What existed before the Big Bang

[revhappy420]

I've read through the constant back and forth bickering and it seems like it's Active Aero vs. a bunch of guys that can't wrap their heads around the concept of not knowing all the answers. This thread started out as a discussion about thinking outside the box and quickly turned into a religion vs. science thread. As a person, I want to have faith that there is a greater force or being out there, and as someone mentioned earlier, it's because we want a sense of purpose to our life. There is nothing wrong with that. But bringing God, the Bible, etc.. into this discussion is a cheap cop out. Why can't you be content with the fact that in our lives, we will never know what's really out there, no matter what a book tells you to believe. I consider myself to have some sort of belief in a greater power or God. This discussion isn't about proving religion wrong, so I think it's better to leave God and the Bible out of it. Your faith and belief system is personal, and you cannot force your beliefs onto others with no logical evidence. There is a time and place for everything.

This ad is not displayed to registered or logged-in members. Register your free account today and become a member on Honda-Tech!

[Ash J. Williams]

fossil records is dubious at best due to turbulent past Earth has had. denying the history based on that is foolish.
brushing aside educated guesses which are supported more and more by facts is just silly.
keep your faith, but please, don't be unreasonable.

[Lsos]

Originally Posted by Chubz

i was talking about this with my wife, whom has a philiosophy degree and she simply said. Maybe science can only explain to a certain point and then all rules are off or maybe if their is a "higher power" maybe the evidence to support that isn't supposed to be known or found via science or theories etc. There is a lot that can be explained and a lot that simply can't be explained. Maybe we just have to accept that. I believe there is a god, i believe is resposnible for all of this. He put man and animals to grow and evolve and figure out everything for themselves. Life and it's intangibles are simply just too complex to be a random act of nature. Thats what I believe. I dont have a physics degree, I don't have any science degrees and I dont ever go to church in sundays. This is what this thread was supposed to be about. Not some arrogant "my beliefs are better than yours" thread. I simply wanted to know what you thought existed, using scienctific facts or your own theories.

That's a decent framework for a discussion. People throwing out different ideas, which are given varying levels of thought based on how obscene they are and how much evidence there is to support them, whether observational, logical, mathematical, or even simply beautiful.

The problem arises when someone waltzes into the discussion and dismisses everybody's ideas as worthless, and then stakes claim to some extraordinary theory, to which he assigns an unmovable weight. He usually does this without so much giving any evidence....as if expecting it to be self-explanatory. When pressed for some shred of evidence for this extraordinary claim, he points to ONE book. When pressed more, he just brushes aside other people's theories while stiffening the other hand, which constantly remains pointed to this one book.

This is what people will simplify into a "religion vs. science" thread.

How can you be expected to hold a reasonable discussion when one party assigns an unreasonable weight to their theory, while dismissing any other? Contrary to what I may have expressed, I can understand mixing philosophy, religion, art, and science in a discussion. But assign appropriate weight to your theory. Don't say "THIS is what was before the big bang" and then produce some painting you created....and expect people to believe you, simply because YOU think it looks beautiful.

[TheMuffinMan]

Eh eh? Please tell me I wasn't the only one to immediately see this!

[sCeRaXn]

Its funny that people keep saying "Stephen Hawkings says such and such in A Brief History of TIME(not Universe)". Obviously, these people have never really read that, or any of Hawkings books or essays. If they did, then they didnt understand what they were reading. Ive read all of his books and collections of essays and in every one of them including Black Holes and Baby Universes, A Brief History of time, A Briefer History of Time, and The Universe in a Nutshell he says that what happens before the big bang doesnt matter. Its beyond our knowing and couldnt fit any of our current scientific models. Besides, Heisenbergs famous Uncertainty Principle, which is the limitation of all we know, states that its literally impossible for us to know what happened before the Big Bang at this point and time. According to that Principal we would have to know the Universes size and velocity to be able to accurately predict how, where, and why it was formed. You might think we could do a "best guess" and do an equation, but the variables are infinite...which brings us back to the base of the Uncertainty Principle.

