. How could the cause of the universe (and intelligence for that matter), possibly be a combination of gases? Is there any gas in existence which can form itself into a solid object? And where did all of the energy come from? When you look at it this way; at the fundamental level, the big bang just doesn't seem like a plausible explanation for existence.

Well Fanman Sir, I am not a Physicist or scientist, or much studied about these things, so I cannot speculate about this. That was just my tiny thought, that I shared.

Secondly I felt that the discussion is going on in the line of whether Big Bang is true or not, while the OP (which I didn’t read actually) is what was the cause of the Big Bang. And you also found to be thinking in the same way that I thought with my limited knowledge.

[Geordie Ross]

(Nested quote removed.)

He predicted what would happen.He did not split the atom.

You claimed many were given money to disprove the BB.Name just one, please.

Of course he didn't split the atom, but it strongly validates his theory. You think science is this ridged gentleman's group dedicated to maintaining the status quo, and that they're conspiring to hide and dismiss evidence, its paranoid absurdity.

Here's a 12 year old that is competing for grants and funding, trying to disprove the big bang.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/03 ... -big-bang/

[Misty]

Geordie ross,

Terrific link, thanks, I will be following this kid!

Misty

[Xris]

(Nested quote removed.)


Of course he didn't split the atom, but it strongly validates his theory. You think science is this ridged gentleman's group dedicated to maintaining the status quo, and that they're conspiring to hide and dismiss evidence, its paranoid absurdity.

Here's a 12 year old that is competing for grants and funding, trying to disprove the big bang.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/03 ... -big-bang/

Why are you posting such trivia? I asked you to produce academic interest in disproving the BB.

I never said his theory was about to be disproved.There is more than his theory in relativity. The relationship to the curvature of space and the ability to travel faster than light are all questions that his concept of light may have to be corrected.

[Geordie Ross]

Well no. I, not trawling through hours of Google searches. The incentive to disprove the big bang is massive, why do you think science is conspiring to maintain the status quo?

[Fanman]

Xris, wrote:

You have defined your beliefs. You believe the universe had a beginning. You must have a reason to claim that. My god is beyond question it can not be denied.

I cannot extrapolate any sense from this comment. As far as I can tell, it is a reinforcement of things that you already know about me from 2 years ago, and a claim of absolution about your god, without any evidence to support your absolute claim. Nonsense.