We arent even close to proving that a Big Bang ever really happened. Cuttles famous "Expanding Universe" Essays from the late 50's were supposed to define it by mathematically proving that the Universe is expanding at a constant and uniform rate. We now know thats far from true, so were basically back to square one. According to most Scientific Models that we now use to explain 90% of what we know of the Universe, at one point(at or around 13.7 billion years ago) the distance between all Galaxies must have been zero. The only way to explain this is that at that moment, the density and curvature of space was infinite. Since all the models we used to determine that are based on our knowledge that the Universe is almost completely flat, those very models break down at the Big Bang because of the infinite density and curvature of space/time.

As far as i know...no scientist in the last 30yrs has tried to figure out what happened before the Big Bang because its impossible to figure out at this point and time. We dont have the knowledge or capacity of understanding to know, and probably wont for hundreds or thousands of years. This is why Religion has been used to describe what happened before the Big Bang. Historically, Religions and beliefs have always explained the unexplainable. As Science progresses and proves that Religion was wrong on certain points(ie:the World is flat, Earth is the center of the Universe, etc etc), then that religion just drops the subject and moves on. Since we cant prove the state of the Universe before the Big Bang, Religion and personal beliefs will be all we have.

[sCeRaXn]

Oh...and i know some of you are gonna say im wrong about Hawkings, because someone always does in these types of discussions. So, to forego all that BS, ill give you a simple quote. This is from A Briefer history of Time...verbadum.

Chapter 8, pg 68-69
"All our theories of cosmology are formulated on the assumption that space-time is smooth and nearly flat.That means that all our theories break down at the Big Bang: a space-time with infinite curvature can hardly be called nearly flat! Thus even if there were events before the Big Bang, we could not use them to determine what would happen afterward, because predictability would have broken down at the Big Bang.
"Correspondingly, if, as is the case, we only know what happened since the Big Bang, we cannot determine what happened beforehand. As far as we are concerned, events before the Big Bang can have no consequences and should not form part of a scientific model of the Universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that the Big Bang was the beginning of time. This means that questions such as who set up the Big Bang are not questions that science addresses."

[B16CRXT]

Originally Posted by bluebomber

If it were true, which it isn't. A creature cannot morph into a completely different creature. A monkey cannot become a human. Perhaps it may display signs of microevolution, such as changing the color of its hair, the shape of its face and bone structure, its height and weight, the length of fingers and toes, or eye color. These are just a few examples. Humans are not the same as these primates. Evolution is false.



Do I even need to ask for transitional fossils, or have we covered that one already? There is no fossil proof for that claim at all. NONE. Show me some if it exists, and please try not to use etc.

Show me how macroevolution is real. I don't want to hear about microevolution. Please consider the distinction between the two, then let me know.

I'm not searching for anything to prove it to you. Anything/everything that has been brought up you immediately dismiss anyways.

[Archidictus]

Originally Posted by sCeRaXn

Oh...and i know some of you are gonna say im wrong about Hawkings, because someone always does in these types of discussions. So, to forego all that BS, ill give you a simple quote. This is from A Briefer history of Time...verbadum.

Chapter 8, pg 68-69
"All our theories of cosmology are formulated on the assumption that space-time is smooth and nearly flat.That means that all our theories break down at the Big Bang: a space-time with infinite curvature can hardly be called nearly flat! Thus even if there were events before the Big Bang, we could not use them to determine what would happen afterward, because predictability would have broken down at the Big Bang.
"Correspondingly, if, as is the case, we only know what happened since the Big Bang, we cannot determine what happened beforehand. As far as we are concerned, events before the Big Bang can have no consequences and should not form part of a scientific model of the Universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that the Big Bang was the beginning of time. This means that questions such as who set up the Big Bang are not questions that science addresses."

I would be immensely pleased if you would start spelling his name correctly. It's "HAWKING". There is no "S" at the end.

And yes, you are completely right as to what he says about the origin of the universe.

[Mentat Ghola]

Originally Posted by Ash J. Williams

fossil records is dubious at best due to turbulent past Earth has had. denying the history based on that is foolish.
brushing aside educated guesses which are supported more and more by facts is just silly.
keep your faith, but please, don't be unreasonable.

The Earth's turbulent past must have been highly selective, to conceal from us those transitional periods of evolution. I must believe in them without seeing? : ) Wouldnt that be an act of faith?

[B16CRXT]

If the records cannot be found, it is an act of logical faith. I agree to that.

[Mentat Ghola]

Originally Posted by B16CRXT

If the records cannot be found, it is an act of logical faith. I agree to that.

Here is the biblical definition of faith:

'Assured expectations of the things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities, though not beheld.'

I think thats the idea youre conveying by saying 'logical faith'.

[sCeRaXn]

Originally Posted by Archidictus

I would be immensely pleased if you would start spelling his name correctly. It's "HAWKING". There is no "S" at the end.

And yes, you are completely right as to what he says about the origin of the universe.

Yea its a force of habit. Ive always done that for some reason, and i probably will a few more times in this thread as well...so i apologize in advance. When im deep in though about subjects like that i tend to make a ton of spelling and grammatical errors. I guess my brain can only focus on one thing at a time lol.

[thekza]

Seeing that the Hubble telescope in Pasadena, CA can take a pic of all these galaxies, I theorize it corresponds to our universe as well.
This image was shot with a camera the size of a fingernail. I think that their are as many galaxies as their are universes.

[Ash J. Williams]

Originally Posted by Mentat Ghola

The Earth's turbulent past must have been highly selective, to conceal from us those transitional periods of evolution. I must believe in them without seeing? : ) Wouldnt that be an act of faith?

not necessarily, you fill in gaps not discovered or understood yet with opinions and educated guesses.
an act of faith is to construct a complete picture from an idea which has zero proof and construct it such that proof would not be welcomed.
not that there is anything wrong with that.

[daklown]

my best guess is pork ***gots

mr brain's brand.

[sCeRaXn]

Originally Posted by thekza

Seeing that the Hubble telescope in Pasadena, CA can take a pic of all these galaxies, I theorize it corresponds to our universe as well. This image was shot with a camera the size of a fingernail. I think that their are as many galaxies as their are universes.

Im not really getting your point. That pic is of a small portion of Galaxies, so why would you need to theorize that its part of our Universe? Thats not a theory, its a fact lol

What are you basing your belief of multiple Universes on? There are String Theories in Quantum Physics that suggest multiple dimensions of space-time could be possible/probable, but they are all part of the same Universe. I dont see how multiple Universes would be possible since our current knowledge suggests that the Universe as we know it is infinite. Therefore, another Universe would theoretically be an extension of our own. Its impossible to have two infinite spaces occuring at the same time. If so, then both of them would really be finite.

[Archidictus]

Logically, the big bang was only preceded by the big foreplay, the big two expensive mixed drinks that she's not actually going to drink and the big I don't want to go to the bar because there are only skanks there.

[that guy steveee]

Originally Posted by thekza

Seeing that the Hubble telescope in Pasadena, CA can take a pic of all these galaxies, I theorize it corresponds to our universe as well.
This image was shot with a camera the size of a fingernail. I think that their are as many galaxies as their are universes.

aren't they almost finished with the new hubble scope thats twice as powerful (if not more)? whats that going to uncover?

[thekza]

Originally Posted by sCeRaXn

Im not really getting your point. That pic is of a small portion of Galaxies, so why would you need to theorize that its part of our Universe? Thats not a theory, its a fact lol

What are you basing your belief of multiple Universes on? There are String Theories in Quantum Physics that suggest multiple dimensions of space-time could be possible/probable, but they are all part of the same Universe. I dont see how multiple Universes would be possible since our current knowledge suggests that the Universe as we know it is infinite. Therefore, another Universe would theoretically be an extension of our own. Its impossible to have two infinite spaces occuring at the same time. If so, then both of them would really be finite.

Our universe is expanding at a slow pace. It could be that other surrounding universes can be pulling on ours, in turn, maybe conjoining with other universe/universes. Just an idea.

[sCeRaXn]

So youre saying that the Universe isnt infinite? Also, the Expanding Universe is just a theory. We know that certain Galaxies are moving apart, but we also know that they arent all moving in a uniform direction and that some are moving "against the grain". Also, if what youre saying is true then we wouldnt have a Universe, it would be a Multiverse, and it would completely unhinge everything that we know about Cosmology.

[thekza]

Originally Posted by sCeRaXn

So youre saying that the Universe isnt infinite? Also, the Expanding Universe is just a theory. We know that certain Galaxies are moving apart, but we also know that they arent all moving in a uniform direction and that some are moving "against the grain". Also, if what youre saying is true then we wouldnt have a Universe, it would be a Multiverse, and it would completely unhinge everything that we know about Cosmology.

Not necessarily everything, just some portions. I guess we are in a multiverse (thanks for putting it in better terms). Maybe the Universe isn't infinite, but merely a drop of water in a vast sea. One more thing. The universe it still expanding because it has not completely stopped forming after the big bang theory. Galaxies that are extremely distant from Earth are slowly starting to disappear, meaning that they are being pushed off at an even greater distance. That is why the universe is expanding.

[sCeRaXn]

Originally Posted by thekza

One more thing. The universe it still expanding because it has not completely stopped forming after the big bang theory. Galaxies that are extremely distant from Earth are slowly starting to disappear, meaning that they are being pushed off at an even greater distance. That is why the universe is expanding.

Thats the thing...not all Galaxies are moving away from Earth. Even if they did, it wouldnt prove the Expansion Theory because that would be based on the assumption that the Milky Way is the center of the Universe. If that were the case, then the Expansion Theory would kill itsself because we know that there are galaxies that are moving closer to Earth. This was proven by a 10yr study of Proxima Centauri, which is actually moving closer to the Milky Way at an astonishing rate as far as stars and galaxies are concerned. There are Galaxies that are moving away from eachother, but its in a random manner which suggests that there are other forces acting on these Galaxies causing them to move off path. Scientists have tried to find these forces for decades without any luck. They know that macrogravitational forces play a small role in it, but so far nobody has been able to scientifically or mathematically prove that these forces are strong enough to knock certain Galaxies more than 2 degrees off relative center. Not to mention that the size and gravitational forces from certain Galaxies dont align with the movement of surrounding Galaxies.

I understand the reasoning behind the Expansion Theory, but you have to realise that there are countless other theories that go against it. In general, most believe that the Universe is expanding in certain areas and at varying rates. However, nobody has has been able to explain why certain areas are expanding and certain ones are contracting.

Once again it comes down the our lack of knowledge thats limiting us from knowing whats really going on.

[thekza]

Originally Posted by sCeRaXn

Thats the thing...not all Galaxies are moving away from Earth. Even if they did, it wouldnt prove the Expansion Theory because that would be based on the assumption that the Milky Way is the center of the Universe. If that were the case, then the Expansion Theory would kill itsself because we know that there are galaxies that are moving closer to Earth. This was proven by a 10yr study of Proxima Centauri, which is actually moving closer to the Milky Way at an astonishing rate as far as stars and galaxies are concerned. There are Galaxies that are moving away from eachother, but its in a random manner which suggests that there are other forces acting on these Galaxies causing them to move off path. Scientists have tried to find these forces for decades without any luck. They know that macrogravitational forces play a small role in it, but so far nobody has been able to scientifically or mathematically prove that these forces are strong enough to knock certain Galaxies more than 2 degrees off relative center. Not to mention that the size and gravitational forces from certain Galaxies dont align with the movement of surrounding Galaxies.

I understand the reasoning behind the Expansion Theory, but you have to realise that there are countless other theories that go against it. In general, most believe that the Universe is expanding in certain areas and at varying rates. However, nobody has has been able to explain why certain areas are expanding and certain ones are contracting.

Once again it comes down the our lack of knowledge thats limiting us from knowing whats really going on.

Haha... shut me up... hats off to you.

[sCeRaXn]

HAHA That wasnt my intent. I was enjoying the conversation/debate. But, i am a nerd so that could explain why lol

[thekza]

what do you do for a living?